Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 25, 2026
Application No. 18/936,651

GOLF CLUB HEAD

Non-Final OA §DOUBLEPATENT
Filed
Nov 04, 2024
Priority
Sep 27, 2007 — continuation of 7731603 +10 more
Examiner
HUNTER, ALVIN A
Art Unit
3711
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Taylor Made Golf Company, Inc.
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
2m
Est. Remaining
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allowance Rate
1149 granted / 1340 resolved
+15.7% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+2.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
1383
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.1%
-37.9% vs TC avg
§103
47.7%
+7.7% vs TC avg
§102
16.3%
-23.7% vs TC avg
§112
15.9%
-24.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1340 resolved cases

Office Action

§DOUBLEPATENT
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 31, 32, 34-36, 40-44, 47, 49, and 55-62 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-8, 11, and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11278773. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of US Patent 11278773 does not claim the rear mass location from the origin, the maximum head height and width, the mass of the club head, the materials of the club head, and the center of gravity y-axis coordinate. Though not in claim 1 of US Patent 11278773, claims 10 claims the club head mass and the maximum height and width of the club head, claim 11 claims the center of gravity of the z-axis coordinate, and claim 12 claims the center of gravity y-axis coordinate. Claim 8 claims one of the material of the club head being a composite which implies that the other material is metal. Claim 1 also inherently claims the inertia about the z-axis being at most 177 kg-mm2 greater than the inertia about the x-axis due to the minimum inertia about the z-axis being 450 kg-mm2 and the minimum inertia about the x-axis being 280 kg-mm2. Based on the above, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found claims 31, 55 and 59 to be obvious over claims 1, 2, 6-8, 11, and 12 of US Patent 11278773. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 46 and 50-52 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) s 31, 32, 34-36, 40-44, 46, 47, 49-52, and 55-62 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVIN A HUNTER whose telephone number is (571)272-4411. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 7:30AM to 4:00PM Eastern Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eugene Kim, can be reached at telephone number 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice. /ALVIN A HUNTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 04, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 28, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 15, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT
Sep 23, 2026
Response Filed
Oct 16, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12766385
GOLF CLUB HAVING AN ADJUSTABLE WEIGHT ASSEMBLY
3y 11m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12766380
GOLF CLUB HEAD INCLUDING AN INSERT
2y 11m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12766381
GOLF CLUB HEAD INCLUDING AN INSERT
2y 11m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12752162
Variable Bounce and Heel Relief for Irons
2y 7m to grant Granted Oct 06, 2026
Patent 12734420
GOLF CLUB HAVING AN ADJUSTABLE WEIGHT ASSEMBLY
2y 9m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

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

Prosecution Projections

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+2.8%)
2y 1m (~2m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1340 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

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

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

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month