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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long, U.S. Patent No. 4,693,478, in view of Grace, U.S. Patent No. 6,796,911, and in further view of Carter, U.S. Patent No. 9,675,864. As to Claims 1 and 8, Long teaches a putter type golf club head comprising a mass of at least 300 grams (between 300 and 350 grams), see Abstract. The club head may comprise a heel portion (16), a toe portion (14) opposite the heel portion, and a blade portion (12), Col. 4, ln. 3-5 and see Figure 2. The blade portion may include a front surface forming a striking face (18) and a rear surface (20) opposite the front face, Col. 4, ln. 5-6. Long teaches a rear portion (22) opposite the striking face, Col. 4, ln. 9-10. The rear portion may include a heel side arm (36) and a toe side arm (34) both extending rearward from the rear surface of the blade portion, Col. 4, ln. 11-13 and see Figure 2. A bridge (32) may extend between and connecting heel and toe side arms, Col. 4, ln. 11-13 and see Figure 2. Long teaches an alignment feature (46, 48) recessed below a top line height, which may be less than 24 mm (approximately 3 to 9.5 mm ), Col. 4, ln. 13-15 and 30-32 and see Figure 2, noting etched alignment feature. A cavity may be disposed between the heel and toe side arms, Col. 4, ln. 13-15. A width may be defined by a distance between in a heel-to-toe direction between the heel portion and the toe portion greater that 95 mm (140 mm), Col. 4, ln. 65-67. Long teaches that a depth may be defined by a distance in a front to rear direction between the front surface of the blade and the rear portion, which depth may be greater than 33 mm but Long does not teach a depth greater than 65 mm and Long does not teach that the alignment feature may be on the top of a projection and substantially planar. Grace teaches a putter-type club head (16) comprising an alignment feature (36) which is substantially planar, Col. 3, ln. 1 and 43-48 and see Figure 5. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Long with a substantially planar alignment feature, as taught by Grace, to provide Long with a viewable feature at a consistent distance from a golfer’s head to yield the predictable result of facilitating the process of determining a correct direction to a target. Further, Grace teaches face width of 102 mm and a depth of comparable dimensions, Col. 3, ln. 9-10 and see Figure 4, suggesting that the depth may be greater than 65 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Long, as modified, with a depth greater than 65 mm as taught and suggested by Grace, to provide Long, as modified, with a known substitute club head depth. Long, as modified, does not disclose that the alignment feature may be on top of a projection extending from the bridge. Carter teaches a putter-type golf club head, Col. 4, ln. 21-22. The putter may comprise a bridge (40) extending from a rear surface (30), Col. 4, ln. 31-32. A projection (44) may extend upward from the bridge toward a top line and abutting the rear surface, Col. 5, ln. 24-27. A top surface of the projection (at 46) may be positioned below the top line height, see Figure 12A. An alignment feature (46) may be positioned on the projection top surface, Col. 5, ln. 32-34. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Long, as modified, with a projection extending upward from the bridge configured as claimed with an alignment feature on the top surface, as taught by Carter, to provide Long, as modified, with an alignment feature opposite the face center, to yield the predictable result of facilitating the processes of aligning a putter head with an intended shot direction. As to Claim 2, Long teaches that the heel and toe side arms may be raised relative to the top surface of the bridge, see Figure 2. As to Claim 7, Long teaches that the alignment feature may be recessed below the club head top by a height greater than 1 mm, see Figure 2 and noting club head height of 35 mm Col. 4, ln. 41-42. As to Claim 9, Long, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for providing that the arms may include upper surfaces beveled proximate the cavity and extending outward toward the heel and toe portions respectively. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the heel and toe side arms with upper surfaces beveled as claimed since it has been held that configuration of parts of an invention is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that a particular claimed configuration was significant, In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long, in view of Grace and Carter, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morris, U.S. Patent Application No. 2017/0340926. Long, as modified, substantially shows the claimed limitations, as discussed above. As to Claim 3, Long, as modified, is silent as to the dimension of the space between heel and toe side arms. Morris teaches a putter-type club head comprising heel and toe side arms (120, 122), paragraph 0028. The arms may be spaced in a heel-to-toe direction by a distance between 40 and 42.7 mm, paragraph 0037. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Long, as modified, with spacing between heel and toe side arms as claimed and as taught by Morris, to provide Long, as modified, with spacing suitable for confining a golf ball to yield the predictable result of adding a feature to the club head.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long, in view of Grace and Carter, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Twitty, U.S. Patent No. 7,927,226. Long, as modified, substantially shows the claimed limitations, as discussed above. As to Claim 4, Long teaches a that the alignment feature may define a virtual center line (46) oriented in a substantially front to rear direction, Col. 4, ln. 32-34, but Long, as modified, does not disclose a height between 20 and 22 mm. Twitty teaches an alignment feature (16) having a height slightly greater than half of the height of the club face, and strategically positioned in line with the sweet spot of the putter, Col. 3, ln. 35-36 and 47-49 and see Figure 2, noting that the alignment feature height is a result effective variable. Given a face height of 35 mm (Long – Col. 4, ln. 41-42), the teaching of Twitty suggests a virtual center line height of approximately 20 to 22 mm above a lowermost point of a sole of the club head. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Long, as modified, with a virtual center line height approximately within the claimed range, as taught by Twitty, to provide Long, as modified, with a virtual center line height slightly below the center of the golf ball when the club head is used in putting. Long, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for setting forth the specific range for the virtual center line height. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to set the virtual center line height within the claimed range since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. As to Claim 5, Long, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for disclosing a virtual center line height of 21.35 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to set the virtual center line height at the claimed position since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). As to Claim 6, Long teaches that a virtual vertical plane may extend through a center of mass and through the heel-to-toe center of the club head, perpendicular to the striking face, Claim 6 and Col. 4, ln. 22-24, and see Figure 4, noting sight line 104 aligned with alignment feature (46). It follows that the virtual center line may be spaced less than 5 mm from the virtual vertical plane. Long, as modified by Grace, Carter, and Twitty, together with cited case law, places the height of the virtual center line at 21.35 mm, as discussed above. Long teaches a face center height of approximately 17.5 mm, being half the face height, discussed above, the height of the virtual center line being greater than a height of the face center.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments submitted 17 August 2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The examiner maintains the position that the failure of Grace and Twitty to teach each feature of the inventive putter head does not overcome the rejection based on the teaching of a primary reference together with that of Grace and Twitty. Grace is cited largely for a disclosure of a planar alignment feature. Twitty is cited for the disclosure of suitable height of an alignment feature. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to consider the teaching of the references together to arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN ELLIOTT SIMMS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-7474. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm - M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN E SIMMS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711 25 August 2026
Prosecution Insights