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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wada et al. (2012/0149495 A1) (hereinafter 'Wada').
Regarding Claim 1, Wada discloses a golf club head (See figs. 1-6; para [0028]; see golf club head 1), comprising:
a strike face (See figs. 1-6; see face member 10), a crown portion (See figs. 1-6; see crown part 4), a sole portion (See figs. 1-6; see sole part 5), a rear portion (See fig. 2; see back portion of golf club head 1 at label for main body member 30), a toe portion (See figs. 1-6; see toe 3), a heel portion (See figs. 1-6; see heel 2), and a skirt (See figs. 1-6; see transition portion between face member 10 to crown part 4 and sole part 5) forming a hollow interior cavity (See fig. 2; para [0028]; see hollow interior of golf club head 1),
wherein the strike face comprises:
a geometric center (See figs. 1-6; see center point of central portion 17),
a strike face perimeter (See figs. 3-4; see very outer perimeter portion of peripheral portion 11 of face member 10), an outer periphery (See figs. 3-4; see top horizontal surface of peripheral portion 11 with medium thickness area 11a), a border perimeter (See figs. 3-4; see very inner perimeter of peripheral portion 11 of face member 10 adjacent small thickness area 14a), a thin periphery (See figs. 3-4; see small- thickness area 14a), an outer transition (See figs. 3-4; see portion of face member 10 that extends between depression 15a and first ridge 18), an inner transition (See figs. 3-4; see portion of face member 10 that extends between first ridge 18 and first valley 19), a central transition (See figs. 3-4; see portion of face member 10 that extends between valley 19 up to outer edge of central portion 17), a hinge located between the central transition and the inner transition (See figs. 3-4; see portion of face member 10 at first valley 19 that is between two local maximums at first ridge 18 and central portion 17), and a central region (See figs. 3-4; see central portion 17),
wherein:
the central region comprises a central region thickness (See figs. 3-4; see thickness T1 at central portion 17),
the hinge comprises a hinge thickness (See figs. 3-4; see thickness T3 at first valley 19),
the outer periphery comprises an outer periphery thickness (See figs. 3-4; see thickness T5 at medium thickness area 11a of peripheral portion 11), and
the thin periphery comprises a thin periphery thickness (See figs. 3-4; see thickness T4 at small thickness area 14a),
wherein the central region thickness, the hinge thickness, the outer periphery thickness, and the thin periphery thickness are constant (See figs. 3-4; see how medium thickness area 11a, small thickness area 14a, central portion 17 each have flat surfaces for constant thickness; see how first valley 19 is a single point at thickness T3 and thus has a constant thickness),
wherein the outer transition comprises an outer transition thickness (See figs. 3-4; see thickness of portion of face member 10 that extends between depression 15a and first ridge 18), the inner transition comprises an inner transition thickness (See figs. 3-4; see thickness of portion of face member 10 that extends between first ridge 18 and first valley 19), and the central transition comprises a central transition thickness (See figs. 3-4; see thickness of portion of face member 10 that extends between valley 19 up to outer edge of central portion 17);
wherein the outer transition thickness, the inner transition thickness, and the central transition thickness are not constant (See figs. 3-4; see how thickness varies between depression 15a and first ridge 18, between first ridge 18 and first valley 19, and between first valley 19 and central portion 17).
Regarding Claim 2, Wada shows the central region thickness is greater than the central transition thickness and the inner transition thickness (See figs. 3-4; see how central portion 17 is the thickest portion of face member 10), and the hinge thickness is less than the central transition thickness and the inner transition thickness (See figs. 3-4; see how thickness of face member 10 at first valley 19 is a local minimum between first ridge 18 and central portion 17).
Regarding Claim 3, Wada shows the central region thickness comprises a global maximum thickness of the strike face (See figs. 3-4; see how central portion 17 is the thickest portion of face member 10).
Regarding Claim 4, Wada shows the central region thickness is between 0.120 inch and 0.150 inch (See figs. 3-4; para [0035]; 3.8 mm = 0.149 inches), the hinge thickness is between 0.0875 inch and 0.100 inch (See figs. 3-4; para [0036]; 2.5 mm = 0.098 inches), the outer periphery thickness is between 0.09 inch to 0.11 inch (See figs. 3-4; para [0037]; 2.5 mm = 0.098 inches), and the thin periphery thickness is between 0.07 inch and 0.08 inch (See figs. 3-4; para [0038]; 1.8 mm = 0.071 inches).
Regarding Claim 5, Wada shows the central region comprises a shape from the group consisting of elliptical (See figs. 1-4; para [0029]; see elliptical shape of face member 10), oval, circular, egg, asymmetric elliptical, and oblong-ellipse.
Regarding Claim 6, Wada shows the central region further comprises a central region geometric center substantially coinciding with the strike face geometric center (See figs. 1-6; para [0034]; center of central portion 17 (center of the ellipse) may be the same as the "sweet spot").
Regarding Claim 8, Wada shows the central region comprises a central region offset angle formed between a central region major axis and a club head x-axis (See fig. 6; para [0041]; see offset angle theta between major axis 42 of central region 42 and horizontal like 40 that is the club head axis), wherein the central region offset angle is positive relative to the x-axis, such that the positive central region offset angle defines a toe-up central region orientation (See fig. 6; para [0041]; see how angle theta is positive and toe 3 points up), and the central region offset angle between 0-degrees and 25-degrees (para [0041]; See fig. 6; theta is preferably 10 degrees).
Regarding Claim 10, Wada shows the central region thickness is between 0.12 inch to 0.17 inch (See figs. 3-4; para [0035]; 3.8 mm = 0.149 inches).
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 7, 9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada et al. (2012/0149495 A1) (hereinafter 'Wada').
Regarding Claim 7, Wada discloses the central region further comprises a central region geometric center offset from the strike face geometric center (See figs. 1-6; para [0034]; center of central portion 17 (center of the ellipse) may be different/offset as the "sweet spot"). Wada discloses the claimed device with the exception of the central region further comprises a central region geometric center offset from the strike face geometric center an x-axis distance between 0.0125 inch and 1.0 inch and a y-axis distance between 0.0125 inch and 1.0 inch. Lacking any stated criticality, it has been held “[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. Further, design decisions regarding the offset in the x and y directions of the geometric center fall within the ordinary skill in the art of one designing a golf club head. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized routine experimentation and design choices in order to have chosen an appropriate offset for the geometric center as claimed thereby allowing ensuring the most appropriate location for the strike face geometric center to allow for the best chance at solid contact with a golf ball.
Regarding Claim 9, Wada shows the central region comprises a central region offset angle formed between a central region major axis and a club head x-axis (See fig. 6; para [0041]; see offset angle theta between major axis 42 of central region 42 and horizontal like 40 that is the club head axis), and the central region offset angle is between 0-degrees and 25-degrees (para [0041]; See fig. 6; theta is preferably 10 degrees). Wada discloses the claimed device with the exception of the central region offset angle is negative relative to the x-axis, such that the negative central region offset angle defines a toe- down central region orientation. Lacking any stated criticality, it has been held “[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. It is noted that the decision of whether to have the central region offset axis be positive or negative is a binary choice that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using routine experimentation and design principles. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the central region offset angle be negative relative to the x-axis, such that the negative central region offset angle defines a toe-down central region orientation in order to allow for the golf club head to be comfortable to use for golfers that prefer a toe-down central region orientation.
Regarding Claim 11, Wada teaches a golf club head (See figs. 1-6; para [0028]; see golf club head 1), comprising:
a strike face (See figs. 1-6; see face member 10), a crown portion (See figs. 1-6; see crown part 4), a sole portion (See figs. 1-6; see sole part 5), a rear portion (See fig. 2; see back portion of golf club head 1 at label for main body member 30), a toe portion (See figs. 1-6; see toe 3), a heel portion (See figs. 1-6; see heel 2), and a skirt (See figs. 1-6; see transition portion between face member 10 to crown part 4 and sole part 5) forming a hollow interior cavity (See fig. 2; para [0028]; see hollow interior of golf club head 1),
wherein the strike face comprises:
a geometric center (See figs. 1-6; see center point of central portion 17),
a strike face perimeter (See figs. 3-4; see very outer perimeter portion of peripheral portion 11 of face member 10), an outer periphery (See figs. 3-4; see top horizontal surface of peripheral portion 11 with medium thickness area 11a), a border perimeter (See figs. 3-4; see very inner perimeter of peripheral portion 11 of face member 10 adjacent small thickness area 14a), a thin periphery (See figs. 3-4; see small- thickness area 14a), an outer transition (See figs. 3-4; see portion of face member 10 that extends between depression 15a and first ridge 18), an inner transition (See figs. 3-4; see portion of face member 10 that extends between first ridge 18 and first valley 19), a central transition (See figs. 3-4; see portion of face member 10 that extends between valley 19 up to outer edge of central portion 17), a hinge located between the central transition and the inner transition (See figs. 3-4; see portion of face member 10 at first valley 19 that is between two local maximums at first ridge 18 and central portion 17), and a central region (See figs. 3-4; see central portion 17),
wherein:
the central region comprises a central region thickness (See figs. 3-4; see thickness T1 at central portion 17),
the hinge comprises a hinge thickness (See figs. 3-4; see thickness T3 at first valley 19),
the outer periphery comprises an outer periphery thickness (See figs. 3-4; see thickness T5 at medium thickness arca 11a of peripheral portion 11), and
the thin periphery comprises a thin periphery thickness (See figs. 3-4; see thickness T4 at small thickness arca 14a),
wherein the central region thickness, the hinge thickness, the outer periphery thickness, and the thin periphery thickness are constant (See figs. 3-4; see how medium thickness area 11a, small thickness area 14a, central portion 17 each have flat surfaces for constant thickness; see how first valley 19 is a single point at thickness T3 and thus has a constant thickness),
wherein the outer transition comprises an outer transition thickness (See figs. 3-4; see thickness of portion of face member 10 that extends between depression 15a and first ridge 18), the inner transition comprises an inner transition thickness (See figs. 3-4; see thickness of portion of face member 10 that extends between first ridge 18 and first valley 19), and the central transition comprises a central transition thickness (See figs. 3-4; see thickness of portion of face member 10 that extends between valley 19 up to outer edge of central portion 17);
wherein the outer transition thickness, the inner transition thickness, and the central transition thickness are not constant (See figs. 3-4; see how thickness varies between depression 15a and first ridge 18, between first ridge 18 and first valley 19, and between first valley 19 and central portion 17);
wherein:
the central transition comprises a central transition width measured between an outermost margin of the central region to an innermost margin of the central transition (See figs. 3-4; see width of portion of face member 10 between first valley 19 and central region 17), and
the inner transition comprises an inner transition width measured between an innermost margin of the inner transition to an outermost margin of the inner transition (See figs. 3-4; see width of portion of face member 10 between first ridge 18 and first valley 19); but does not specifically teach wherein the central transition width is between 0.250 inch and 0.350 inch, and the inner transition width is between 0.150 inch and 0.250 inch.
Wada discloses the central transition comprises a central transition width (See figs. 3-4; see width of portion of face member 10 between first valley 19 and central region 17), and wherein the inner transition comprises an inner transition width (See figs. 3-4; see width of portion of face member 10 between first ridge 18 and first valley 19). Lacking any stated criticality, it has been held “[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. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized routine experimentation and design choices in order to have chosen an appropriate width for the transitions as claimed thereby allowing ensuring the best chance at solid contact with a golf ball.
Regarding Claim 12, Wada as modified above shows the central region thickness is greater than the central transition thickness and the inner transition thickness (See figs. 3-4; see how central portion 17 is the thickest portion of face member 10), and the hinge thickness is less than the central transition thickness and the inner transition thickness (See figs. 3-4; see how thickness of face member 10 at first valley 19 is a local minimum between first ridge 18 and central portion 17).
Regarding Claim 13, Wada as modified above further shows the central region thickness comprises a global maximum thickness of the strike face (See figs. 3-4; see how central portion 17 is the thickest portion of face member 10).
Regarding Claim 14, Wada as modified above shows the central region thickness is between 0.120 inch and 0.150 inch (See figs. 3-4; para [0035]; 3.8 mm = 0.149 inches), the hinge thickness is between 0.0875 inch and 0.100 inch (See figs. 3-4; para [0036]; 2.5 mm = 0.098 inches), the outer periphery thickness is between 0.09 inch to 0.11 inch (See figs. 3-4; para [0037]; 2.5 mm = 0.098 inches), and the thin periphery thickness is between 0.07 inch and 0.08 inch (See figs. 3-4; para [0038]; 1.8 mm = 0.071 inches).
Regarding Claim 15, Wada as modified above shows the central region comprises a shape from the group consisting of elliptical (See figs. 1-4; para [0029]; see elliptical shape of face member 10), oval, circular, egg, asymmetric elliptical, and oblong-ellipse.
Regarding Claim 16, the modified Wada teaches the golf club head of claim 11, wherein the central region further comprises a central region geometric center substantially coinciding with the strike face geometric center (See figs. 1-6; para [0034]; center of central portion 17 (center of the ellipse) may be the same as the "sweet spot").
Regarding Claim 17, Wada discloses the central region further comprises a central region geometric center offset from the strike face geometric center (See figs. 1-6; para [0034]; center of central portion 17 (center of the ellipse) may be different/offset as the "sweet spot"). Wada discloses the claimed device with the exception of the central region further comprises a central region geometric center offset from the strike face geometric center an x-axis distance between 0.0125 inch and 1.0 inch and a y-axis distance between 0.0125 inch and 1.0 inch. Lacking any stated criticality, it has been held “[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. Further, design decisions regarding the offset in the x and y directions of the geometric center fall within the ordinary skill in the art of one designing a golf club head. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized routine experimentation and design choices in order to have chosen an appropriate offset for the geometric center as claimed thereby allowing ensuring the most appropriate location for the strike face geometric center to allow for the best chance at solid contact with a golf ball.
Regarding Claim 18, Wada as modified above shows the central region comprises a central region offset angle formed between a central region major axis and a club head x-axis (See fig. 6; para [0041]; see offset angle theta between major axis 42 of central region 42 and horizontal like 40 that is the club head axis), wherein the central region offset angle is positive relative to the x-axis, such that the positive central region offset angle defines a toe-up central region orientation (See fig. 6; para [0041]; see how angle theta is positive and toe 3 points up), and the central region offset angle between 0- degrees and 25-degrees (para [0041]; See fig. 6; theta is preferably 10 degrees).
Regarding Claim 19, Wada as modified above shows the central region comprises a central region offset angle formed between a central region major axis and a club head x-axis (See fig. 6; para [0041]; see offset angle theta between major axis 42 of central region 42 and horizontal like 40 that is the club head axis), and the central region offset angle is between 0-degrees and 25-degrees (para [0041]; See fig. 6; theta is preferably 10 degrees), Wada discloses the claimed device with the exception of the central region offset angle is negative relative to the x-axis, such that the negative central region offset angle defines a toe-down central region orientation. Lacking any stated criticality, it has been held “[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. It is noted that the decision of whether to have the central region offset axis be positive or negative is a binary choice that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using routine experimentation and design principles. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the central region offset angle be negative relative to the x-axis, such that the negative central region offset angle defines a toe-down central region orientation in order to allow for the golf club head to be comfortable to use for golfers that prefer a toe-down central region orientation.
Regarding Claim 20, Wada as modified above further shows the central region thickness is between 0.12 inch to 0.17 inch (See figs. 3-4; para [0035]; 3.8 mm = 0.149 inches).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Deshmukh et al (9,717,960); Matthews et al (12,702,905).
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/
21 August 2026
Prosecution Insights