DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Internet/E-mail Communication
In order to permit communication regarding the instant application via email, Applicant is invited to file form PTO/SB/439 (Authorization for Internet Communications) or include the following statement in a separately filed document (see MPEP 502.03 II):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
If such authorization is provided, please include an email address in the remarks of a filed response. The examiner’s e-mail address is Christopher.Legendre@uspto.gov.
Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 2 (corresponding with claims 1 and 4-9) in the reply filed on 17 July 2026 is acknowledged. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement by stating that no undue burden is present. In response, the Office respectfully notes that examination requires employing different search strategies and search queries, and the examination burden includes the effort required to apply the art by making and discussing all appropriate grounds of rejection. Multiple inventions, such as those in the present application, require additional reference material and further discussion for each additional feature addressed. Concurrent examination of the multiple inventions claimed would thus involve a significant burden. See MPEP 808.02. The restriction is made final.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) except as otherwise indicated in this 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) except as otherwise indicated in this Office action.
There are no limitations deemed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 of this title, 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 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (i.e., portions of Applicant’s disclosure - hereafter referred to as APA) in view of Drossos (US 6,896,626).
In reference to claim 1
APA discloses:
A golf putter (1 - Figure 1) comprising:
a putter head (11 - Figure 1) that is made of metal (see par. [0004]);
a shaft (12) that is made of carbon fiber (see par. [0004]).
APA does not disclose:
a connecting member that includes
a positioning seat,
a first joining shaft extending from a bottom end of said positioning seat along an axis, and connected to said putter head, and
a second joining shaft extending from a top end of said positioning seat along the axis, said positioning seat having a width that is perpendicular to the axis and that is larger than a width of said first joining shaft perpendicular to the axis and a width of said second joining shaft perpendicular to the axis; and
the shaft includes a main body that has a tubular wall formed with a connecting groove, said second joining shaft being inserted into said connecting groove.
Drossos discloses:
a golf putter comprising:
a shaft (12 & 14) formed as a tubular wall (see Figure 2a) having a hollow interior (see Figure 2a) and comprising top and bottom sections (12,14), and
a connecting member (i.e., the assembly of elements 16a and 16b) that connects the shaft sections (12,14), the connecting member comprising a positioning seat (i.e., the portion of hub 24 that includes reliefs 32), a first joining shaft (38) extending from a bottom of the seat, and a second joining shaft (16a) extending from a top of the seat, wherein the positioning seat has a larger width (see Figure 2a) than the first joining shaft and the second joining shaft, and
the second joining shaft extends into the interior of one of the shaft sections (12);
the connecting member allows interchangeability (see col.3:ll.42-46) of the two sections of the shaft (e.g., to vary the length of the putter - see col.4:ll.42-47).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the putter of APA to form the main body as top and bottom sections with a tubular wall surrounding a hollow interior and to include a connecting member that divides/connects the top and bottom shaft sections, as disclosed by Drossos, for the purpose of allowing interchangeability of sections of the shaft.
APA in view of Drossos therefore addresses:
a connecting member (Drossos - 16a & 16b) that includes
a positioning seat (Drossos - ~24),
a first joining shaft (Drossos - 38) extending from a bottom end of said positioning seat along an axis, and connected (via the bottom shaft section of APA shaft 12 resulting from the modification over Drossos) to said putter head (APA - 11), and
a second joining shaft (Drossos - 16a) extending from a top end of said positioning seat along the axis, said positioning seat having a width (see Drossos Figure 2a) that is perpendicular to the axis and that is larger than a width of said first joining shaft perpendicular to the axis and a width of said second joining shaft perpendicular to the axis; and
the shaft includes a main body (i.e., the top shaft section of APA shaft 12 resulting from the modification over Drossos) that has a tubular wall (Drossos) formed with a connecting groove (Drossos), said second joining shaft being inserted into said connecting groove.
In reference to claim 4
APA in view of Drossos addresses:
The golf putter as claimed in claim 1, wherein said second joining shaft (Drossos - 16a) has at least one second surrounding protrusion (i.e., hollow shank section 28 - Drossos Figure 2) that protrudes outwardly (i.e., the hollow shank section 28 extends/protrudes radially outwardly of section 34 - see Drossos Figure 2) and that is in contact (see Drossos col.5:ll.41-45) with an inner surface of said tubular wall of said main body (i.e., the top shaft section of APA shaft 12 resulting from the modification over Drossos).
In reference to claim 5
APA in view of Drossos addresses:
The golf putter as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a grip (see APA Figure 1) that is connected to a top end of said main body (i.e., the top shaft section of APA shaft 12 resulting from the modification over Drossos), and that has an outer diameter not smaller (see APA Figure 1) than an outer diameter of said main body.
In reference to claim 6
APA in view of Drossos addresses:
The golf putter as claimed in claim 1, wherein: said putter head (APA - 11) has a putter head body that is formed with a connecting hole (i.e., the hole for receiving APA element 121 - see APA Figure 1), and a linking tube (i.e., the bottom shaft section of APA shaft 12 resulting from the modification over Drossos) that is inserted (via APA element 121 - see APA Figure 1) into said connecting hole and that is adhered (see APA par. [0004]) to said putter head body; and said linking tube has a through groove (i.e., the hollow interior, as in Drossos), said first joining shaft (Drossos - 38) being inserted into said through groove and adhered (as in Drossos - see col.5:ll.46-49) to said linking tube.
In reference to claim 7
APA in view of Drossos addresses:
The golf putter as claimed in claim 6, wherein said linking tube (i.e., the bottom shaft section of APA shaft 12 resulting from the modification over Drossos) is a straight tube (see APA Figure 1).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over APA in view of Drossos and Moriyama et al. (US 7,371,187 - hereafter referred to as Moriyama).
In reference to claim 8
APA in view of Drossos addresses:
The golf putter as claimed in claim 6, wherein said linking tube has a first tube portion (i.e., a bottom end portion) that is inserted into said connecting hole, and a second tube portion (i.e., a top end portion) that interconnects said first tube portion and said connecting member (Drossos - 16a & 16b).
APA in view of Drossos does not address:
said linking tube is a bent tube;
said second tube portion is inclined relative to said first tube portion.
Moriyama discloses:
a golf putter comprising a putter head (2) and a shaft (11), wherein the bottom end of the shaft includes a bent portion (see Figure 2), the bent portion comprising a first portion attached to the putter head that extends vertically and a second portion that is inclined relative to the first portion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the putter of APA in view of Drossos to include a bent portion in the bottom section of the shaft, as disclosed by Moriyama, for the purpose of allowing a desired putting posture and/or technique.
In reference to claim 9
APA in view of Drossos and Moriyama addresses:
The golf putter as claimed in claim 8, wherein said second tube portion (Moriyama) extends along the axis, the axis being inclined away from a horizontal ground line by an inclined angle that ranges from 66 degrees to 72 degrees (see Moriyama col.15:ll.44-49).
Claims 1, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over APA in view of Wu (US 2002/0137574), and wherein Drossos is cited on an evidentiary basis.
In reference to claim 1
APA discloses:
A golf putter (1 - Figure 1) comprising:
a putter head (11 - Figure 1) that is made of metal (see par. [0004]);
a main body (i.e., shaft 12) that is made of carbon fiber (see par. [0004]).
APA does not disclose:
a connecting member that includes
a positioning seat,
a first joining shaft extending from a bottom end of said positioning seat along an axis, and connected to said putter head, and
a second joining shaft extending from a top end of said positioning seat along the axis, said positioning seat having a width that is perpendicular to the axis and that is larger than a width of said first joining shaft perpendicular to the axis and a width of said second joining shaft perpendicular to the axis; and
the shaft includes a main body that has a tubular wall formed with a connecting groove, said second joining shaft being inserted into said connecting groove.
Wu discloses:
a golf putter comprising:
a shaft (20 & 10) formed as a tubular wall (see Figure 2) having a hollow interior (see Figure 2) and comprising two sections (20,10), and
a connecting member (30) that connects the shaft sections (20,10), the connecting member comprising a positioning seat (31), a first joining shaft (33) extending from a bottom of the seat, and a second joining shaft (32) extending from a top of the seat, wherein the positioning seat has a larger width (see Figure 3) than the first joining shaft and the second joining shaft, and
the second joining shaft extends into the interior of one of the shaft sections (20).
Drossos teaches that it is known to use a connecting member (16a & 16b) that divides a putter shaft into top and bottom sections (12,14) to allow interchangeability (see col.3:ll.42-46) of the two sections of the shaft (e.g., to vary the length of the putter - see col.4:ll.42-47). Furthermore, it is noted that the connecting member of Wu permits the same construction of Drossos and, thus, can be considered as achieving the same benefit and/or purpose.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the putter of APA to form the main body as top and bottom sections with a tubular wall surrounding a hollow interior and to include a connecting member that divides/connects the top and bottom shaft sections, as disclosed by Wu, for the purpose of allowing interchangeability of sections of the shaft.
APA in view of Wu therefore addresses:
a connecting member (Wu - 30) that includes
a positioning seat (Wu - 31),
a first joining shaft (Wu - 33) extending from a bottom end of said positioning seat along an axis, and connected (via the bottom shaft section of APA shaft 12 resulting from the modification over Wu) to said putter head (APA - 11), and
a second joining shaft (Wu - 32) extending from a top end of said positioning seat along the axis, said positioning seat having a width (see Wu Figure 3) that is perpendicular to the axis and that is larger than a width of said first joining shaft perpendicular to the axis and a width of said second joining shaft perpendicular to the axis; and
the shaft includes a main body (i.e., the top shaft section of APA shaft 12 resulting from the modification over Wu) that has a tubular wall (Wu) formed with a connecting groove (Wu), said second joining shaft being inserted into said connecting groove.
In reference to claim 4
APA in view of Wu addresses:
The golf putter as claimed in claim 1, wherein said second joining shaft (Wu - 32) has at least one second surrounding protrusion (i.e., threads 321 - Wu Figure 3) that protrudes outwardly and that is in contact (see Wu Figure 3) with an inner surface of said tubular wall of said main body (i.e., the top shaft section of APA shaft 12 resulting from the modification over Wu).
In reference to claim 5
APA in view of Wu addresses:
The golf putter as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a grip (see APA Figure 1) that is connected to a top end of said main body (i.e., the top shaft section of APA shaft 12 resulting from the modification over Wu), and that has an outer diameter not smaller (see APA Figure 1) than an outer diameter of said main body.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over APA in view of Wu and Drossos.
In reference to claim 6
APA in view of Wu addresses:
The golf putter as claimed in claim 1, wherein: said putter head (APA - 11) has a putter head body (i.e., a portion thereof) that is formed with a connecting hole (i.e., the hole for receiving APA element 121 - see APA Figure 1), and a linking tube (i.e., the bottom shaft section of APA shaft 12 resulting from the modification over Wu) that is inserted (via APA element 121 - see APA Figure 1) into said connecting hole and that is adhered (see APA par. [0004]) to said putter head body; and said linking tube has a through groove (i.e., the hollow interior, as in Wu), said first joining shaft (Wu - 33) being inserted into said through groove.
APA in view of Wu does not address:
said first joining shaft adhered to said linking tube.
Drossos discloses:
a golf putter comprising a shaft and a connecting member (16a & 16b) that connects top and bottom sections (12,14) of the shaft, wherein the connecting member includes joining shafts (28,38) that are adhered (see col.5:ll.41-49) to the interior of the shaft.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the putter of APA in view of Wu to include adhering the first joining shaft to the interior of the shaft (i.e., the linking tube in the aforementioned combination), as disclosed by Drossos, for the purpose of ensuring secure attachment therebetween.
In reference to claim 7
APA in view of Wu and Drossos addresses:
The golf putter as claimed in claim 6, wherein said linking tube (APA - a bottom section of shaft 12) is a straight tube (see APA Figure 1).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over APA in view of Wu, Drossos, and Moriyama.
In reference to claim 8
APA in view of Wu and Drossos addresses:
The golf putter as claimed in claim 6, wherein said linking tube (i.e., the bottom shaft section of APA shaft 12 resulting from the modification over Drossos) has a first tube portion (i.e., a bottom end portion) that is inserted into said connecting hole, and a second tube portion (i.e., a top end portion) that interconnects said first tube portion and said connecting member (Wu - 30).
APA in view of Wu and Drossos does not address:
said linking tube is a bent tube;
said second tube portion is inclined relative to said first tube portion.
Moriyama discloses:
a golf putter comprising a putter head (2) and a shaft (11), wherein the bottom end of the shaft includes a bent portion (see Figure 2), the bent portion comprising a first portion attached to the putter head that extends vertically and a second portion that is inclined relative to the first portion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the putter of APA in view of Wu and Drossos to include a bent portion in the bottom section of the shaft, as disclosed by Moriyama, for the purpose of allowing a desired putting posture and/or technique.
In reference to claim 9
APA in view of Wu, Drossos, and Moriyama addresses:
The golf putter as claimed in claim 8, wherein said second tube portion (Moriyama) extends along the axis, the axis being inclined away from a horizontal ground line by an inclined angle that ranges from 66 degrees to 72 degrees (see Moriyama col.15:ll.44-49).
Citations of Pertinent Art
The following art is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
The cited references disclose various aspects of Applicant’s disclosed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RYAN LEGENDRE whose telephone number is (571)270-3364. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9-5 PM ET.
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 Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER R LEGENDRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights