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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4, lines 1-2 recites “the maximum sole width being in a range from 1.10 in to 1.25 in”. Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1 which recites “the maximum sole width being in a range of 1.10 inch to 1.20 inch”. The claimed range falls outside of the range recited in claim 1. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ripp et al (US2021/0283471 A1) hereinafter (Ripp) in view of Parsons et al 8,961,336 hereinafter (Parsons).
Claim 1, Ripp discloses a wedge-type golf club head (1900, Fig. 19A-B; para [0157]) comprising:
a golf club head body (Fig. 19A-B - the body of the golf club head 1900) comprising:
a toe (Fig. 19B - the left toe end of the golf club head 1900), a heel (Fig. 19B - the right heel end of the golf club head 1900), a sole (1904, Fig. 19B) having a leading edge (1912, Fig. 19C) defining a forwardmost edge (1912, Fig. 19C), a front portion (1902, Fig. 19B) comprising a planar strike face (1902, Fig. 19B) having scorelines defining a grooved area (Fig. 19B - the groove lines of strike face 1902) and a strike face geometric center (1930, Fig. 19B), a rear surface (1910, Fig. 19C) opposite the front portion (1902, Fig. 19B), a top rail (1920, Fig. 19C), a hosel (1908, Fig. 19B-C), a strike face perimeter (Fig. 19B - the perimeter of strike face 1902), and a transition (Fig. 19B-C - the transition between 1902 and 1908) between the hosel and the strike face (para [0156]);
wherein a loft plane (1916, Fig. 19C; para [0158]) is tangent to the strike face geometric center (1930, Fig. 19B);
wherein an intersection of the loft plane (1916, Fig. 19C) and a ground plane (1931, Fig. 19C) define a loft angle (Fig. 19C - the angle between 1916 and the ground plane) and a loft plane intersection point (Fig. 19C - the intersection point between 1916 and the ground plane);
wherein an x-axis (Fig. 19B - the horizontal axis) is defined extending from the heel (Fig. 19B - the right heel end of the golf club head 1900) toward the toe (Fig. 19B - the left toe end of the golf club head 1900) through the strike face geometric center (1930, Fig. 19B), parallel to the ground plane, a y-axis (Fig. 19B - the vertical axis) is defined extending through the strike face geometric center from the sole (1904, Fig. 19B) toward the top line perpendicular to the x-axis, a z-axis (Fig. 19B - the axis into and out of the page) is defined in a front to rear direction through the strike face geometric center perpendicular to both the x- axis and the y-axis, and an xy plane (Fig. 19B - the plane extending between the vertical and horizontal axis) is defined by the x-axis and the y-axis;
wherein a strike face area (Fig. 19B - the area of strike face 1902) is planar and within the loft plane (1916, Fig. 19C);
wherein the strike face perimeter (Fig. 19B - the perimeter of strike face 1902) is defined at the transition from the strike face area planar surface (Fig. 19B - the area of strike face 1902);
wherein the sole (1904, Fig. 19B) further comprises a maximum sole width (Fig. 19B - the width of sole 1904) measured between the leading edge (1912, Fig. 19C) and a rear edge (Fig. 19C - the rear edge of the golf club), a sole maximum length measured between the toc (Fig. 19B - the left toe end of the golf club head 1900) and the heel (Fig. 19B - the right heel end of the golf club head 1900), and a total sole area that comprises a transition area (Fig. 21 - the area surrounding the sole), a bounce area (Fig. 21 - the lower left end area of the sole), and a relief area (Fig. 21 - the cavity of the sole).
With regards to the strike face area being in a range of 5.80 in2 to 6.0 in2. It is noted that a typical striking face area on a wedge golf club is roughly 4 to 6 square inches. Therefore, the claimed strike face area range is within the standard range for a club/strike face area.
With regards to the maximum sole width being in a range of 1.10 inch to 1.20 inch and the total sole area being in a range between 2.0 in2 to 2.6 in2. It is noted that a typical wedge golf club has a shole width in the range of about .75 to 1.0 inches if it has a narrow sole and a width of about 1.8 to 2.0 inches if it has a wide sole. The claimed range falls within the known range for sole with of a typical wedge type golf club head.
Ripp discloses the claimed device with the exception of the loft angle being at least 62 degrees and no more than 70 degrees. However, as disclosed by Parsons et al 8,961,336 it is known in the art for the loft angle can be between 5 and 75 degrees (column 3, lines 22-30) which covers the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the dimensions of the wedge-type golf club head to fall within the claimed range given that Parsons teaches such would alter the impact between the golf club head and a golf ball.
Lastly with regards to a ratio of loft angle to sole area (Loft(ang)/S(A)) satisfies the following relationship having a unit of degrees/in2: 27.0 ≤ Loft(ang)/S(A) ≤ 30.0. Since all claimed ranges are thought by Ripp, then the ratio would naturally be achieved.
Claim 2, Ripp shows the strike face (1902, Fig. 19B) comprises a maximum strike face height (Fig. 19B - the vertical height of 1902) measured between the leading edge (1912, Fig. 19C) and the strike face perimeter adjacent the top rail (1920, Fig. 19C), but does not expressly disclose the maximum strike face height being in a range from 2.6 in to 2.8 in. However, it is noted that it is well known in the golf club art to have a strike face height in the range of 2.6 to 2.8 inches in order to increase the hitting surface area and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the same range for the Ripp’s golf club head.
Claim 3, Ripp shows a lie angle is in a range (Fig. 19B the angle between the hosel 1908 and gourd plane 1931), but does not expressly disclose the lie angle being in a range between 63.5 degrees and 64.5 degrees. However, it is noted that it is well known that the lie angle for a typical wedge-type golf club head falls within the range of 63. to 64 degrees. This range falls within the claimed range and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used this range for the Ripp’s club head.
Claim 4, Ripp shows the maximum sole width is in a range (Fig. 19B - the width of sole 1904), but does not expressly disclose the maximum sole width being in a range from 1.10 in to 1.25 in. With regards to the maximum sole width being in a range of 1.10 inch to 1.25 inch and the total sole area being in a range between 2.0 in2 to 2.6 in2. It is noted that a typical wedge golf club has a shole width in the range of about .75 to 1.0 inches if it has a narrow sole and a width of about 1.8 to 2.0 inches if it has a wide sole. The claimed range falls within the known range for sole with of a typical wedge type golf club head.
Claim 5, Ripp shows the golf club head body defines a top rail height (Fig. 19C - the vertical height between the ground plane the top rail 1920) measured perpendicularly from a ground plane (1931, Fig. 19C) to an imaginary plane tangent to the top rail (1920, Fig. 19C) when the golf club head is at an address position, but does not expressly disclose the top rail height is in a range of 1.55 inches to 1.65 inches. It is noted that a typical wedge golf club top rail height has a range of 1.50 inches to 1.54 inches for shorter wedges and 1.65 to 1.70 for taller wedges. The claimed range falls within the known range for top rail heights for a typical wedge type golf club head.
Claim 6, Ripp shows a transition angle (Fig. 21 - the angle shown as Thetasub3) is defined between the leading edge (1912, Fig. 19C) and a transition area (Fig. 21 - the area surrounding the sole) having a transition area rearward boundary (Fig. 21 the rear boundary of the area surrounding the sole) between the leading edge and a bounce area (Fig. 21 - the lower left end area of the sole); wherein the transition area comprises a maximum transition radius of curvature (Fig. 21 - the lower left end area of the sole), and the transition area comprises a maximum transition width (Fig. 21 - the width of the area surrounding the sole) measured between the leading edge (1912, Fig. 19C) and the transition area rearward boundary (Fig. 21 - the rear boundary of the arca surrounding the sole); and but does not expressly disclose the maximum transition radius of curvature is in a range of 0.07 inch and 0.09 inch. The examiner takes Official Notice that it is known in the golf art to provide for a wedge-type golf club head a radius of curvature is in a range of 0.07 inch and 0.09 inch in order to alter the impact between the golf club head and a golf ball.
Claim 7, Ripp shows the golf club head body further comprises a club head mass (Fig. 19A-B - the mass of the body of the golf club head 1900), but does not expressly disclose the golf club head body further comprises a club head mass in a range of 330 grams to 360 grams. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a club head having a mass in the range of 330 grams to 360 grams in order to form a specialist wedge such as a lob wedges, sand wedges, or high-MOI models designed for precision around the green, since the heavier heads provide a more solid, stable feel at impact, which is ideal for shots like chips, pitches and full swings from the green which in turn can improve control and consistency on short game shots.
Claim 8, Ripp shows the golf club head body further comprises a center of gravity (CG) (1932, Fig. 19B); wherein a CG height (CG(H))(Fig. 19B - the vertical height between 1931 and 1932) is measured perpendicularly to the ground plane (1931, Fig. 19B), but docs not expressly disclose the CG height is in a range of 0.70 inch to 0.75 inch. It is noted that a center of gravity (CG) height in the 0.70–0.75 inch range on a wedge head is generally considered low to mid-low relative to modern wedge designs, and it can have a noticeable effect on ball flight, feel, and control. The lower CG (closer to the sole) tends to produce lower, more penetrating ball flight and can help with control on high-lofted shots. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a low CG for Ripps club head given that the general knowledge in the art teaches such a low CG can have a noticeable effect on ball flight, feel, and control which typically produces lower, more penetrating ball flight and can help with control on high-lofted shots
Claim 9, Ripp shows the first mass plane (Fig. 19B - the horizontal plane of 1932) parallel to the ground plane is located above the ground plane (1931, Fig. 19B), but does not expressly disclose 34% of the club head mass being located under a first mass plane parallel to the ground plane; wherein the first mass plane is located 0.49 inch above the ground plane. It is noted that [W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have positioned the first mass plane at about .49 inches above the ground plane for the Ripp club head, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 10, Ripp shows the strike face (1902, Fig. 19B) comprises a minimum face thickness (Fig. 19C - the thickness of 1902) measured perpendicularly between a strike face front surface (Fig. 19C - the front surface of 1902) and a strike face rear surface (Fig. 19C - the rear surface of 1902), but does not expressly disclose the minimum face thickness being in a range between 0.09 inch and 0.11 inch. However, it is noted that for wedge-type golf club heads, the face thickness is a critical design parameter that affects durability, feel, and performance. The USGA and R&A equipment rules do not set a fixed minimum thickness for wedges, but they do regulate groove and punch mark dimensions, which indirectly influence face construction USGA. In practice, manufacturers often design wedge faces to be slightly thicker than 0.09 inches to ensure longevity and consistent performance, with many modern wedges falling in the 0.09–0.11 inch range. Furthermore, the face thickness is critical because of durability, feel & feedback and spin control Forged wedges often have faces in the 0.09–0.10 inch range for a balance of feel and durability.
CNC-milled or composite wedges may be slightly thicker (up to 0.11 inch) to improve face strength and consistency and for High-performance wedges, some manufacturers push toward the upper end of the range (0.105–0.11 in) for enhanced durability and stability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a face thickness in the claimed range in order to improve face strength and consistency.
Claim 11, Ripp shows a perimeter extension (Fig. 19B - the perimeter around 1902) extending rearward from the strike face (1902, Fig. 19B); and wherein the perimeter extension (Fig. 19B - the perimeter around 1902), an upper sole surface (Fig. 20A - the upper surface of the sole), and a strike face rear surface (Fig. 20A - the rear surface of the strike face) together define a rear cavity (Fig. 20A - the rear cavity of the golf club head).
Claim 12, Ripp shows a leading edge (Fig. 19C - the height of 1912) height is measured perpendicular to the ground plane (1931, Fig. 19C) to the leading edge (1912, Fig. 19C) when the golf club head body is in an address position, and further discloses wherein a ratio between strike face surface area and a blade height follows a relationship (para [0187]) and a table of values for the leading edge and the center of gravity height (para [0199] - Table 1), but does not specifically teach wherein. With regards to the following relationship is true: 0.50 ≤ LE (H)/CG(H) ≤ 0.65. Since all claimed ranges are thought by Ripp, then the ratio would naturally also be achieved.
Claim 13, Ripp shows a ratio between strike face surface area and a loft angle follows a relationship (para [0191]), and a table of values for the surface area and the bounce (para [0199] - Table 1). With regards to a ratio of the strike face surface area (SF(A)) to a bounce surface area (B(A)) is within the following relationship: 2.60 ≤ SF(A)/B(A) ≤ 2.70. Since all claimed ranges are thought by Ripp, then the ratio would naturally be achieved.
Claim 14, Ripp shows a ratio between the center of gravity and the loft angle follows a relationship (para [0078]) and a table of values for the top rail height and the center of gravity height (para [0199] - Table 1). With regards to a ratio of the CG height (CG(H)) to the top rail height (TR(H)) is within the following relationship: 0.4 ≤ CG(H)/TR(H) ≤ 0.5. Since all claimed ranges are thought by Ripp, then the ratio would naturally be achieved.
Claim 15, Ripp shows a rearmost plane (Fig. 19C - the rear vertical plane aligned with 1920) is defined perpendicular to the ground plane (1931, Fig. 19C) and tangent to the top rail (1920, Fig. 19C); wherein a loft plane intersection point (Fig. 19C the intersection point between 1916 and the ground plane) is the intersection of the loft plane (1916, Fig. 19C) with the ground plane (1931, Fig. 19C); wherein a loft plane intersection point (Fig. 19C - the intersection point between the rear vertical plane aligned with 1920 and the ground plane) to rearmost plane distance (RP(Dist)) is measured perpendicularly between the intersection of the loft plane (1916, Fig. 19C) with the ground plane (1931, Fig. 19C) and the rearmost plane (Fig. 19C – the rear vertical plane aligned with 1920). Ripp does not expressly disclose the (RP(Dist)) is in an inclusive range between 3.3 inches to 3.6 inches. However, wedge heads are designed to balance control, spin, and forgiveness. The width of the sole and overall head size generally ranges from about 3.2 inches to 3.7 inches, depending on the type of wedge (pitching, gap, sand, or lob) and the manufacturer’s design philosophy. A head measuring 3.3–3.6 inches is consistent with standard wedge designs, providing enough mass for stability while remaining compact enough for precision around the greens. The claimed range falls within the known range for sole with of a typical wedge type golf club head.
Claim 16, Ripp discloses the wedge-type golf club head of claim 15, wherein a distance measured parallel to the ground plane (1931, Fig. 19C) between the leading edge (1912, Fig. 19C) and the rearmost plane (LE(Dist)) (Fig. 19C - the rear vertical plane aligned with 1920) is in a range. Ripp does not expressly disclose a distance measured parallel to the ground plane between the leading edge and the rearmost plane (LE(Dist)) is in a range between 2.5 inches to 2.7 inches. However, it is noted that for most modern wedges, LE(Dist) is generally in the 2.5 to 2.7 inch range. This is a common design target for high-performance wedges because 1) it provides a balanced face width that allows for good ball contact and forgiveness; supports the taller face profiles typical of wedges, which help with ball launch and spin control Hireko Golf; and aligns with the blade length and hosel length designations, where shorter blade lengths (like 2.5–2.7 inches) are often paired with shorter hosels for better control and higher ball speeds. The claimed range falls within the known range for sole with of a typical wedge type golf club head.
Claim 17, Ripp shows a ratio between strike face surface area and a blade height follows a relationship (para [0187]) and a table of values for the strike face area (para [0199] - Table 1) and a plurality of different styles of grooves (para [0097]). Ripp does not expressly disclose a ratio between the strike face area (SF(A)) and a grooved arca (Grv(A)) is defined by the following relationship: 1.00 ≤ sF(A)/ Grv(A) ≤ 1.20. Since all claimed ranges are thought by Ripp, then the ratio would naturally be achieved.
Claim 18, Ripp shows a ratio between strike face surface area and a blade height follows a relationship (para [0187]) and a table of values for the strike face area and the sole surface area (para [0199] - Table 1). Ripp does not expressly disclose a ratio between the strike face arca (SF(A)) and a sole surface arca (S(SA)) is defined by the following relationship: 2.15 ≤ SF(A)/S(SA) ≤ < 2.8. Since all claimed ranges are thought by Ripp, then the ratio would naturally be achieved.
Claim 19, Ripp shows a ratio between strike face surface area and a blade height follows a relationship (para [0187]) and a moment of inertia is measure about the center of gravity and has a range (para [0087]). Ripp does not expressly disclose a ratio between a moment of inertia around a vertical axis through the CG (lyy) and a moment of inertia around a toe-to-heel axis through the CG (Ixx) is defined by the following relationship: 2.65≤lyyIxx2.65 ≤ Iyy/Ixx 2.85. Since all claimed ranges are thought by Ripp, then the ratio would naturally be achieved.
20, Ripp shows a ratio between strike face surface area and a blade height follows a relationship (para [0187]) and a table of values for the strike face area (para [0199] - Table 1). Ripp does not expressly disclose a ratio between a strike face maximum height (SF(0-1Max)) and strike maximum width SF(wMax)measured in a heel-to-toe direction is defined by the following relationship: 0.9 ≤ SF(Hmax)/SF(Wmax) ≤ 1.0. Since all claimed ranges are thought by Ripp, then the ratio would naturally be achieved.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Stokke et al (11,541,284).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MITRA ARYANPOUR whose telephone number is (571) 272-4405. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon, Thurs, Fri 8:00am to 4:00pm, Wed 8:00-2:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eugene Kim can be reached on 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 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.
/MITRA ARYANPOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/ma/
25 July 2026
Prosecution Insights