DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to communication received 08/05/2024 – Application papers received, including Power of Attorney and IDS.
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 .
Continuation Data
This application is a CON of 17/752,739 05/24/2022 PAT 12076623 which is a CON of 17/241,804 04/27/2021 PAT 11338182 which is a CON of 16/724,176 12/20/2019 PAT 10987551 which claims benefit of 62/784,265 12/21/2018 and claims benefit of 62/855,751 05/31/2019 and claims benefit of 62/784,190 12/21/2018 and claims benefit of 62/878,263 07/24/2019 and is a CIP of 16/215,474 12/10/2018 PAT 10596427 which claims benefit of 62/596,677 12/08/2017.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 08/05/2024. These drawings are acceptable for examination purposes only.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “a rib receiving channel configured to retain the rib” (claim 9) as described in the specification. Note that the specification at paragraph [0105] states that the rib channels are “(not shown)”. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, “to the back rail and sole” should read --to the back rail and to the sole-- for grammatical consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
FOLLOWING IS AN ACTION ON THE MERITS:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The phrase “the crown bridge is integrally formed with the crown bridge and the sole” is confusing. How is the crown bridge integrally formed with itself? Perhaps this phrase should read --the crown bridge is integrally formed with the sole--. Or, is the crown bridge integrally formed with perhaps another portion(s) of the club head?
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8, 10-11 and 13-14 and 16-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,987,551.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences are considered minor phrasing differences and/or an obvious arrangement of the claimed features among the claims and/or are differences that are obvious and well known in the art. Here, the claims of the ‘551 patent include many more elements and are more limiting than the instant claims and thus encompass all of the limitations of the current claims. For example, the claims of the ‘551 patent further require “a heel side wing that extends from the crown portion to the sole around the heel end of the golf club head; a toe side wing that extends from the crown portion to the sole around the toe end of the golf club head” and also require “wherein the first component and the second component define a lap joint or recessed lip therebetween; and wherein the second component is adhered to the first component across the lap joint”. As for the remaining limitations in the claims, note the following comments:
As to claim 1, see claim 1 of the ‘551 patent.
As to claim 2, see claim 1 of the ‘551 patent.
As to claim 3, see claim 3 of the ‘551 patent.
As to claim 4, see claim 4 of the ‘551 patent.
As to claim 5, see claim 5 of the ‘551 patent.
As to claim 6, see claim 7 of the ‘551 patent.
As to claim 7, see claim 8 of the ‘551 patent.
As to claim 8, see claim 9 of the ‘551 patent.
As to claim 10, see claim 10 of the ‘551 patent.
As to claim 11, see claim 11 of the ‘551 patent.
As to claim 13, see claims 1 and 10 of the ‘551 patent.
As to claim 14, see claim 12 of the ‘551 patent.
As to claim 16, see claims 1 and 10 of the ‘551 patent.
As to claim 17, see claim 7 of the ‘551 patent.
As to claim 18, see claim 8 of the ‘551 patent.
As to claim 19, see claim 4 of the ‘551 patent.
As to claim 20, see claim 5 of the ‘551 patent.
Claims 1-7 and 10-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,338,182.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences are considered minor phrasing differences and/or an obvious arrangement of the claimed features among the claims and/or are differences that are obvious and well known in the art. Here, the claims of the ‘182 patent include many more elements and are more limiting than the instant claims and thus encompass all of the limitations of the current claims. For example, the claims of the ‘182 patent further require “a heel side wing that extends from the crown portion to the sole around the heel end of the golf club head; a toe side wing that extends from the crown portion to the sole around the toe end of the golf club head” and also require “the top edge of the rib comprises a radius of curvature between 1.0 inch and 2.0 inch”. As for the remaining limitations in the claims, note the following comments:
As to claim 1, see claim 1 of the ‘182 patent.
As to claim 2, see claim 1 of the ‘182 patent.
As to claim 3, see claim 1 of the ‘182 patent.
As to claim 4, see claim 1 of the ‘182 patent.
As to claim 5, see claim 2 of the ‘182 patent.
As to claims 6-7, see claim 18 (as dependent upon claim 12) of the ‘182 patent.
As to claim 10, see claim 5 of the ‘182 patent.
As to claim 11, see claims 12 and 15 of the ‘182 patent.
As to claim 12, see claim 10 of the ‘182 patent.
As to claim 13, see claims 1 and 12 of the ‘182 patent.
As to claim 14, see claims 1 and 12 of the ‘182 patent.
As to claim 15, see claim 10 of the ‘182 patent.
As to claim 16, see claims 1 and 12 of the ‘182 patent.
As to claims 17-18, see claim 18 (as dependent upon claim 12) of the ‘182 patent.
As to claim 19, see claim 12 of the ‘182 patent.
As to claim 20, see claim 13 of the ‘182 patent.
/
/
/
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,338,182 in view of Motokawa (USPN 9,498,684).
As to claim 8, the claimed invention of the ‘182 patent lacks “a plurality of perforations” for the rib. Motokawa shows it to be old in the art to provide a rib that is disposed within an interior of a club head and wherein the rib includes holes or perforations for reduced weight. The arrangement in Motokawa provides that the weight of the club head is not excessive while at the same time ensuring that the rib is still able to provide the necessary reinforcement of the shell portion of the club head. See col. 6, lines 35-50 in Motokawa. In view of the teachings in Motokawa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the claimed device of the ‘182 patent by providing the claimed ribs with perforations (i.e., holes or apertures) in order to reduce the overall weight of the club head and to maintain the rigidity of the club head provided by the addition of the rib(s).
Claims 1, 3-7 and 10-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,076,623.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences are considered minor phrasing differences and/or an obvious arrangement of the claimed features among the claims and/or are differences that are obvious and well known in the art. Here, the claims of the ‘623 patent include many more elements and are more limiting than the instant claims and thus encompass all of the limitations of the current claims. For example, the claims of the ‘623 patent further require “a heel side wing that extends from the crown portion to the sole around the heel end of the golf club head; a toe side wing that extends from the crown portion to the sole around the toe end of the golf club head” and also require “wherein the sole extension extends a greater distance away from the strikeface, as measured in a direction extending rearwardly from the strikeface, than the crown return”. As for the remaining limitations in the claims, note the following comments:
As to claim 1, see claim 1 of the ‘623 patent.
As to claim 3, see claim 1 of the ‘623 patent.
As to claim 4, see claim 1 of the ‘623 patent.
As to claim 5, see claim 7 of the ‘623 patent.
As to claims 6-7, see claim 18 (as dependent upon claim 12) of the ‘623 patent.
As to claims 10-11, see claim 15 (as dependent from claim 14, which depends from claim 12) of the ‘623 patent.
As to claim 12, see claim 10 of the ‘623 patent.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,076,623 in view of Motokawa (USPN 9,498,684).
As to claim 8, the claimed invention of the ‘623 patent lacks “a plurality of perforations” for the rib. Motokawa shows it to be old in the art to provide a rib that is disposed within an interior of a club head and wherein the rib includes holes or perforations for reduced weight. The arrangement in Motokawa provides that the weight of the club head is not excessive while at the same time ensuring that the rib is still able to provide the necessary reinforcement of the shell portion of the club head. See col. 6, lines 35-50 in Motokawa. In view of the teachings in Motokawa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the claimed device of the ‘623 patent by providing the claimed ribs with perforations (i.e., holes or apertures) in order to reduce the overall weight of the club head and to maintain the rigidity of the club head provided by the addition of the rib(s).
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. In Ball Aerosol v. Ltd. Brands, 555 F.3d 984, 89 USPQ2d 1870 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Federal Circuit offered additional instruction as to the need for an explicit analysis. The Federal Circuit explained that the Supreme Court’s requirement for an explicit analysis does not require record evidence of an explicit teaching of a motivation to combine in the prior art.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
"[T]he analysis that "should be made explicit" refers not to the teachings in the prior art of a motivation to combine, but to the court’s analysis. . . . Under the flexible inquiry set forth by the Supreme Court, the district court therefore erred by failing to take account of 'the inferences and creative steps,' or even routine steps, that an inventor would employ and by failing to find a motivation to combine related pieces from the prior art." Ball Aerosol, 555 F.3d at 993, 89 USPQ2d at 1877.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Federal Circuit’s directive in Ball Aerosol was addressed to a lower court, but it applies to Office personnel as well. When setting forth a rejection, Office personnel are to continue to make appropriate findings of fact as explained in MPEP § 2141 and § 2143, and must provide a reasoned explanation as to why the invention as claimed would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. This requirement for explanation remains even in situations in which Office personnel may properly rely on intangible realities such as common sense and ordinary ingenuity.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
I. EXEMPLARY RATIONALES
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imamoto (US PUBS 2006/0084525) in view of Evans (USPN 8,702,533) and also in view of Cook (USPN 5,941,782).
As to claim 1, in addition to the comments herein, applicant’s attention is also directed to the annotated versions of Figs. 1, 3, 6C and 8A, hereinbelow. Imamoto shows a golf club comprising: a golf club head (1) comprising a first component (10) adhered to a second component (30) to define a closed interior volume (Fig. 8B; paragraph [0040]) there between, the golf club head (1) comprises a strike face (2) configured to strike a golf ball, a rear portion (Fig. 4) opposite the strike face (2), a crown (15), a sole (13) opposite the crown (15), a heel end (16), and a toe end (14) opposite the heel end (16); wherein the first component (10) comprises: a crown return extending rearwardly from the strike face, the crown return forming a portion of the crown (15); a sole return extending rearwardly form the strike face (2), the sole return forming a portion of the sole (13); a sole extension extending rearwardly from the sole return and forming a portion of the sole (13); and a back rail connected to the sole extension; wherein the back rail comprises a top wall, a rear wall, and a lip; wherein the top wall, the rear wall, and the lip together define a channel extending along the back rail in a heel to toe direction.
/
/
/
PNG
media_image2.png
710
1406
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
444
1056
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Imamoto lacks an explicit disclosure of wherein the channel is configured to receive a weight portion of at least 14 grams. Evans is in the field of golf clubs (abstract) and teaches wherein the weight (i.e., weight 120; Fig. 1) is at least 14 grams (col. 5, lines 25-27). In view of Evans, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the club head in Imamoto by including a weight of at least 14 grams, the motivation being to allow the user of the golf club to change the weight distribution of the club head and enable one to vary the location of the center of gravity of their club.
Imamoto further lacks “a rib located within the closed interior volume and extending between one or more combinations selected from the group consisting of: the crown and the sole, the crown and the rear wall, and the sole and the rear wall”. Cook shows it to be old in the art to include an internal rib (30, 36; Figs. 1-3) for strengthening the club head body (col. 1, lines 34-38; col. 2, lines 52-57; col. 5, line 49 through col. 6, line 3). The rib(s) may be located along the sole in the front-to-rear direction and may include a height increasing in an arcuate fashion (i.e. as best seen in Fig. 1). Cook also notes that at least one rib (30) may be centered with respect to the face (col. 4, lines 15-20). With the teachings of Cook, one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have modified the device in Imamoto by including a rib structure internally to the club head and arranged along the sole and engaged with both the back rail and the sole extension that have been identified in Imamoto, the motivation being to enhance the strength and rigidity of the club head structure without having to significantly increase the material used for the club head.
As to claim 2, in Imamoto, the first component (10) comprises approximately 85%-90% of an overall mass of the golf club head (i.e. the second component 30 ranges from 15% to 20% of the club head weight and thus the first component clearly ranges from 85% to 90% of the overall club head mass; paragraph [0066]).
As to claims 3-7, Imamoto in view of Evans has been discussed, above. Imamoto, as modified by Evans, lacks the specifics of the rib, namely “wherein the rib is proximal to the back rail and sole extension” (claim 3); “a rib height measured perpendicular to the interior surface of the sole extension” (claim 4); “the rib height increasing in an arcuate manner in a front-to-rear direction” (claim 5); “the rib is positioned within 20% of a rearmost point of the rear portion” (claim 6); and “the rib is positioned within 10% of a rearmost point of the rear portion” (claim 7). Cook shows it to be old in the art to include an internal rib (30, 36; Figs. 1-3) for strengthening the club head body (col. 1, lines 34-38; col. 2, lines 52-57; col. 5, line 49 through col. 6, line 3). The rib(s) may be located along the sole in the front-to-rear direction and may include a height increasing in an arcuate fashion (i.e. as best seen in Fig. 1). Cook also notes that at least one rib (30) may be centered with respect to the face (col. 4, lines 15-20). In addition, Cook teaches that the rib may include a short rib joined to the rear wall and that the rib may be located at any other location within the interior cavity of the club head (i.e., col. 4, lines 20-27). With the teachings of Cook, one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have modified the device in Imamoto by including a rib structure internally to the club head and arranged along the sole and engaged with both the back rail and the sole extension that have been identified in Imamoto, the motivation being to enhance the strength and rigidity of the club head structure without having to significantly increase the material used for the club head. The specific requirements for the rib to be positioned within 20% or even 10% of a rearmost point of the rear portion would have been guided by the teaching in Cook of a short rib extending from the rear portion, as explained hereinabove, and would have enabled the skilled artisan to selectively strengthen a portion of the rear portion of the club head as compared to a front portion of the club head for improved club head performance.
As to claims 10-11, Imamoto, as modified by Evans and Cook, includes a rib extending between the weight receiving bosses and is integral with an interior surface of the back rail and sole extension (i.e., with the rib extending in the front-to-back direction and centered with respect to the rear surface of the strike face, as taught by Cook, the modified Imamoto device would include a rib extending along the sole in the front-to-back direction and engaging the back rail and the sole extension and extending between the two weight receiving bosses, and without intersecting the weight receiving bosses identified in Imamoto).
As to claim 12, see the Abstract and paragraph [0007] in Imamoto.
/
/
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imamoto (US PUBS 2006/0084525) in view of Evans (USPN 8,702,533) and also in view of Cook (USPN 5,941,782) and further in view of Motokawa (USPN 9,498,684).
As to claim 8, Imamoto in view of Evans and Cook, lacks “a plurality of perforations” for the rib. Motokawa shows it to be old in the art to provide a rib that is disposed within an interior of a club head and wherein the rib includes holes or perforations for reduced weight. The arrangement in Motokawa provides that the weight of the club head is not excessive while at the same time ensuring that the rib is still able to provide the necessary reinforcement of the shell portion of the club head. See col. 6, lines 35-50 in Motokawa. In view of the teachings in Motokawa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ribs provided to Evans through the modification with Cook with perforations (i.e., holes or apertures) in order to reduce the overall weight of the club head and to maintain the rigidity of the club head provided by the addition of the rib(s).
Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imamoto (US PUBS 2006/0084525) in view of Evans (USPN 8,702,533) and also in view of Cook (USPN 5,941,782) and also in view of Beno (US PUBS 2016/0325156).
As to claim 13, in addition to the comments herein, applicant’s attention is also directed to the annotated versions of Figs. 1, 3, 6C and 8A, hereinbelow. Imamoto shows a golf club comprising: a golf club head (1) comprising a first component (10) adhered to a second component (30) to define a closed interior volume (Fig. 8B; paragraph [0040]) there between, the golf club head (1) comprises a strike face (2) configured to strike a golf ball, a rear portion (Fig. 4) opposite the strike face (2), a crown (15), a sole (13) opposite the crown (15), a heel end (16), and a toe end (14) opposite the heel end (16); wherein the first component (10) comprises: a crown return extending rearwardly from the strike face, the crown return forming a portion of the crown (15); a sole return extending rearwardly form the strike face (2), the sole return forming a portion of the sole (13); a sole extension extending rearwardly from the sole return and forming a portion of the sole (13); and a back rail connected to the sole extension; wherein the back rail comprises a top wall, a rear wall, and a lip; wherein the top wall, the rear wall, and the lip together define a channel extending along the back rail in a heel to toe direction.
PNG
media_image2.png
710
1406
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
444
1056
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Imamoto lacks an explicit disclosure of wherein the channel is configured to receive a weight portion of at least 14 grams. Evans is in the field of golf clubs (abstract) and teaches wherein the weight (i.e., weight 120; Fig. 1) is at least 14 grams (col. 5, lines 25-27). In view of Evans, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the club head in Imamoto by including a weight of at least 14 grams, the motivation being to allow the user of the golf club to change the weight distribution of the club head and enable one to vary the location of the center of gravity of their club.
Imamoto further lacks “a rib located within the closed interior volume and extending between one or more combinations selected from the group consisting of: the crown and the sole, the crown and the rear wall, and the sole and the rear wall”. Cook shows it to be old in the art to include an internal rib (30, 36; Figs. 1-3) for strengthening the club head body (col. 1, lines 34-38; col. 2, lines 52-57; col. 5, line 49 through col. 6, line 3). The rib(s) may be located along the sole in the front-to-rear direction and may include a height increasing in an arcuate fashion (i.e. as best seen in Fig. 1). Cook also notes that at least one rib (30) may be centered with respect to the face (col. 4, lines 15-20). With the teachings of Cook, one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have modified the device in Imamoto by including a rib structure internally to the club head and arranged along the sole and engaged with both the back rail and the sole extension that have been identified in Imamoto, the motivation being to enhance the strength and rigidity of the club head structure without having to significantly increase the material used for the club head.
Imamoto further lacks “and a crown bridge extending between the crown return and the back rail”. Beno shows it to be old in the art to provide a bridge structure connecting the crown and the sole for added structural stability (i.e., see frame 305, FIG. 5; and paragraph [0086]). In view of the teaching in Beno, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the club head in Imamoto by introducing a crown bridge extending between the crown return and the back rail to help prevent any deformation of the crown during an impact and thus improve the overall performance of the club head.
As to claim 14, again, Beno shows it to be old in the art to provide a bridge structure connecting the crown and the sole for added structural stability (i.e., see frame 305, FIG. 5; and paragraph [0086]). That the claim requires that the crown bridge is “integrally formed” hints at a product-by-process step. See MPEP 2113 stating: “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).”
As to claim 15, see the Abstract and paragraph [0007] in Imamoto.
As to claim 16, in Imamoto, the first component (10) comprises approximately 85%-90% of an overall mass of the golf club head (i.e. the second component 30 ranges from 15% to 20% of the club head weight and thus the first component clearly ranges from 85% to 90% of the overall club head mass; paragraph [0066]).
As to claims 17-20, Imamoto in view of Evans has been discussed, above. Imamoto, as modified by Evans, lacks the specifics of the rib, namely “the rib is positioned within 20% of a rearmost point of the rear portion” (claim 17); and “the rib is positioned within 10% of a rearmost point of the rear portion” (claim 18); “a rib height measured perpendicular to the interior surface of the sole extension” (claim 19); and “the rib height increasing in an arcuate manner in a front-to-rear direction” (claim 20); Cook shows it to be old in the art to include an internal rib (30, 36; Figs. 1-3) for strengthening the club head body (col. 1, lines 34-38; col. 2, lines 52-57; col. 5, line 49 through col. 6, line 3). The rib(s) may be located along the sole in the front-to-rear direction and may include a height increasing in an arcuate fashion (i.e. as best seen in Fig. 1). Cook also notes that at least one rib (30) may be centered with respect to the face (col. 4, lines 15-20). In addition, Cook teaches that the rib may include a short rib joined to the rear wall and that the rib may be located at any other location within the interior cavity of the club head (i.e., col. 4, lines 20-27). With the teachings of Cook, one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have modified the device in Imamoto by including a rib structure internally to the club head and arranged along the sole and engaged with both the back rail and the sole extension that have been identified in Imamoto, the motivation being to enhance the strength and rigidity of the club head structure without having to significantly increase the material used for the club head. The specific requirements for the rib to be positioned within 20% or even 10% of a rearmost point of the rear portion would have been guided by the teaching in Cook of a short rib extending from the rear portion, as explained hereinabove, and would have enabled the skilled artisan to selectively strengthen a portion of the rear portion of the club head as compared to a front portion of the club head for improved club head performance.
Further References of Interest
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Note rib (34) extending between the crown and the sole in Boone;
Onoda shows a crown bridge or reinforcement structure;
Note brace or bridge (123) in Lu;
Chen shows an arcuate-shaped rib (20) in FIG. 1; and
Note FIG. 1 and the rib (20a).
/
/
/
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEBASTIANO PASSANITI whose telephone number is (571)272-4413. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM-5:00PM Mon-Fri.
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.
SEBASTIANO PASSANITI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3711
/SEBASTIANO PASSANITI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights