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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt (USPN 1854548) in view of Cissel (USPN 3084940).
Regarding claim 1, Hunt discloses a club head having a Striking face, back portion, heel portion, toe portion, hosel, topline, sole, and a slot. The striking face is located at a frontal portion of the club head having a has outer and inner walls. The back portion is opposite the striking face. The heel is located at a proximal end of the club head and the toe portion is located at a distal end of the club head opposite the heel portion. The hosel is adjacent the heel portion and has a longitudinal axis for receiving a shaft. The topline is located at the upper portion of the club head and the sole is located at the lower portion of the club head opposite the topline. The slot is located in the sole. Figure 5 shows an embodiment wherein the slot has a non-uniform height and a variable length. Figure 6 shows the slot having a width. Hunt does not disclose an insert placed in the slot. Cissel disclose a club head having a slot therein wherein an insert is place within the slot (See Figures 1-5). One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have an insert within the slot, as taught by Cissel, in order to reduce the vibration of the impact of the club head with a golf ball.
Regarding claim 2, Cissel discloses the insert having a main body with a proximal end portion, distal end portion, and a length measured from the proximal end portion to the distal end portion. A centerline along the length of the insert. Based on the profile of the slot of Hunt, the insert taught by Cissel would have a non-uniform height of the insert is along the centerline.
Regarding claim 3, Hunt discloses the distal edge of the slot passing into the toe portion but does not disclose the slot curving away from the striking face. Cissel discloses in Figure 4 a slot having a chevron or V-shape receiving an insert. Cissel also notes that the angles of the walls can vary so long as the insert extends across a major portion of the impact area (See Column 2, lines 34-41). The applicant does not disclose why the slot curving away from the striking face is critical in order to attain the invention. The applicant further asserts in paragraph 0043 that the slot can have other shapes. Based on the assertion, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the shape of the slot to be an obvious choice of design as it does not provide any new or unexpected result from that of Cissel.
Regarding claim 4, Applicant does not disclose why the radius of curvature of the curving slot is critical in order to attain the invention. This is evident by paragraph 0077 of the instant application. Hunt discloses a slot having a length and Cissel discloses the slot of a length that allows the insert to occupy a majority of the impact area wherein the slot can approach or withdraw from the striking face. Based on the above, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the radius of the slot to be an obvious choice of design as it does not provide any new or unexpected result from that of Cissel.
Regarding claim 5, Applicant does not disclose why the distal edge height of the curving slot is critical in order to attain the invention. This is evident by paragraph 0078 of the instant application. Hunt discloses a slot having a height and Cissel discloses the slot of a height that allows the insert to occupy a majority of the impact area wherein the slot can approach or withdraw from the striking face. Based on the above, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the distal edge height of the slot to be an obvious choice of design as it does not provide any new or unexpected result from that of Cissel.
Regarding claim 6, Applicant does not disclose why the central height of the insert is critical in order to attain the invention. This is evident by paragraph 0082 of the instant application. Cissel discloses the insert of a uniform height that allows the insert to occupy a majority of the impact area wherein the slot can approach or withdraw from the striking face. Based on the above, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the central height of the insert to be an obvious choice of design as it does not provide any new or unexpected result from that of Hunt and Cissel.
Regarding claim 7, see the above regarding claim 6.
Regarding claim 8, see the above regarding claims 1, 5, and 6.
Regarding claim 9, Applicant does not disclose why the proximal end height of the insert being greater than the height of the central portion is critical in order to attain the invention. This is evident by paragraph 0046 of the instant application. Cissel discloses the insert of a uniform height that allows the insert to occupy a majority of the impact area wherein the insert can approach or withdraw from the striking face. Applicant further notes that the height of the insert can be uniform as evident by 0045. There is no assertion that the two profile perform differently; therefore, based on the above, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the proximal end and central portion heights of the insert to be an obvious choice of design as it does not provide any new or unexpected result from that of Hunt and Cissel.
Regarding claim 10, see the above regarding claim 6.
Regarding claim 11, see the above regarding claim 6.
Regarding claim 12, seethe above regarding claim 6.
Regarding claim 13, see the above regarding claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, see the above regarding claim 5.
Regarding claim 15, see the above regarding claim 8. Applicant does not disclose why the central portion of the insert being recessed is critical in order to attain the invention. This is evident by paragraph 0046 of the instant application. Cissel discloses an insert of a uniform height and thickness that allows the insert to occupy a majority of the impact area wherein the insert can approach or withdraw from the striking face. Applicant further notes that the height of the insert can be uniform as evident by 0045. There is no assertion that the two profile perform differently; therefore, based on the above, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the recessed central portion of the insert to be an obvious choice of design as it does not provide any new or unexpected result from that of Cissel.
Regarding claim 16, see the above regarding claim 15.
Regarding claim 17, see the above regarding claims 3 and 4.
Regarding claim 18, seethe above regarding claim 5.
Regarding claim 19, see the above regarding claim 6.
Regarding claim 20, see the above regarding claim 6.
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