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 .
IDS
The IDS filed 7/30/25 has not been considered as it is is replete with references not pertinent to the combination of elements in the claimed invention in a club head having a combination of sensors, battery and controller. Such extraneous references only cloud the record. For example, and not exhaustive, 11,975,241 is a golf ball, 12,004,387 is a display device, 11,90,610 is a software system. Applicant is required to review and resubmit the IDS with only pertinent references to the claimed invention and a concise explanation of the relevance of each as set forth under 37 C.F.R. 1.98(3)(i).
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.
Claims 33-52 are 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.
In claim 33, “flight control technology (FCT)” is indefinite as one can not determine the structures required or the metes and bounds of what type of technologies are included. Turning to the specification, [0092] discusses some ability to “control the positioning of the golf club head 100A relative to the shaft 160A”. But it fails to disclose how such is done or offer any explicit definition by which any scope of the claim can reasonably be determined. Inherently all hosels can be considered to meet the recited function of, “joining the hosel and a shaft to control a position of the golf club head relative to the shaft.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 33-37, 39, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Davenport 2012/0046119.
As to claim 33,Davenport shows a golf club head comprising: an interior cavity 12 and hosel 8 that can be described as an (FCT) system where it inherently is adjustable in joining the hosel and a shaft to control a position of the golf club head relative to the shaft; impact sensors fixed to a toe-side and heel-side interior surface of the golf club head opposite his curved strike face; an electronic controller 18 fixed to the golf club head and electrically coupled at 17a with the first and second impact sensors, wherein the electronic controller comprises a processor, memory [0009], one or more circuit boards 29, and input/output peripherals [0128] on the one or more circuit boards as shown in fig. 3 and a battery 600 fixed to the golf club head and electrically coupled with the electronic controller to supply electrical power to the electronic controller. The electronic controller is configured to communicate impact data received from the first and second impact sensors to an external computing device that is external to the golf club head and is configured to provide a graphical representation of one or more impact locations on the curved strike face of the golf club head based on the impact data as shown in fig. 12. [0084] [0037].
Claim 34 and a required cable and port such as a micro USB is inherent in the disclosure of rechargeable batteries of [0161]. Claim 35 is met where all batteries are functionally non-rechargeable when not connected to a power source. The use of disposable vs. rechargeable batteries is not a patentable advance.
Element 26 is considered a rear power source port disposed 18 towards the rear of the club with the battery is seated within as called for by claims 36 and 40.
Wireless communication to an external computing device as called for by claims 37 and 39 is shown at [0003] and [0035]
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.
Claim(s) 38 and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davenport in view of Nielson et al. 10,035,049
As to claim 38, Davenport appears to only discuss wireless communications with his controller. However, wired communication such as USB are old and well-known. To have a wired connection would have been obvious in place of his wireless connections when such is not desired. does notDavenport does not mention the size and properties to which his sensor system is to be applied.
As to claim 41, Davenport does not discuss sizes and properties of the club head upon which he uses his system. Nielson teaches that club heads having the size and properties recited in claim 41 are known. To have taken the system of Davenport and applied it a club head of a known size and properties as known by Nielson and as claimed would have been obvious in order to indicate on that club head the impact point when striking a ball.
Claim(s) 42 and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davenport in view of Nielson et al. 10,035,049 and further in view of Beach et al. 2008/0146374.
Where the applied art does not appear to show the construction of the fiber reinforced polymeric material faceplate attached to an opening, such is a known alternative and construction as taught by Beach. To have constructed the faceplate of Davenport as taught by Beach would have been obvious in order to separately construct the faceplate and later assemble it to the club head. The battery 26 of Nielson is considered to be completely below a Z-up plane that can be defined, meeting the limitations of claim 43.
Claim(s) 44-46, 48, and 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davenport in view of Nielson et al. 10,035,049 and further in view of Beach et al. 2008/0146374 and further in view of Stites et al. 2005/0239576.
The above applied art does not discuss the size of the club head in terms of length from the leading edge. Stites teaches club heads such as Nielson’s are between 4.3-4.6 inches or about 114mm [0006]. As such, the position of the battery 26 in fig. 3 of Davenport is fairly suggested as 80mm from the leading edge as called for in claim 44. Claim 45 is considered shown in fig. 1 with at least three of the impact sensors located above an XY plane capable of being defined passing through the golf club head origin. The construction of the fiber reinforced polymeric material faceplates is considered fairly taught as discuss above with respect to Beach meeting the limitations of claim 46. Davenport is considered to meet the limitations of claims 48 and 49 with at least three impact sensors is located above an XY plane capable of being defined passing through the golf club head origin and a third impact sensor has a greater z-axis coordinate than at least one of the first impact sensor or the second impact sensor. Claim 50 is considered met where [0140] of Davenport shows calculating the locations on the club head using knonw estimation equations
Claim(s) 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davenport in view of Nielson et al. 10,035,049 and further in view of Beach et al. 2008/0146374 and further in view of Stites et al. 2005/0239576 and Takahashi et al. 2013/0331203.
While metal welded faceplates are not discussed by that previously applied art, such a construction in clubs is known as taught by Takahashi. To have welded a metal faceplate to Davenport would have been obvious in order to construct the faceplate separately.
Claim(s) 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davenport in view of Nielson et al. 10,035,049 and further in view of Beach et al. 2008/0146374 and further in view of Stites et al. 2005/0239576 and further in view of Wildhack WO 2008/055279.
Davenport does not go into the details of specifically using triangulation to calculate the location of impact using his sensor data. Wildhack teaches using such when calculating a location using data from force sensors on the face of a golf club at the bottom of pg. 8, ln. 33. To have use such would have been obvious to have used known various algorithms as taught by Wildhack.
Claim(s) 51 and 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davenport in view of Nielson et al. 10,035,049 and further in view of Beach et al. 2008/0146374 and further in view of Stites et al. 2005/0239576 and further in view of Golfzon WO 2012/1770079.
While Davenport does not appear to discuss any motion sensors that activate the controller or the use of his motion sensors [0011], such is considered known as taught by Golfzon in his abstract to reduce power consumption. To have activated the controller of Davenport using the input from his motion sensor and deactivated it would have been obvious in order to conserve power and preserve the battery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William Pierce whose telephone number is (571)272-4414 and E-mail address is bill.pierce@USPTO.gov. For emergency assistance, supervisory assistance can be obtained with Nicholas Weiss at (571)270-1775.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, communication via email at the above address may be found more effective. Where current PTO internet usage policy does not permit an examiner to initiate communication via email, such are at the discretion of the applicant. However, without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me by responding to this inquiry by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
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).
/WILLIAM M PIERCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights