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 Gaffney does not teach a cutout (Page 8-9), the examiner disagrees, pointing out that the aperture formed on the headcover wall is a sleeve cutout defined by a sleeve frame. The frame of the headcover of Gaffney is the portion that holds the shape of the head cover. The headcover of Gaffney has a soft frame. The claim limitations are now rejected by Mitzel.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that Mitzel does not teach a continuous network of interconnected concave and convex structures (Page 9-11), the examiner disagrees, pointing out that Para 11 of Mitzel teaches a lattice structure and lattice structures have a continuous network of interconnected concave and convex structures.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections of Claim 1-13 and 15-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive for these reasons:
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that Gaffney can’t be combined with Sung and would destroy the teaching of Sung(Page 11-12), the examiner agrees and a second Non-Final Action is being issued. (See 102/103 rejection below).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“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” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 15-16 and 19-20 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).
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 a 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).
Regarding claim 16, Mitzel further discloses wherein the structure forms a window into the chamber of the headcover through the plurality of apertures and the plurality of slots (Para 11 of Mitzel, 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).
Regarding claim 19, Mitzel further discloses wherein the body includes a plurality of sidewalls, wherein the plurality of sidewalls includes a first wall, and wherein an internal geometry of the first wall is configured to conform to an external geometry of a ball-striking face of a golf club head (Fig 15 of Mitzel, the first wall is one of the sides of the headcover that inherently has an internal geometry and external geometry that has a face that can be struck by a ball).
Regarding claim 20, Mitzel further discloses wherein the structure extends over at least a portion of a sole surface of the head portion (Para 11 of Mitzel).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitzel in view of International Publication GB2350304 by Nolan (Here forth “Nolan”).
Regarding claim 17, Mitzel further discloses wherein the head portion includes a face plate (Examiner Annotated Fig 15 of Mitzel), and [Not taught: wherein the face plate comprises a solid material and includes a center portion, a peripheral boundary, and a plurality of arms, wherein the plurality of arms extend outwardly from the center portion to the peripheral boundary].
Mitzel does not expressly disclose the faceplate comprising, arms, center portion, peripheral boundary.
Nolan discloses a similar golf head cover that teaches wherein the head portion includes a face plate, and wherein the faceplate comprises a solid material and includes a center portion, a peripheral boundary and a plurality of arms wherein the arms of the plurality of arms extend outwardly from the center portion to the peripheral boundary (Examiner Annotated Fig 4 of Nolan below).
PNG
media_image2.png
436
374
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Fig 4 of Nolan
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Mitzel and Nolan before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the golf club head cover of the Mitzel include air gaps, as taught by Nolan, to advantageously allow the user to view the golf club.
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitzel in view of US Publication 2004/0261924 by Bradshaw (Here forth “Bradshaw”).
Regarding claim 18, Mitzel as modified does not expressly disclose further comprising a fastening element, wherein a first end of the fastening element is configured to be selectively coupled to the body of the headcover by a user.
Bradshaw discloses a similar golf head cover that teaches further comprising a fastening element, wherein a first end of the fastening element is configured to be selectively coupled to the body of the headcover by a user (Para 23 of Bradshaw and Fig 6 of Bradshaw, there is a free end is a hook 47 that is coupled to body via loop 49 which forms a recess/groove in the center that end 47 attached through).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Mitzel and Bradshaw before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the golf club head cover of Mitzel to include the concept of having a fastener, as taught by Bradshaw, to advantageously be able to increase the tightness of the sleeve over the golf club neck, preventing the head from sliding out.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-14 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 portion 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_image3.png
492
663
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Fig 3 of Sung
Mitzel 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.
Conclusion
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
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 23 June 2026
Prosecution Insights