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) 21-25 and 28-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beach et al. (USPN 7731603) in view of Hasagawa (USPN 7252599) and Stites et al. (KR 2010-0044887).
Regarding claim 21, Beach et al. discloses a club head having a body and a face wherein the club head has a volume of 420 to 480 cm3 and a mass of 190 to 210 g (See Column 4, lines 10 through 26). The body includes a front end, rear end, rear weight, topside, lower side, toe end, heel end, a hosel, sole, and crown. The face is positioned at the front end of the body and includes a striking surface having a face thickness that varies (See Column 5, lines 12 through 23) which is incorporated by US 6997820 that shows in Column 4, lines 55 through 65, a maximum thickness being greater than 3mm and the minimum thickness less than 3mm. The thickness change between the maximum thickness and the minimum thickness is about 37% since the minimum thickness is 2.2mm and the maximum thickness is 3.7mm. The club head also has a center of gravity with a head origin coordinate on the x-axis between -2mm and 6mm, the y-axis between 33 and 41mm, and the z-axis between -7 and 1mm (See Column 6, lines 1 through 9). The club head further has a depth dimension of 110 to 130mm (See Column 6, lines 10 through 32), inertias of 450 to 600 kg-mm2 about the Izz, and 280 to 400 kg-mm2 about the Ixx (See Column 9, lines 4 through 17). Considering the structural make-up and dimensions of Beach et al., the inertia about the Iyy axis would be inherently met. Beach et al. discloses the body made of metal, composite, or a combination thereof (See Column 5, lines 24 through 41). Beach et al. does not disclose a head-shaft connection system that allows adjustability, and the rearmost portion located below the club head origin. Stites discloses a head-shaft connection system attached to a club head. The system includes a sleeve 200 and a fastening member 308. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have a head-shaft connection system, as taught by Stites et al., in order to adjust the loft and lie angle of the club head. Hasagawa et al. discloses a club head having body with a crown opening and a crown plate. The body has a rearmost portion that sits below the club head origin. The crown plate attaches to the crown opening and overlaps front and rear mating sections which is depicted in Figures 3, 4, and 18A & B. The crown plate is made of a composite material and the body is made of metal (See Column 3, lines 4 through 22). The overlapping portion has a length Ls of 50 to 90mm. The length in relation to the thickness of the crown plate would appear to be an obvious choice of design. The crown plate need only be thick enough to form a seamless assembly to the body via the ledge. Applicant does not disclose why the length in relation to the crown plate is critical in attaining the invention. It would appear than no new or unexpected result is achieved from the relationship. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the length of the overlapping portion to the crown plate thickness to be an obvious choice of design. Also, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have a composite crown plate attached to a metal body, as taught by Hasagawa et al., in order to improve the joint strength.
Regarding claim 22, Applicant does not disclose why the rear recessed portion being non-circular is critical to attaining the invention. Beach et al. disclose a rear weight sitting within the recess being circular. The rear weight would deepen the center of gravity of the club head naturally; therefore, it only can be assumed that the rear weight of the instant application would provide the same. Being that there is no new and unexpected result from the change in shape, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have the rear recessed portion of any shape so long as it deepens the club head’s center of gravity (See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47). In regards to the Izz value being greater than the Ixx, Izz lower value is 450 kg-mm2 and the Ixx lower value is 280 kg-mm2, which would equate to Izz being greater by 170 kg-mm2.
Regarding claim 23, Figure 20 of Beach et al. discloses two ribs within the interior cavity proximate the rearweight.
Regarding claim 24, Beach et al. disclose the crown having a thickness of 0.65 to 0.8 and the sole having a thickness of 0.65 to 0.8mm due them both constituting the thin wall body (See Column 5, lines 24 through 41).
Regarding claim 25, Beach et al. disclose that the sole can be made of a composite material (See Column 5, lines 24 through 41). The applicant does not claim that the second fiber reinforced polymer material (composite) has to be different from that of the crown.
Regarding claim 28, see the above regarding claims 22 and 23. In addition, see the above regarding claim 21 which notes that the Izz can be up to 600 and the Ixx up to 400. The difference between the two values would be routine optimization as the value difference claimed by the applicant is within reasonable expectation of Beach et al. (See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235).
Regarding claim 29, see the above regarding claim 24.
Regarding claim 30, Beach et al. discloses through incorporation of Application 11/066720 a front weight connected to a front portion of the club head and toe-ward of the heel opening (See Figures 2-5). IT should be noted that toeward is defined as moving in the direction of since a weight in the heel section is not exactly on the heel portion. Beach et al. also notes in Figure 31, specifically 400B, the Izz inertia 160 kg-mm2 greater than the Ixx inertia. With respect to the distance, the distance is not disclosed as being critical in order to attain the invention. Therefore, the distance between the front and rear weights are mere routine optimization.
Regarding claim 31, through incorporation of Application 11/066720, the weights have a mass of 1 to 25 grams.
Regarding claim 32, through incorporation of Application 11/066720, the front and rear weight are interchangeable with one another.
Regarding claim 33, Applicant does not disclose why having a non-circular weight is critical in order to attain the invention. Beach et al. discloses the use of circular weight in which the inertia values and weighting within ranges of that of the applicant are attained. In light of the above, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the shape of the weight to be an obvious as no new or unexpected result is obtained from it.
Regarding claim 34, see the above regarding claim 21.
Regarding claim 35, see the above regarding claim 24.
Regarding claim 36, Beach et al. discloses a third weight connected to the club head at a front potion position toeward of the front weight through incorporation of Application 11/066720. It should be noted that toeward of the front weight refers to the weight attached at the toe.
Regarding claim 37, Beach et al. discloses the body being made of either composite, aluminum, or a combination thereof (See Column 5, lines 24-41). When attaching a composite to a metal, an adhesive is inherently present due to the materials being dissimilar.
Regarding claim 38, see the above regarding claim 21.
Regarding claim 39, see the above regarding claim 21 and 22 with respect to the CGz coordinate, the shape of the rear recessed portion, and the Izz and Ixx values. With respect to the rear weight mass, Beach et al. discloses the rear mass being 15 to 35 g (See paragraph bridging column 8 and 9).
Regarding claim 40, see the above regarding claim 37.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 43 and 44 are allowed.
Claims 26, 27, 41, and 42 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The primary reason for the allowance is due to the inclusion of bond pads.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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