DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-16, 18, and 20-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wahl et al. (US 2011/0028240) in view of Dipert et al. (US 2013/0165257) and Wang et al. (US 2020/0171362).
Regarding claim 1, Wahl et al. discloses a club head for an iron-type club head. The club head includes a heel portion, toe portion, top-line portion, rear portion, face portion, sole portion, and badge. The face portion includes a striking face and the sole portion extends rearwardly from the lower end of the face portion to a lower portion of the rear portion. The striking face includes a central region having a minimum face thickness and a maximum face thickness wherein the maximum face thickness is greater than the minimum face thickness (See Paragraph 0042, 0043, and 0053). The central region extends along an x-axis location and has a diameter of 5 to 15mm, which implies that the central region extends +/-2.5mm to +/-7.5mm (See Paragraph 0054). The badge is formed separately and attached to the body in which the badge forms an exterior rear surface of the heelward and toeward rear portions (See Figure 2A and Paragraph 0066). Wahl et al. does not disclose the relative COR or the density of the badge. Dipert et al. discloses an iron-type club head having a striking face with a relative COR of at least -0.30 (See Paragraph 0008). One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have a relative COR of at least -0.30, as taught by Dipert et al., in order to improve the performance of the club head. Wang et al. discloses an iron-type club head having a badge attached to the rear portion. The badge is noted to have a density less than that of the body of the club head (See Paragraph 0391). Wang et al. also notes that the striking face is made of steel in which the body is made of implying that the badge has a density less than the density of the striking face. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious have the badge of a lower density than the striking face, as taught by Wang et al., in order to move more of the weight of the club head to the perimeter. Wang et al. also shows the badge 7114 having a variable thickness due to the badge having a ledge portion (See Figure 55). One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the badge of a variable thickness as taught by Wang et al., in order to facilitate attachment to the club head body.
Regarding claim 2, Wahl et al. discloses the body having an upper toe surface between the badge and top-line portion and a lower toe surface between the badge and sole portion.
Regarding claim 3, Wahl et al. discloses the exterior surface of the rear portion defined by the badge located between the sole portion and the top-line portion of the body.
Regarding claim 4, Wahl et al. shows a surface area of the toe portion of the badge being greater than the surface area of the upper toe portion of the badge (See Figure 2A and 2B).
Regarding claim 5, Wahl et al. shows a surface area of the toe portion of the badge being greater than the surface area of the lower toe portion of the badge (See Figure 2A and 2B). In addition, Wahl et al. discloses the face thickness ranging from 1.5 to 2.7mm (See Paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 6, Applicant does not disclose why the toe portion of the badge having a surface area of greater than 100mm2 is critical in order to attain the invention. Wahl et al. discloses the badge have a toe portion where it is evident that the toe portion has a surface area based on Figures 2A and 2B. In the case of Wahl et al. the badge is shown closing access to the hollow cavity, in which the applicant’s badge achieves. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found the surface area of the badge to be an obvious choice of design as the badge does not provide any unexpected result.
Regarding claim 7, Wahl et al. discloses the toe portion having a support with a toeward ledge and the badge attached to the toeward ledge (See Figures 2A and 2B).
Regarding claim 9, Wahl et al. discloses the inner surface of the badge being three-dimensional and non-planar and protruding into an opening in a cavity of the club head (See Figures 2A and 2B).
Regarding claim 10, Wahl et al. discloses the face thickness ranging from 1.5 to 2.7mm (See Paragraph 0043). Wahl et al disclose the badge not contacting the face portion (See Figure 2A and paragraph 0067).
Regarding claim 11, Wahl et al. discloses an unsupported area of face having an surface area of greater than 2000mm2 (See Paragraph 0065). The badge covers the equivalent of the unsupported area, which would imply that the badge has a surface area of greater than 2000mm2. In regards to the face thickness, see the above regarding claim 10.
Regarding claim 12, Wang et al. discloses a sole bar having an upper ledge and lower ledge and the badge attached to the upper and lower ledge (See Figure 55).
Regarding claim 13, Wahl et al. discloses the center of gravity along the z-axis, equivalent to applicant’s Zup, being 12 to 25mm (See Paragraph 0041).
Regarding claim 14, see the above regarding claim 10. In addition, Dipert et al. shows in Table 1 relative COR of -0.13. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have a relative COR of at least -0.19, as taught by Dipert et al., in order to improve the performance of the club head.
Regarding claim 15, see the above regarding claims 1 and 10.
Regarding claim 16, Wahl et al. discloses that the club head can include an insert for damping (See Paragraph 0080).
Regarding claim 18, see the above regarding claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, Wahl et al. discloses the entirety of the badge below the top-line portion of the club head.
Regarding claim 21, Wahl et al. disclose the ideal striking location 152 being between -5mm to 5mm along the CGx axis in reference to the coordinate origin point. Wahl et al. also notes that the ideal striking location coincides with thickened central region (See Paragraph 0041, 0042, 0053). Therefore, Wahl et al. discloses that the maximum thickness can be either heelward or toeward of the geometric center.
Regarding claim 22, Figure 1E shows the maximum face thickness being below the geometric center of the striking face.
Regarding claim 23, see the above regarding claim 22.
Regarding claim 24, see the above regarding claim 14.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 17, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVIN A HUNTER whose telephone number is (571)272-4411. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 7:30AM to 4:00PM Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eugene Kim, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-4463. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ALVIN A HUNTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights