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 § 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.
Claim(s) 24, 34, and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao et al. (US 8,608,591), hereafter referred to as Chao, in view of Yamamoto (US 2011/0098127).
Regarding claim 24, Chao discloses a golf club head (Figure 1, element 10) comprising:
a cast body (Figure 3, element 12) made of a titanium alloy (col. 3, line 38);
a first open region that at least partially defines a face opening in a face portion of the cast body (See annotated figure below);
PNG
media_image1.png
710
587
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a hosel (Figure 3, element 16) extending from a heel region of the cast body; and
a second open region that at least partially defines a crown opening in a crown portion of the cast body (“crown opening”, Figure 3, element 48); and
wherein:
the second open region is positioned rearward of the face opening and at least a portion of the second open region extends rearward of a rear portion of the hosel (Figure 2, note the crown panel 52, which is associated with the crown opening 48, is reward of the face opening 14 and the hosel 16; Note the annotated figure below contains a dotted line a showing the direction of extension rearward of a rear portion of the hosel);
the second open region extends from a heel region proximate the hosel along a front portion of the crown to a toe region opposite the hosel (Figure 1, note the crown panel 52, which is associated with the crown opening 48; Note the annotated figure below contains a dotted line b showing the direction of extension along the front portion of the crown from a heel region towards a toe region);
the second open region extends from the heel region proximate the hosel rearward toward a rear portion of the golf club head, and from the toe region opposite the hosel rearward toward the rear portion (Figure 1, note the crown panel 52, which is associated with the crown opening 48; Note the annotated figure below contains a dotted arrow line a showing the direction of extension rearward from a heel region proximate to the hosel and a dotted line c showing the direction of extension rearward from a toe region opposite the hosel);
PNG
media_image2.png
592
712
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a crown insert (Figure 3, element 52) is coupled to the cast body over the crown opening, and the crown insert is made from a non-metal material (“carbon fiber epoxy resin”, col. 6, lines 12-16);
the golf club head comprises a golf club head center-of-gravity (“CG”, col. 3, line 53) comprising a golf club head center-of-gravity horizontal x-axis (“CG x-axis”, col. 3, line 61) and a golf club head center-of- gravity vertical z-axis (“CG z-axis”, col. 3, line 60);
the golf club head comprises a moment of inertia about the golf club head center-of-gravity vertical z-axis (Izz) (col. 3, line 57), and a moment of inertia about the golf club head center-of-gravity horizontal x-axis (Ixx) (col. 3, line 57); and a ratio of Ixx/Izz is at least 0.55 (Based disclosed ranges for Izz and Ixx, the resulting ratio of Ixx/Izz is between about 0.608 to 0.817; “Izz is between about 520 and 590 kg-mm2”, claim 13, and “Ixx is between about 359 and 425 kg-mm2”, claim 14).
Chao does not disclose a golf club head comprising a cast body having a mass from 0.10 kg to 0.18 kg. Furthermore, Yamamoto teaches a golf club head (Figure 1, element 4) comprising a cast (“casting”, paragraph [0183]) body (Figure 1, element 14) having a mass of 0.18 kg (“A weight of the head body was 180 g”, paragraph [0191], line 8). Yamamoto reveals that it is known in the art of golf club heads to provide a cast body having a mass of 0.18 kg to supply a body fashioned from a lightweight but strong metal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the golf club head of Chao to provide a cast body having a mass of 0.18 kg, like in Yamamoto, to supply a body fashioned from a lightweight but strong metal.
Regarding claim 34, Chao in view of Yamamoto teaches the golf club head of claim 24, and Chao additionally discloses a golf club head further comprising a third open region that at least partially defines a sole opening in a sole portion of the cast body (“sole opening”, Figure 3, element 46), wherein: the third open region is positioned rearward of the face opening (Figure 2, note the sole panel 50, which is associated with the sole opening 46, is reward of the face opening 14) and at least a portion of the third open region extends rearward of a rear portion of the hosel (Figure 2, note the sole panel 50, which is associated with the sole opening 46, is reward of the hosel 16); and a sole insert is coupled to the cast body over the sole opening (“sole panel”, Figure 3, element 50), and the sole insert is made from a non-metal material (“carbon fiber epoxy resin”, col. 6, lines 12-16).
Regarding claim 36, Chao discloses a golf club head (Figure 1, element 10) comprising:
a cast body (Figure 3, element 12) made of a titanium alloy (col. 3, line 38);
a first open region that at least partially defines a face opening in a face portion of the cast body (See annotated figure below);
a strike plate (Figure 4, element 14) is coupled to the face opening, and the strike plate is a different material (“ceramic material” is different than a titanium alloy, col. 3, line 47) than the cast body;
a hosel (Figure 3, element 16) extending from a heel region of the cast body;
a second open region that at least partially defines a crown opening in a crown portion of the cast body (“crown opening” Figure 3, element 48), wherein the second open region is positioned rearward of the face opening and at least a portion of the second open region extends rearward of a rear portion of the hosel (Figure 2, note the crown panel 52, which is associated with the crown opening 48, is reward of the face opening 14 and the hosel 16);
a crown insert (Figure 3, element 52) coupled to the cast body over the crown opening, the crown insert being made from a non-metal material (“carbon fiber epoxy resin”, col. 6, lines 12-16);
a third open region that at least partially defines a sole opening in a sole portion of the cast body (“sole opening”, Figure 3, element 46), wherein the third open region is positioned rearward of the face opening and at least a portion of the third open region extends rearward of the rear portion of the hosel (Figure 2, note the sole panel 50, which is associated with the sole opening 46, is reward of the face opening 14 and the hosel 16);
a sole insert (Figure 3, elements 50) coupled to the cast body over the sole opening, and the sole insert is made from a non-metal material (“carbon fiber epoxy resin”, col. 6, lines 12-16);
a golf club head center-of-gravity (“CG”, col. 3, line 53) comprising a golf club head center-of-gravity horizontal x-axis (“CG x-axis”, col. 3, line 61) and a golf club head center-of-gravity vertical z-axis (“CG z-axis”, col. 3, line 60); and
a moment of inertia about the golf club head center-of-gravity vertical z-axis (Izz) (col. 3, line 57), and a moment of inertia about the golf club head center-of-gravity horizontal x-axis (Ixx) (col. 3, line 57), wherein Izz is greater than 400 kg-mm2 (“Izz is between about 520 and 590 kg-mm2”, claim 13), and a ratio of Ixx/Izz is at least 0.55 (“Ixx is between about 359 and 425 kg-mm2”, claim 14; the discloses ranges result in a ratio of Ixx/Izz between about 0.608 to 0.817).
Chao does not disclose an adjustable loft/lie assembly configured to couple a shaft of a golf club with the hosel. Furthermore, Yamamoto teaches an adjustable loft/lie assembly (Figure 11, elements 42 and 50; “the loft angle, the lie angle and the hook angle can be adjusted due to eight kinds of circumferential relative positions”, paragraph [0078]) configured to couple a shaft of a golf club with the hosel (Figure 2, where element 8 connects hosel 37 to shaft 6). Yamamoto reveals that it is known in the art of golf club heads to provide an adjustable loft/lie assembly configured to couple a shaft of a golf club with the hosel to select the loft angle and lie angle suitable for each player. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the golf club head of Chao to provide an adjustable loft/lie assembly configured to couple a shaft of a golf club with the hosel, like in Yamamoto, t to select the loft angle and lie angle suitable for each player.
Claim(s) 25-27 and 37-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao (US 8,608,591) in view of Yamamoto (US 2011/0098127) as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Stokke et al. (US 2017/0007893), hereafter referred to as Stokke.
Regarding claim 25, Chao in view of Yamamoto teaches the golf club head of claim 24, and Chao further discloses a strike plate (Figure 4, element 14) coupled to the face opening. Chao in view of Yamamoto does not teach a golf club head wherein the strike plate is made of a titanium alloy having 0.25% to 1.75% Vanadium (V) by weight. Furthermore, Stokke teaches a strike plate is made of a titanium alloy having 1% to2% Vanadium (V) by weight (“first material”, and “approximately 1-2% vanadium”, paragraph [0075]). Stokke reveals that it is known in the art of golf club heads to provide a strike plate is made of a titanium alloy having 1 to 2% Vanadium (V) by weight to supply a strike plate with a yield strength different than the yield strength of the golf club head body. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the golf club head of Chao in view of Yamamoto with the teachings of Stokke and to modify the proportion of Vanadium from 1-2 % to 0.25-1.75 %, since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see specification paragraph [0061] indicating multiple ranges).
Regarding claim 26, Chao in view of Yamamoto teaches the golf club head of claim 24, but Chao in view of Yamamoto does not teach a golf club head wherein the strike plate comprises at least 0.9% V by weight. Furthermore, Stokke teaches a strike plate is made of a titanium alloy having 1% to2% Vanadium (V) by weight (“first material”, and “approximately 1-2% vanadium”, paragraph [0075]). Stokke reveals that it is known in the art of golf club heads to provide a strike plate that comprises at least 0.9% V by weight to supply a strike plate with a yield strength different than the yield strength of the golf club head body. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the golf club head of Chao in view of Yamamoto with the teachings of Stokke and to modify the proportion of Vanadium from 1-2 % to at least 0.9 %, since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see specification paragraph [0061] indicating multiple ranges).
Regarding claim 27, Chao in view of Yamamoto teaches the golf club head of claim 24, but Chao in view of Yamamoto does not teach a golf club head wherein the strike plate comprises Chromium (Cr), but no more than 3% Cr by weight. Furthermore, Stokke teaches a strike plate comprising Chromium (Cr), but no more than 3% Cr by weight (“first material” and “approximately 2.5 -3.5% chromium”, paragraph [0074]). Stokke reveals that it is known in the art of golf club heads to provide a strike plate comprises 2.5-3.5% Chromium by weight to supply a strike plate with a yield strength different than the yield strength of the golf club head body. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the golf club head of Chao in view of Yamamoto and Stokke to modify the proportion of Chromium from 2.5-3.5 % to 2.5-3 %, which is no more than 3% Cr by weight since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see specification paragraph [0061] indicating multiple ranges).
Regarding claim 37, Chao in view of Yamamoto teaches the golf club head of claim 36, and Chao further discloses a strike plate (Figure 4, element 14) coupled to the face opening. Chao in view of Yamamoto does not teach a golf club head wherein the strike plate is made of a titanium alloy having 0.25% to 1.75% Vanadium (V) by weight. Furthermore, Stokke teaches a strike plate is made of a titanium alloy having 1% to2% Vanadium (V) by weight (“first material”, and “approximately 1-2% vanadium”, paragraph [0075]). Stokke reveals that it is known in the art of golf club heads to provide a strike plate is made of a titanium alloy having 1 to 2% Vanadium (V) by weight to supply a strike plate with a yield strength different than the yield strength of the golf club head body. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the golf club head of Chao in view of Yamamoto with the teachings of Stokke and to modify the proportion of Vanadium from 1-2 % to 0.25-1.75 %, since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see specification paragraph [0061] indicating multiple ranges).
Regarding claim 38, Chao in view of Yamamoto and Stokke teaches the golf club head of claim 37, and Stokke additionally teaches a cast body made of a titanium alloy having 0.25% to 1.75% Vanadium (V) by weight (“second material” and “approximately 0.75-1.25% vanadium”, paragraph [0081]). Stokke reveals that it is known in the art of golf club heads to provide a cast body made of a titanium alloy having 0.25% to 1.75% Vanadium (V) by weight to supply a cast body with a yield strength different than the yield strength of the strike plate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the golf club head of Chao in view of Yamamoto and Stokke to provide a cast body made of a titanium alloy having 0.25% to 1.75% Vanadium (V) by weight, like that of Stokke, to modulate with yield strength of the cast body without changing the yield strength of the strike plate.
Regarding claim 39, Chao in view of Yamamoto and Stokke teaches the golf club head of claim 38, and Stokke additionally teaches a cast body made of a titanium alloy comprising 0.5% to 3.25% Mo by weight (“second material” and “approximately 0.75-1.25% molybdenum” paragraph [0081]). Stokke reveals that it is known in the art of golf club heads to provide a cast body made of a titanium alloy comprising 0.75% to 1.25% Mo by weight to supply a strike plate with a yield strength different than the yield strength of the golf club head body. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the golf club head of Chao in view of Yamamoto and Stokke with the teachings of Stokke and to modify the proportion of Molybdenum from 0.75% - 1.25% to 0.5% - 3.25 %, since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see specification paragraph [0061] indicating multiple ranges).
Regarding claim 40, Chao in view of Yamamoto and Stokke teaches the golf club head of claim 39, and Stokke additionally teaches a cast body wherein the titanium alloy used to make the cast body comprises Chromium (Cr), but no more than 3% Cr by weight (“second material” and “less than approximately 0.5% chromium” paragraph [0083]). Stokke reveals that it is known in the art of golf club heads to provide a cast body made of a titanium alloy comprising no more than 0.5% Cr by weight to supply a strike plate with a yield strength different than the yield strength of the golf club head body. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the golf club head of Chao in view of Yamamoto and Stokke with the teachings of Stokke and to modify the proportion of Chromium from less than 0.5% to less than 3%, since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see specification paragraph [0061] indicating multiple ranges).
Claim(s) 28 and 31-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao (US 8,608,591) in view of Yamamoto (US 2011/0098127) and Stokke (US 2017/0007893) as applied to claims 25-27 above, and further in view of Quan (US 8,852,024) .
Regarding claim 28, Chao in view of Yamamoto and Stokke teaches the golf club head of claim 27, and Chao additionally discloses a golf club head wherein the Izz of the golf club head is greater than 400 kg-mm2 (“Izz is between about 520 and 590 kg-mm2”, claim 13). However, Chao in view of Yamamoto and Stokke does not teach a golf club head wherein the cast body has a volume of no more than 250 cm3. Quan teaches a golf club head wherein the cast body has a volume of no more than 250 cm3 (“ the body volume of the fairway wood head may be no more than 250 cc”, col. 2, lines 53-54). Quan reveals that it is known in the art of golf club heads to provide a cast body with a volume of no more than 250 cm3 to ensure the golf club head conforms to the standards for a fairway wood head. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the golf club head of Chao in view of Yamamoto and Stokke to provide a cast body with a volume of no more than 250 cm3 like that of Quan, to ensure the golf club head conforms to the standards for a fairway wood head.
Regarding claim 31, Chao in view of Yamamoto, Stokke, and Quan teaches the golf club head of claim 28, and Stokke additionally teaches a cast body made of a titanium alloy having 0.25% to 1.75% Vanadium (V) by weight (“second material” and “approximately 0.75-1.25% vanadium”, paragraph [0081]). Stokke reveals that it is known in the art of golf club heads to provide a cast body made of a titanium alloy having 0.25% to 1.75% Vanadium (V) by weight to supply a cast body with a yield strength different than the yield strength of the strike plate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the golf club head of Chao in view of Yamamoto, Stokke and Quan to provide a cast body made of a titanium alloy having 0.25% to 1.75% Vanadium (V) by weight, like that of Stokke, to modulate with yield strength of the cast body without changing the yield strength of the strike plate.
Regarding claim 32, Chao in view of Yamamoto, Stokke, and Quan teaches the golf club head of claim 31, and Chao additionally discloses a strike plate that is coupled to a lip peripherally surrounding the face opening (Figure 3: note the outline of the lip fully surrounding the face opening, Figure 6: note the lip supporting the top and bottom of the strike plate 14), and the strike plate comprises a composite face portion (“The strike plate 14 can be made of a composite material”, col. 3, line 46).
Regarding claim 33, Chao in view of Yamamoto, Stokke, and Quan teaches the golf club head of claim 28, and Chao additionally discloses a golf club head wherein at least a portion of a sole portion of the golf club head is formed of an insert made of a non-metal material (“The strike plate 14 can be … a ceramic material”, col. 3, line 45-47.).
Claim(s) 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao (US 8,608,591) in view of Yamamoto (US 2011/0098127), Stokke (US 2017/0007893), and Quan (US 8,852,024) as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Song (US 6,071,200).
Regarding claim 29, Chao in view of Yamamoto, Stokke and Quan teaches the golf club head of claim 28, but does not teach a golf club head wherein the crown insert occupies at least a majority of a crown portion of the golf club head. Furthermore, Song teaches a golf club head wherein the crown insert occupies at least a majority of a crown portion of the golf club head (Figure 1, element 12). Song reveals that it is known in the art of golf club heads to provide a crown insert that occupies at least a majority of a crown portion of the golf club head to supply a crown portion formed by press working of metal plates titanium alloy. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the golf club head of Chao in view of Yamamoto, Stokke, and Quan to provide a crown insert that occupies at least a majority of a crown portion of the golf club head, like that of Song, to supply a crown portion formed by press working of metal plates titanium alloy.
Regarding claim 30, Chao in view of Yamamoto, Stokke, Quan, and Song teaches the golf club head of claim 29, but does not teach a golf club head wherein at least a portion of the crown insert extends forward of the rear portion of the hosel. Furthermore, Song teaches a golf club head wherein at least a portion of the crown insert extends forward of the rear portion of the hosel (Figure 1, element 12 where element 121 extends forward of the hosel). Song reveals that it is known in the art of golf club heads to provide at least a portion of the crown insert that extends forward of the rear portion of the hosel to support the hosel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the golf club head of Chao in view of Yamamoto, Stokke, Quan, and Song to provide at least a portion of the crown insert that extends forward of the rear portion of the hosel, like that of Song, to support the hosel.
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao (US 8,608,591) in view of Yamamoto (US 2011/0098127) as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Quan (US 8,852,024) and Song (US 6,071,200 ).
Regarding claim 35, Chao in view of Yamamoto teaches the golf cub head of claim 24, and Chao additionally teaches an Izz of the golf club head that is greater than 400 kg-mm2 (“Izz is between about 520 and 590 kg-mm2”, claim 13); and at least a portion of a sole portion of the golf club head is formed of an insert made of a non-metal material (“carbon fiber epoxy resin”, col. 6, lines 12-16). Chao in view of Yamamoto does not teach a golf club head wherein: the cast body has a volume of no more than 250 cm3; and at least a portion of the crown insert extends forward of the rear portion of the hosel.
Furthermore, Quan teaches a golf club head wherein the cast body has a volume of no more than 250 cm3 (“ the body volume of the fairway wood head may be no more than 250 cc”, col. 2, lines 53-54). Quan reveals that it is known in the art of golf club heads to provide a cast body with a volume of no more than 250 cm3 to ensure the golf club head conforms to the standards for a fairway wood head. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the golf club head of Chao in view of Yamamoto to provide a cast body with a volume of no more than 250 cm3 like that of Quan, to ensure the golf club head conforms to the standards for a fairway wood head.
Furthermore, Song teaches a golf club head wherein at least a portion of the crown insert extends forward of the rear portion of the hosel (Figure 1, element 12 where element 121 extends forward of the hosel). Song reveals that it is known in the art of golf club heads to provide at least a portion of the crown insert that extends forward of the rear portion of the hosel to support the hosel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the golf club head of Chao in view of Yamamoto and Quan to provide at least a portion of the crown insert that extends forward of the rear portion of the hosel, like that of Song, to support the hosel.
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao (US 8,608,591) in view of Yamamoto (US 2011/0098127) and Stokke (US 2017/0007893) as applied to claim 37 above, and further in view of Allen (US 5,873,791) and Quan (US 8,852,024).
Regarding claim 41, Chao in view of Yamamoto and Stokke teaches the golf club head of claim 37, but does not teach a golf club head wherein: at least a portion of the cast body has a wall thickness between 0.6 mm and 0.8 mm; and the cast body has a volume of no more than 250 cm3 and a mass of no more than 0.18 kg.
Allen discloses a golf club head wherein at least a portion of the cast body has a wall thickness between 0.6 mm and 0.8 mm (“wall thicknesses on the order of 0.020 to 0.070 inches on the perimeter walls”, col. 1, line 43-44; this thickness is equal to 0.508 to 1.778 mm). Allen reveals that it is known in the art of golf club heads to provide at least a portion of the cast body has a wall thickness between 0.6 mm and 0.8 mm because club heads made of metal alloys must have extremely thin wall thicknesses in order to conform to commonly acceptable club head weights. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the golf club head of Chao in view of Yamamoto and Stokke with the teachings of Allen and to modify the wall thickness from 0.02-0.07 inches to 0.6-0.8 mm, since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap to or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see specification paragraph [0061] indicating multiple ranges).
Furthermore, Quan teaches a golf club head wherein the cast body has a volume of no more than 250 cm3 (“ the body volume of the fairway wood head may be no more than 250 cc”, col. 2, lines 53-54). Quan reveals that it is known in the art of golf club heads to provide a cast body with a volume of no more than 250 cm3 to ensure the golf club head conforms to the standards for a fairway wood head. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the golf club head of Chao in view of Yamamoto, Stokke and Allen to provide a cast body with a volume of no more than 250 cm3 like that of Quan, to ensure the golf club head conforms to the standards for a fairway wood head.
Additionally, Yamamoto also teaches a golf club head (Figure 1, element 4) comprising a cast (“casting”, paragraph [0183]) body (Figure 1, element 14) having a mass of 0.18 kg (“A weight of the head body was 180 g”, paragraph [0191], line 8). Yamamoto reveals that it is known in the art of golf club heads to provide a cast body having a mass of 0.18 kg to supply a body fashioned from a lightweight but strong metal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the golf club head of Chao in view of Yamamoto, Stokke, Allen, and Quan to provide a cast body having a mass of 0.18 kg, like in Yamamoto, to supply a body fashioned from a lightweight but strong metal.
Claim(s) 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao (US 8,608,591) in view of Yamamoto (US 2011/0098127),Stokke (US 2017/0007893), Allen (US 5,873,791), and Quan (US 8,852,024) as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Kleinert et al. (US 9,868,036), hereafter referred to as Kleinert.
Regarding claim 42, Chao in view of Yamamoto, Stokke, Allen, and Quan teaches the golf club head of claim 41, but does not teach a golf club head further comprising: a center of gravity (CG) projection that is at most 3 mm above or below a center of a strike face of the golf club head. Furthermore, Kleinert teaches a golf club head further comprising a center of gravity (CG) projection that is at most 3 mm above or below a center of a strike face of the golf club head (“projected CG (BP Proj.) on the ball striking face is lower than the geometric center”, col. 22, lines 37-39; Table 2 discloses BP Proj. values of 2.2 mm, 1mm , and 1.6mm below a geometric center). Kleinert reveals that it is known in the art of golf club heads to provide a center of gravity (CG) projection that is at most 3 mm below a center of a strike face of the golf club head to assist in creating a desirable reduction in backspin when striking a golf ball. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the golf club head of Chao in view of Yamamoto, Stokke, Allen, and Quan to provide a center of gravity (CG) projection that is at most 3 mm below a center of a strike face of the golf club head, like in Kleinert, to assist in creating a desirable reduction in backspin when striking a golf ball.
Claim(s) 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao (US 8,608,591) in view of Yamamoto (US 2011/0098127), Stokke (US 2017/0007893), Allen (US 5,873,791), Quan (US 8,852,024), and Kleinert (US 9,868,036) as applied to claim 42 above, and further in view of Song (US 6,071,200).
Regarding claim 43, Chao in view of Yamamoto, Stokke, Allen, Quan, and Kleinert teaches the golf club head of claim 42, but does not teach a golf club head wherein the crown insert occupies at least a majority of a crown portion of the golf club head. Furthermore, Song teaches a golf club head wherein the crown insert occupies at least a majority of a crown portion of the golf club head (Figure 1, element 12). Song reveals that it is known in the art of golf club heads to provide a crown insert that occupies at least a majority of a crown portion of the golf club head to supply a crown portion formed by press working of metal plates titanium alloy. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the golf club head of Chao in view of Yamamoto, Stokke, Allen, Quan, and Kleinert to provide a crown insert that occupies at least a majority of a crown portion of the golf club head, like that of Song, to supply a crown portion formed by press working of metal plates titanium alloy.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KALYN G YOUNGER whose telephone number is (571)272-0733. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
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.
/K.G.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/NICHOLAS J. WEISS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights