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
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munson et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2021/0275880, in view of Jorgensen et al., U.S. Patent No 10,022,599. As to Claim 1, Munson teaches a wood-type golf club head (400), paragraph 0036, comprising a loft greater than 13 degrees, paragraph 0038. The club head may comprise a striking face (412) including a face center (414) which may be considered to be located in a virtual vertical center plane aligned with the face center and extending in a front to rear direction, paragraph 0037. A rear portion (420) may be opposite the striking face, a heel portion (440), a toe portion (430) may be opposite the heel portion, a crown (460), and a sole opposite the crown may be provided, paragraph 0037. The sole may include a base surface (surrounded by sole perimeter) defining a general contour of the sole, see Figure 11. Munson teaches that a first rail (510) may project from the sole base surface and may have a first length in a front to rear direction, paragraph 0039 and see Figure 11. The length of the rail may be greater than 85mm, paragraph 0039, suggesting that the club head depth may be greater than 80 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the club head with a depth greater than 80 mm, as suggested. Munson teaches a second rail (520) projecting from the sole base and having a second length in a front to rear direction, paragraph 0039 and see Figure 11. The second rail may be entirely spaced in a heel-to-toe direction more than 15 mm from the virtual vertical center plane, Claim 1. Munson does not specify that the length, in a front to back direction of the first and second rails may be less than 75% of the club head depth. Jorgensen teaches the a club head sole may be provided with first and second rails (307,309) configured to extend across a majority of the length of the sole, Col. 4, ln. 47-49 and 60-62. Channels receiving rails may be configured to extend only partially across the sole, Col. 5 ln. 2-3, and rails (351, 353) may be shorter and may extend partially over the depth of the sole, Col. 5, ln. 37-43. The rails (351, 353) may take various forms designed to improve interaction with the turf, Col. 5, ln 43-45, indicating that rail shape and profile is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the first and second rails to have shorter lengths so as to extend partially across the club head sole, as taught by Jorgensen, to provide Munson with a shorter turf engaging feature, to yield the predictable result of facilitating the process of customizing the club head performance. Munson, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for indicating that the length of the first and second rails may be less than 75% of club head depth. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to set the first and second rail length 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 Claims 2 and 14, Munson teaches that the second rail may extend substantially parallel to the first rail, Claim 1. As to Claim 3, Munson teaches that the second length may be less than the first length, paragraph 0039. Jorgensen, together with the cited case law, is applied as in Claim 1 with regard to the second length being less than 65% of the front to rear depth of the club head, with the same rationale being found applicable. As to Claims 4 and 15, Munson teaches an alternative embodiment wherein a third rail (210) may be disposed between a first rail (220) and a second rail (230), paragraph 0029. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the sole of Munson with a third rail between first and second rails as taught by Munson in an alternative embodiment, to provide Munson, as modified, with a known substitute rail configuration. Munson, as modified, does not specify that the height of the third rail may follow a general contour of the sole. Jorgensen teaches that rail shape is a result effective variable, as discussed above. Jorgensen teaches that rails may be provided with various profiles to improve interaction with turf, Col. 5, ln. 37-46. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Munson, as modified, with the third rail having a height profile selected to improve performance. Munson, as modified, does not specify that the selected height profile would be a configuration following the general contour of the sole. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the height of the third rail to follow the general contour of the sole, since it has been held that configuration of parts of an invention is a matter of choice which a person or 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). As to Claim 5, Munson teaches that a third length of the third rail (210) may be nearly equal to the front to rear club head depth, see Figure 3, suggesting that the length may be at least 95% of club head depth. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to set the third rail length within the claimed range as suggested. As to Claims 7 and 16, Munson teaches an alternative embodiment wherein a first stepped-down portion (26) leading to a first recess (240) between a first rail 220) and the third rail and a second stepped down portion leading to a second recess disposed between a second raid (230) and the third rail, with the first and second stepped down portions located rearward of a forwardmost point of the club head, paragraph 0034 and see Figure 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Munson, as modified, with stepped down portions leading to recesses as claimed and as taught by the alternative embodiment of Munson to provide Munson as modified, with a graduated transition to a recess between rails to yield the predictable result of facilitating the effective mass distribution of the club head. Munson, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for indicating that the placement of the stepped down portions may be arranged to be 35 to 45 mm rearward of the forwardmost point of the club head. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange the stepped down portion as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). As to Claims 8, 9, 19, and 20, Jorgensen teaches that the profile height of the rails is a result effective variable, as discussed above. Jorgensen teaches that the height of rails may be slight nearest the leading edge and may extend to a greater height toward the aft section of the club head, Col. 2, ln. 43-46. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the rails with a maximum height rearward of the front portion or leading edge and decreasing toward the front or leading edge, as taught by Jorgensen, to provide Munson, as modified, with a known first and second rail profile configuration. Munson, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for also providing a decreasing height toward the rear. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the first rail and the second rail with decreasing height toward the rear, 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). As to Claim 10, Jorgensen teaches that the profile height of the rails is a result effective variable, as discussed above. Munson, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for providing that the maximum height of the second rail may be located between 5 and 10 mm rearward of a forwardmost portion of the sole. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange the maximum second rail height as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routing skill in the art, In re Japikse, supra. As to Claims 11 and 17, Munson teaches that the first and second rails may include substantially constant width between 5 and 10 mm, paragraph 0039. As to Claim 12, Munson, as modified by Jorgensen, together with cited case law, is applied as in Claim 1, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. Further, Munson teaches first and second rails extending nearly the full length of the sole base surface, in a front to back direction, see Figure 11. The first rail may have a length of greater than 85 mm and the second rail may have a depth of approximately 75 mm, paragraph 0039. Jorgensen teaches that channels (201, 203) which receive rails may extend only partially across the sole, Col. 4,ln. 67 – Col. 5, ln. 3, to provide a rail length of less than the length of the sole. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Munson, as modified, with rails of lesser length, as taught by Jorgensen, to provide Munson, as modified, with a first rail having length less than 85 mm and a second rail having length less than 75 mm, as known substitute rail lengths. Munson, as modified discloses the claimed invention except for setting first and second rail length between 45 and 70 mm and between 35 and 60 mm respectively. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide first and second rails with lengths within the claimed ranges, 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 13, Munson teaches that the second rail length may be at least 8 mm less than the first, paragraph 0039.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munson, in view of Jorgensen, as applied to claim12 above, and further in view of Bennett et al., U.S. Patent No. 8,771, 097. Munson, as modified, substantially shows the claimed limitations, as discussed above. Munson, as modified, is silent as to club head volume. Bennett teaches a similar club head comprising volume no less than 145 cc, Col. 3 ln. 39-41. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Munson, as modified, with a club head volume within the claimed range, as taught by Bennett, to provide Munson, as modified, with a known substitute club head size.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-35 are allowed.
Claim 6 is 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 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 20 March 2026