GOLF CLUB HEAD

§103 §112

DETAILED ACTION This Office action is responsive to the following communication received: 09/12/2024 – application papers received, including Power of Attorney; 10/08/2024 – Preliminary Amendment, including amendments to the specification and to the claims; and 11/14/2024 – IDS (5 statements). 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 18/510,476 11/15/2023 which is a CON of 17/691,649 03/10/2022 PAT 12246225 which is a CON of 17/124,134 12/16/2020 PAT 12121780. Drawings The drawings were received on 09/12/2024. These drawings are acceptable. Status of Claims Claims 1-19 have been cancelled, as directed. Claims 20-41 remain pending. Specification The amendment to the specification, received 10/08/2024, has been entered. Specification - Objections The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the “rearward weight center gravity (RWCG)”, as recited in claim 21. Instead, it appears that the specification discusses a “rearward mass center of gravity (RMCG)”, which is depicted in FIG. 3, as well as “second weight center of gravity (SWCG)”, which is depicted in FIG. 9A. FOLLOWING IS AN ACTION ON THE MERITS: Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112 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. Claims 20-41 are 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. As to claim 20, lines 18-19, “no less than 30% of the total mass” presents an open-ended range that clouds the scope of the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(c). Also, in lines 23-25, is it the driver-type golf club head that is formed from a material having a density between 0.9 g/cc and 3.5 g/cc? Is it the strike plate that is formed from a material having a density between 0.9 g/cc and 3.5 g/cc? Is this “material having a density between 0.9 g/cc and 3.5 g/cc” the same material previously recited in line 19? As to claim 21, where is the head origin coordinate system located? From which point or origin or ground plane are the z-axis and y-axis coordinates of the rearward weight being measured? The arrangement of the head origin coordinate system must be positively and clearly set forth in order to be able to clearly understand the distances recited along the z-axis and the y-axis. By way of example, is the head origin located at a geometric center of the strike face? Does the head origin include a head origin x-axis as well as a head origin y-axis and a head origin z-axis? With both negative and positive values being recited, in which direction(s), and how, are the dimensional extents along the y-axis and z-axis to be interpreted? For example, does the origin include a head origin x-axis tangential to the striking surface and parallel to a ground plane when the club head is placed on the ground in an address position? Does a positive x-axis extend from the head origin towards the heel of the club head and does a negative x-axis extend from the head origin towards the toe of the club head (or vice-versa)? Does the head origin y-axis extend perpendicular to the head origin x-axis and parallel to the ground plane? Does a positive y-axis extend from the head origin towards the rearward portion of the club head? Does the head origin z-axis extend perpendicular to the head origin x- axis and perpendicular to the head origin y-axis? Does a positive z-axis extend from the head origin towards the crown and does a negative z-axis extend from the head origin towards the sole (or vice-versa)? When further clarifying the head origin coordinate system, the applicant is cautioned to use terminology consistent with what is described and depicted in the disclosure. As to claim 22, here again, the location and arrangement of the head origin x-axis and the head origin y-axis must be clearly set forth in the claim. See the comments under claim 21, above. As to claim 23, these claims share the indefiniteness of claim 20. As to claim 24, line 3, is “an aluminum alloy” different from the aluminum alloy previously recited in claim 23? If not, then the limitation in line 3 should likely read --the aluminum alloy--. As to claims 25-26, these claims share the indefiniteness of claim 20. As to claim 27, line 2, is “an aluminum alloy” different from the aluminum alloy previously recited in claim 23? If not, then the limitation in line 3 should likely read --the aluminum alloy--. As to claim 28, lines 2-3, is the “material having a density between 5.6 g/cc and 20 g/cc” different from the “one or more materials having a density between 5.6 g/cc and 20.0 g/cc” already set forth in claim 20, lines 21-22? As to claim 29, lines 1-2, what portion(s) of the club head is “no more than 20%” referring to? Is this referring to the total mass or to something else? Also, in lines 2-3, is the “material having a density between 5.6 g/cc and 20 g/cc” different from the “one or more materials having a density between 5.6 g/cc and 20.0 g/cc” already set forth in claim 20, lines 21-22? As to claim 30, line 3, what is “less than 2.35 mm” referring to? Is this referring to a thickness of a portion of the strike plate other than the peak thickness? As to claims 31-37, these claims indirectly share the indefiniteness of claim 20. As to claim 38, lines 2-3, a "Markush group" has been improperly recited which presents uncertainty and/or ambiguity in the claimed structure. Here, claim 38 recites elements of the driver-type golf club head, which is part of a "comprising" clause presented in the earlier independent claim 20. Alternative expressions, such as the expression presented in claim 38 and reciting multiple materials, are permitted if they present no uncertainty or ambiguity regarding the scope of the claims. Here, there is no way to determine what other alternative materials are intended to be encompassed by the claim. An acceptable expression recites the elements of a Markush group as being "selected from the group consisting of A, B and C" or alternatively “wherein the material is A, B, or C”. See MPEP 2173.05(h). As to claim 39, line 1, --the-- should precede “strike plate”. Also, in line 2, is “a 6000 series or 7000 series aluminum alloy” referring to the same 6000 series or 7000 series aluminum alloy previously recited in claim 38? Note the comments in claim 38 regarding a “Markush group” claim recitation. As to claim 40, line 1, --the-- should precede “strike plate”. Also, in line 2, is “a 6000 series or 7000 series aluminum alloy” referring to the same 6000 series or 7000 series aluminum alloy previously recited in claim 38? Note the comments in claim 38 regarding a “Markush group” claim recitation. As to claim 41, lines 1-2, what portion(s) of the club head is “no more than 20%” referring to? Is this referring to the total mass or to something else? Also, in lines 3-4, is the “material having a density between 5.6 g/cc and 20 g/cc” different from the “one or more materials having a density between 5.6 g/cc and 20.0 g/cc” already set forth in claim 20, lines 21-22? The Office has made an effort to identify all instances of indefiniteness in the current claim set. To the extent that any remaining occurrences of indefiniteness may exist in the claims, the applicant is respectfully asked to thoroughly review the claims and to amend the claims to capture and to correct any remaining instances of indefiniteness of which the applicant may become aware of during the preparation of a response to this Office action. 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. 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. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PUBS 2019/0046845 to Greensmith et al (hereinafter referred to as “Greensmith” in view of USPN 5,261,664 to Anderson and also in view of US PUBS 2010/0203983 to Stites. As to independent claim 20, Greensmith discloses a driver-type golf club head (10; and FIGS. 1-2), comprising: a forward portion (30), comprising a forward opening (i.e., paragraph [0087]) and a strike face (18); a rearward portion (32), opposite the forward portion (22); a crown portion (12); a sole portion (14), opposite the crown portion; a heel portion (26); a toe portion (28), opposite the heel portion; and a strike plate (18) comprising a front portion, a rear portion, and a strike plate thickness therebetween (i.e., FIGS. 51-56), the strike plate is separately formed and bonded to the forward portion enclosing the forward opening (i.e., paragraphs [0005] and [0087], and [0148]) and the strike plate at least partially defines the strike face; wherein: a volume of the driver-type golf club head is between 390 cubic centimeters (cc) and 600 cc (i.e., paragraph [0091]); a total mass of the driver-type golf club head is between 185 grams (g) and 210 g (i.e., paragraph [0091]); the driver-type golf club head comprises a combination of separately formed components joined together (i.e., see at least FIGS. 21-21A). Greensmith does not explicitly disclose that “no less than 30% of the total mass of the driver-type golf club head is formed of one or more materials having a density between 0.9 g/cc and 3.5 g/cc; no less than 5% of the total mass of the driver-type golf club head and no more than 50% is formed of one or more materials having a density between 5.6 g/cc and 20.0 g/cc”. Selecting different materials for different portions of the club head body in order to efficiently customize a club head (i.e., providing a desired weight distribution, locating a center of gravity in a desired location, and/or manipulating the moment of inertia of the club head) has already been disclosed as being well known in the golf club head art, as further taught by Stites. Specifically, see paragraphs [0042], [0043], [0057], [0059], and [0060] in Stites, which provide added guidance for the skilled artisan in selecting different materials for the different portions of the club head body, with Stites stating in paragraph [0043] that "[T]he different materials in the respective sections may affect the overall properties of the golf club head body (e.g., weight distribution) and, therefore, may be used to manipulate the location of the center of gravity of the club head body (e.g., shift the center of gravity in a particular direction). Additionally, the different materials may be used to manipulate the moment of inertia of the club head body (e.g., move the weight of the golf club head body to a particular position to increase the moment of inertia). Thereby, the club may be optimized for a particular purpose.” Moreover, the selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for its intended use has been determined to be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious); Ryco, Inc. V. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Claimed agricultural bagging machine, which differed from a prior art machine only in that the brake means were hydraulically operated rather than mechanically operated, was held to be obvious over the prior art machine in view of references which disclosed hydraulic brakes for performing the same function, albeit in a different environment.). With consideration of the combination of the teachings in Greensmith and Stites, and the above reasoning, one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the club head in Greensmith by selecting a material of lesser or greater density for the various portions of the club head (e.g., the forward portion, the rearward portion, the crown, and the sole), with there being a reasonable expectation of success that selection of a known material having a known density, and construction of the various parts of the club head with materials of different densities, would have enabled the skilled artisan to customize the weight distribution of the club head and enhance the performance characteristics of the club head. Greensmith further does not explicitly disclose “at least a portion of the rear portion of the strike plate overlaps the forward portion and is bonded to a portion of the forward portion of the driver-type golf club head formed from a material having a density between 0.9 g/cc and 3.5 g/cc”. Anderson shows it to be old in the art to assemble a golf club head from multiple parts, wherein the strike plate is attached to a recessed ledge portion of a forward or front portion of a hollow club head in order to close the opening into the hollow interior (i.e., see FIGS. 3-6 and col. 2, lines 18-24 and 63-66, along with col. 3, lines 1-6 in Anderson). The arrangement in Anderson provides a high strength connection between the strike plate and the forward or front portion of the club head to reduce club head failure during repeated impacts. In view of the teaching in Anderson, 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 Greensmith by constructing the club head such that a rear portion of the strike plate overlaps the forward portion and is bonded to a forward portion of the club head to increase the strength between thus trike plate and the surrounding frame of the forward portion, thus reducing the likelihood of club head failure during impacts. It is further noted that language recited in claim 20 such as “the strike plate is separately formed” as well as ”the strike plate … is bonded to a portion of the forward portion” and “the driver-type golf club head comprises a combination of separately formed components joined together” hints to language used in a product-by-process claim. Note MPEP 2113: “[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). Claims 21-31 and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PUBS 2019/0046845 to Greensmith et al (hereinafter referred to as “Greensmith” in view of USPN 5,261,664 to Anderson and also in view of US PUBS 2010/0203983 to Stites and also in view of US PUBS 2009/0088269 to Beach et al (hereinafter referred to as “Beach”). As to claim 21, Greensmith, as modified by Anderson and Stites, does not explicitly disclose the location of the rearward weight in relation to the head origin along with the location of the center of gravity of the club head. Note that Greensmith, throughout paragraphs [0194] – [0207], discusses the advantages of incorporating adjustable features for the weighting elements at the frontward and rearward portions of the club head to enable the performance characteristics of the club head to be selectively altered. Beach teaches that a second mass (e.g., rear weight 476; FIG. 28) may be located between 95 mm and 125 mm from a head origin axis and may be located between -30 mm and about 0 mm along a head origin z-axis (i.e., see claim 16 of Beach; also see paragraph [0068] with an explanation of the location of rear mass element 76 depicted in FIG. 8). In addition, the center of gravity in at least one embodiment of the Beach club head is located approximately between 33 mm and 41 mm along a y-axis coordinate (i.e., see paragraph [0086]). Beach positions the rear mass in order to alter the moment of inertia for greater stability and enhanced forgiveness during off center shots (i.e, see paragraphs [0061] – [0063] in Beach). In view of the teaching in Beach, 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 Greensmith by locating both the rearward mass and the center of gravity of the club head using the dimensions taught by Beach in order to provide a more optimal weight distribution for enhanced playability and added forgiveness of the club head. As to claim 22, Beach renders it obvious to include the claimed requirements for Ixx and Izz, namely “wherein a summation of Ixx and Izz is between 740 kg-mm² and 1,100 kg-mm², and Izz is no more than 590 kg-mm²”. See FIG. 30 and the values of Ixx and Izz for “Golf Club Head 200”, with Ixx equal to 333 kg-mm² and Izz equal to 495 kg-mm², and wherein the summation of Ixx and Izz is 828 kg-mm² and Izz is no more than 590 kg-mm². In view of these teachings in Beach, 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 Greensmith to include the specific, claimed relationship between Ixx and Izz for enhancing the stability and forgiveness of the club head. As to claim 23, Greensmith acknowledges that portions of the body may include aluminum alloys (i.e., paragraph [0093]). As to claim 24, Greensmith acknowledges that adhesive bonding is known in the assembly of club head parts (i.e., see paragraph [0225]). Here, Stites further elaborates that the various sections of the club head, including the strike plate, may be adhesively connected together (i.e., see paragraph [0020] – [0021] and [0029] in Stites). Given the broad disclosure in Greensmith and the more detailed explanation in Stites regarding adhesive bonding, 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 Greensmith by using adhesive bonding to secure the strike plate to the forward portion, with adhesive bonding providing a suitable connection method for instances when a non-metallic strike plate is employed. As to claim 25, Greensmith notes that the face plate may include carbon fiber material (i.e., see paragraph [0093]). As to claim 26, Greensmith discloses a face portion of variable thickness. See paragraph [0239] and at least FIG. 54. As to claim 27, Greensmith acknowledges that portions of the body may include aluminum alloys (i.e., paragraph [0093]). As to claims 28-29, with the materials discussed in paragraph [0093] in Greensmith and with the further teachings in paragraphs [0042], [0043], [0057], [0059], and [0060] in Stites, as presented under the rejection of claim 20 hereinabove, one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the club head in Greensmith by selecting a material of lesser or greater density for the various portions of the club head (e.g., for a lower portion of the forward portion; or for a percentage of the total mass of the club head), with there being a reasonable expectation of success that selection of a known material having a known density, and construction of the various parts of the club head with materials of different densities, would have enabled the skilled artisan to customize the weight distribution of the club head and enhance the performance characteristics of the club head. Moreover, the selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for its intended use has been determined to be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious); Ryco, Inc. V. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Claimed agricultural bagging machine, which differed from a prior art machine only in that the brake means were hydraulically operated rather than mechanically operated, was held to be obvious over the prior art machine in view of references which disclosed hydraulic brakes for performing the same function, albeit in a different environment.). As to claim 30, Greensmith makes use of metal material for the strike plate (i.e., see paragraph [0092]) and provides a peak thickness within the claimed range (i.e., see at least paragraphs [0152], [0237], [0239]). As to claims 31 and 37, Beach renders it obvious to include the claimed requirements for Ixx, namely that Ixx is at least 65% of Izz. See FIG. 30 and the values of Ixx and Izz for “Golf Club Head 200”, with Ixx equal to 333 kg-mm² and Izz equal to 495 kg-mm², and wherein 65% of Izz is approximately 322 kg-mm², and thus Ixx is at least 65% of Izz. In view of these teachings in Beach, 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 Greensmith to include the specific, claimed relationship between Ixx and Izz for enhancing the stability and forgiveness of the club head. As to claim 36, although Greensmith does not explicitly address that “the forward portion comprises a multipiece construction having a mass between 47.7 grams and 109.1 grams”, the teaching reference to Stites clearly provides the guidance needed to customize the weight distribution of a multi-piece club head based upon the materials selected for each of at least first and second sections (i.e., forward and rearward portions) of the club head body. See paragraphs [0042], [0043], [0057], [0059], and [0060] in Stites. It is also noted that paragraphs [0213] – [0216] in Greensmith discuss customizing the weight of the forward portion, which comprises the face cup (i.e., also see FIGS. 39-40). In view of the teachings in Sites, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided the forward portion (i.e., the forward face cup 402) of the club head in Greensmith with a suitable mass to locate the center of gravity in a more desirable position to enhance the performance of the club head. Moreover, the claimed range of 47.7 grams and 109.1 grams has not been disclosed as being critical. Claims 38-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PUBS 2019/0046845 to Greensmith et al (hereinafter referred to as “Greensmith” in view of USPN 5,261,664 to Anderson and also in view of US PUBS 2010/0203983 to Stites and also in view of USPN 9,868,036 to Kleinert et al (hereinafter referred to as “Kleinert”). As to claims 38-40, Greensmith, as modified by Anderson and Stites, lacks a mention of either “a 6000 series or 7000 series aluminum alloy”. It is initially noted that the clubhead in Greensmith is formed with a cup forming the forward portion (i.e., see the Abstract; and paragraph [0208], noting cup 402 in FIGS. 37-38; along with FIGS, 42-43 and paragraph [0013] in Greensmith). Kleinert shows it to be old in the art to take advantage of a 6000 series or 7000 series aluminum alloy in the construction of the forward portion or frame of the club head to strengthen areas of high stress caused by repeated golf ball impacts (i.e., see col. 8, lines 51-67 in Kleinert). In view of the teaching in Kleinert, 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 Greensmith by fabricating the forward portion of the club head from either a 6000 series or 7000 series aluminum alloy for increasing the strength of the portion of the club head that is most susceptible to damage from repeated impacts with a golf ball. Moreover, the selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for its intended use has been determined to be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious); Ryco, Inc. V. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Claimed agricultural bagging machine, which differed from a prior art machine only in that the brake means were hydraulically operated rather than mechanically operated, was held to be obvious over the prior art machine in view of references which disclosed hydraulic brakes for performing the same function, albeit in a different environment.). More specific to the limitation requiring that the “strike plate is non-metal” (claim 39) and the “strike plate is metal” (claim 40), note that Greensmith discusses metallic materials as well as composite materials for the face or strike plate (i.e., see paragraph [0093]). Of further interest, it is noted that Stites also teaches that both metallic and non-metallic materials may be used in the construction of the face (i.e., see paragraphs [0020] – [0021] in Stites). As to claim 41, Greensmith, as modified by Anderson and Stites, is silent as to “wherein Ixx is at least 65% of Izz, and wherein no less than 10% of the total mass of the driver-type golf club head and no more than 20% is formed of one or more materials having a density between 5.6 g/cc and 20.0 g/cc”. Here, Kleinert teaches that the location of the center of gravity may be arranged to enhance club head performance and that the placement of weight(s) at or adjacent to the front portion along with weight(s) at or adjacent to the rear portion may be manipulated to vary the moment of inertia about both the X-axis (Ixx) and the Z-axis (Izz). In TABLE 2, Kleinert presents various values for Ixx and Izz, wherein Ixx is at least 65% of Izz. Using a 10 gram weight at the front and a 20 gram weight at the back, Kleinert calculates an Ixx of 390 g-mm2 and an Izz of 532 g-mm2. Here, 65% of Izz is calculated as 0.65 x 532 = 345.8. Thus, Kleinert discloses an Ixx that is at least 65% of the Izz. Kleinert emphasizes that the moment of inertia values Ixx and Izz are most relevant for achieving satisfactory club head forgiveness (i.e., see col. 17, lines 25-55). In view of the teaching in Kleinert, 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 Greensmith by incorporating a weight distribution that enhances the Ixx and Izz such that Ixx is at least 65% of Izz for reducing the likelihood of unwanted twist during golf ball impact, thus providing enhanced stability and club head forgiveness. As for the specific requirement in claim 41 of “no more than 20% is formed of one or more materials having a density between 5.6 g/cc and 20.0 g/cc”, attention is directed to the explanation and motivation provided hereinabove under claim 20 and with respect to the teachings in Stites, and noting that selecting different materials for different portions of the club head body in order to efficiently customize a club head (i.e., providing a desired weight distribution, locating a center of gravity in a desired location, and/or manipulating the moment of inertia of the club head) has already been disclosed as being well known in the golf club head art, as further taught by Stites. Specifically, see paragraphs [0042], [0043], [0057], [0059], and [0060] in Stites, which provide added guidance for the skilled artisan in selecting different materials for the different portions of the club head body, with Stites stating in paragraph [0043] that "[T]he different materials in the respective sections may affect the overall properties of the golf club head body (e.g., weight distribution) and, therefore, may be used to manipulate the location of the center of gravity of the club head body (e.g., shift the center of gravity in a particular direction). Additionally, the different materials may be used to manipulate the moment of inertia of the club head body (e.g., move the weight of the golf club head body to a particular position to increase the moment of inertia). Thereby, the club may be optimized for a particular purpose." One of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the club head in Greensmith by selecting a material of lesser or greater density for the various portions of the club head (e.g., for a percentage of the total mass of the club head), with there being a reasonable expectation of success that selection of a known material having a known density, and construction of the various parts of the club head with materials of different densities, would have enabled the skilled artisan to customize the weight distribution of the club head and enhance the performance characteristics of the club head. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 32-35 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Further References of Interest The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chou shows a club head having front and rear weight arrangements, of interest. See FIGS. 1B and 1E in Bovee; and Beach (‘671) details placement of front and rear weights to change the CG location. 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