Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 22, 2026
Application No. 18/887,485

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING OF A GOLF CLUB HEADCOVER

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Sep 17, 2024
Priority
Sep 04, 2020 — continuation of 12/109,469
Examiner
TAMIL, JESSICA KAVINI
Art Unit
3733
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Cobra Golf Incorporated
OA Round
3 (Final)
39%
Grant Probability
At Risk
4-5
OA Rounds
8m
Est. Remaining
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 39% of cases
39%
Career Allowance Rate
65 granted / 165 resolved
-30.6% vs TC avg
Strong +46% interview lift
Without
With
+46.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
219
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
58.7%
+18.7% vs TC avg
§102
22.4%
-17.6% vs TC avg
§112
18.4%
-21.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 165 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Response to Amendment The amendment filed 5/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-13 and 15-20 remain pending in the application. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections of Claim 1-13 and 15-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for these reasons: Regarding Applicant’s assertion that in claim 1 a void cannot be taught to the sleeve portion are Mitzel describes its cover as having a “generally bulbous head area and an elongated sleeve area configured to fit over a golf club headcover and at least a portion of a shaft” (Page 7-8), the examiner disagrees, pointing out that teaching a void on this cover does not destroy the intended use as the reference does not specify that there can’t be a void or that a void would destroy the intend purpose. Regarding Applicant’s assertion that Mitzel does not teach a continuous network of interconnected concave and convex structures (Page 8-9), the examiner disagrees, again pointing out that Para 11 of Mitzel teaches a lattice structure and lattice structures have a continuous network of interconnected concave and convex structures. 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. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) and (a) (2) as being anticipated over US Publication 2013/0166405 by Mitzel (Here forth “Mitzel”). Regarding claim 1, Mitzel discloses a headcover for a golf club (Fig 15 of Mitzel), comprising: a body (Examiner Annotated Fig 15 of Mitzel shown below), the body including: a head portion defining a chamber including a body aperture disposed at a heel end of the head portion, the body aperture being configured to provide access to the chamber (Examiner Annotated Fig 15 of Mitzel shown below, a golf club fits in the chamber within the head portion that is at the heel end; an aperture provide access into chamber; the chamber of the head portion of the body defines an internal geometry that conforms to an external geometry of a golf club head, and wherein the chamber of the head portion is at least partially defined by a wall); and a sleeve portion extending outwardly from the head portion (Examiner Annotated Fig 15 of Mitzel shown below, sleeve portion extends from head portion), wherein each of the head portion and the sleeve portion of the body includes a wall having a continuous network of interconnected concave and convex surfaces (Para 11 of Mitzel, lattice structure), wherein a sleeve cutout is defined by a sleeve frame of the sleeve portion, and wherein the body aperture and the sleeve cutout are in direct fluid communication with one another and are configured to receive a portion of the golf club (Fig 15 of Mitzel and examiner annotated fig 15 of Mitzel, void 115 framed and is over the body portion and sleeve portion and in communication with the void 115; as the cutout is an opening, a portion of the golf club if capable of entering void 115 and golf club fits within body aperture within). PNG media_image1.png 478 616 media_image1.png Greyscale Examiner Annotated Fig 15 of Mitzel Regarding claim 2, Mitzel further discloses wherein the continuous network of interconnected concave and convex surfaces forms a lattice structure (Para 11 of Mitzel). Regarding claim 3, Mitzel further discloses wherein the lattice structure defines a plurality of apertures extending through the wall of the body, wherein the chamber of the head portion is configured to receive a golf club head, wherein the plurality of apertures provides a window into the headcover, and wherein the golf club head is visible through the window when disposed in the chamber (Para 11 of Mitzel, the lattice structure provides a view into the headcover so the golf club is visible). Regarding claim 4, Mitzel further discloses wherein the lattice structure is formed of a flexible thermoplastic material (Para 111 of Mitzel, the window that has a lattice structure can be made of thermoplastic). Regarding claim 5, Mitzel further discloses wherein the sleeve portion is configured to receive a portion of a hose or a portion of a shaft of the golf club (Abstract of Mitzel). Regarding claim 6, Mitzel further comprising a faceplate, wherein the faceplate is formed from a solid material, and wherein the faceplate is configured to be disposed adjacent to a ball-striking face of a golf club head when the golf club head is disposed in the headcover (Fig 15 of Mitzel; the faceplates are the side walls that are located on the other surfaces of the golf head cover other than the lattice structures and provide protection and have a degree of protective thickness). Regarding claim 7, Mitzel further comprises wherein the continuous network of interconnected concave and convex surfaces is arranged between portions of the sleeve frame (Para 11 of Mitzel, the continuous network of interconnected concave structures that form a lattice structure can be on certain portions of the head cover and therefore arranged between portions of the sleeve frame). Regarding claim 8, Mitzel further discloses wherein the chamber of the head portion of the body defines an internal geometry that conforms to an external geometry of a golf club head, and wherein the chamber of the head portion is at least partially defined by a wall (Fig 15 of Mitzel, the head portion of the body forms a geometric shape that conforms to that of the golf club head within) that includes the continuous network of interconnected concave and convex surfaces (Para 11 of Mitzel, a portion of the head can includes a continuous network of interconnected concave and convex surface). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 9-13, 15-20 are allowed. Regarding claim 9, US Patent 5437320 by Sung discloses a headcover for a golf club (Fig 11 of Mitzel ), comprising: a head portion defining a chamber adapted to receive a golf club head (Fig 11 of Mitzel, the chamber can be seen to receive a golf club head within); and a sleeve position extending outwardly from the head portion (Fig 10 of Mitzel, the nape 125 can be seen extending outwardly from the head portion), [Not taught: wherein at least one of the head portion or the sleeve portion includes a wall having a structure composed of triply periodic minimal surfaces forming a gyroid lattice structure.], wherein the sleeve portion comprises a solid frame (Examiner Annotated Fig 9 of Mitzel, the bridge 123 is a stiffened portion that forms the solid frame), and wherein the solid frame is more rigid than the gyroid lattice structure (Para 11 and 106 of Mitzel lists materials for the stiff portions of the golf cover which include the bridges 123 and body and sleeve of the cover which will include the lattice structure ). PNG media_image2.png 492 663 media_image2.png Greyscale Examiner Annotated Fig 3 of Sung Sung does not expressly disclose wherein at least one of the head portion or the sleeve portion includes a wall having a structure composed of triply periodic minimal surfaces forming a gyroid lattice structure. Regarding claim 15, Mitzel discloses a headcover for a golf club, the headcover comprising: a body including a head portion, wherein the head portion includes an outer surface and defines a chamber adapted to receive a portion of a golf club head (Fig 15 of Mitzel), wherein the body is made of a flexible thermoplastic material (Para 111 of Mitzel, the window that has a lattice structure can be made of thermoplastic), and wherein a structure is composed of [Not taught: triply periodic minimal surfaces] includes plurality of interconnected curved struts that form a plurality of apertures and a plurality of slots, the structure extending over at least a portion of the outer surface (Para 11 of Mitzel, the lattice structure has plurality of interconnected curved struts, and slots). Mitzel does not expressly disclose wherein a structure is composed of triply periodic minimal surfaces. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA KAVINI TAMIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6655. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00am-5:00pm EST. 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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. 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. /JESSICA KAVINI TAMIL/Examiner, Art Unit 3733 /ANDREW T KIRSCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 17, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 27, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103
May 26, 2026
Response Filed
Jun 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103
Sep 21, 2026
Response Filed
Oct 09, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12757987
Wallet Badge Holder
7y 4m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12757991
ELECTRONIC DEVICE WRAP
3y 1m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12757989
CONVERTIBLE SUITCASE STROLLER APPARATUS
3y 1m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12751527
MULTIPLE PURPOSE TRAVEL BAGS, TRAVEL BAG SYSTEMS, AND RELATED METHODS
4y 1m to grant Granted Oct 06, 2026
Patent 12691342
Golf Bag with Travel and Play Mode
1y 6m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
39%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+46.0%)
2y 9m (~8m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 165 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month