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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: see MPEP 608.01 “USE OF METRIC SYSTEM OF MEASUREMENTS IN PATENT APPLICATIONS”: In order to minimize the necessity in the future for converting dimensions given in the English system of measurements to the metric system of measurements and vice versa when using printed patents as research and prior art search documents, all patent applicants should use the metric (S.I.) units followed by the equivalent English units when describing their inventions in the specifications of patent applications. The initials S.I. stand for “Le Système International d' Unités,” the French name for the International System of Units, a modernized metric system adopted in 1960 by the International General Conference of Weights and Measures based on precise unit measurements made possible by modern technology. Appropriate correction is required for the above objection. See MPEP 608.01.
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 –
Claims 1-3, 7, 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Parsons et al (US2023/0330496A1) hereinafter (Parsons).
Claim 1, Parsons discloses a golf club head that is of an iron type, the golf club head (figures 67-69; paragraphs 0067, 0245-0253) comprising:
a face portion (face portion 6545) that includes
a face surface (impact area 6700) configured to hit a ball, and
a plurality of score lines (score lines 6712, 6714, 6716, 6718) recessed from the face surface and extending in a toe-heel direction (figures 67-68), wherein
a first region (1st set of rectangular projections 6910), a second region (2nd set of rectangular projections 6920), and a third region (3rd set of rectangular projections 6930) are sequentially defined in the face surface located between the score lines (6712, 6714, 6716, 6718) that are next to each other, the first region, the second region, and the third region being arranged in a direction perpendicular to the score lines (figure 68 shows the first, second and third regions i.e. the rectangular projections are perpendicular to the score lines 6712, 6714, 6716, 6718),
the first region (6910) includes a plurality of first fine grooves (6911) recessed from the face surface and extending in the direction perpendicular to the score lines (Note: the fine grooves in Parsons may be identified by what Parsons refers to as rectangular projections 6911),
the second region (6920) includes a plurality of second fine grooves (6921) recessed from the face surface and extending in a direction oblique to the score lines (paragraph 0247, lines 1-10; the plurality of markings 6720 may extend diagonally or in other directions on the face portion 6545; Note: the fine grooves in Parsons may be identified by what Parsons refers to as rectangular projections 6921), and
the third region (third set of rectangular projections 6930) includes a plurality of third fine grooves (6931) recessed from the face surface and extending in the direction perpendicular to the score lines (Note: the fine grooves in Parsons may be identified by what Parsons refers to as rectangular projections 6931).
Claim 2, Parsons shows one end of the plurality of first fine grooves (6911; figures 67-69; paragraph 0247) reaches one of the score lines that are next to each other,
another end of the plurality of first fine grooves (6911) is connected to one end of the plurality of second fine grooves (6921),
another end of the plurality of second fine grooves (6921) is connected to one end of the plurality of third fine grooves (6931), and another end of the plurality of third fine grooves (6931) reaches another of the score lines (6712, 6714, 6716, 6718) that are next to each other.
Claim 3, Parsons shows the plurality of first fine grooves (6921) extend inward of the one of the score lines (6712, 6714, 6716, 6718) that are next to each other, and
the plurality of third fine grooves (6931) extend inward of the another of the score lines (6712, 6714, 6716, 6718) that are next to each other.
Claim 6, Parsons shows in the direction perpendicular to the score lines, a length of the second region is greater than a length of each of the first region and the third region (the length of the second region is shown to be greater in figure 68).
Claim 7, Parsons shows in the direction perpendicular to the score lines, the length of each of the first region and the third region is less than the length of the second region, where L denotes a distance between the score lines that are next to each other, in the direction perpendicular to the score lines. As shown in figures 68 and 69 the lengths of the first, second and third regions substantially fall within the claimed range.
Claim 10, Parsons shows an oblique angle of the second fine grooves with respect to the score lines is 30 degrees or more and 60 degrees or less (as taught in paragraph 0247 as illustrated in FIG. 68, for example, each of the second markings 6822, 6824, 6826, and 6828 may intersect one or more first markings including 6812, 6814, 6816 and 6818 and one or more grooves i.e. score lines including 6712, 6714, 6716 and 6718).
Claim 11, Parsons shows a loft angle of the golf club head is 45 degrees or more (as taught in paragraph 0245 the loft angle may vary based on the type of golf club (e.g., a long iron, a middle iron, a short iron, a wedge, etc.). In one example, the loft angle may be between 5 degrees and 75 degrees. In another example, the loft angle may be between 20 degrees and 60 degrees.
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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parsons et al (US2023/0330496A1) hereinafter (Parsons).
Claim 4, Parsons shows in the embodiment of figures 63-64 (paragraph 0241) the plurality of grooves can form “a mesh”. It has been held that a change in shape and/or form is generally recognized as a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed “mesh” was significant. Parson’s “mesh” as shown in figures 63-64 could have been incorporated to the second grooves of the embodiment of figures 67-69 given that this embodiment teaches that the grooves can be positioned at an angle, rearranging the markings can be placed in any orientation to change spin and flight features. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 5, Parsons shows in the embodiment of figures 63-64 (paragraph 0241) the plurality of grooves can form “a mesh”. It has been held that a change in shape and/or form is generally recognized as a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed “mesh” was significant. Parson’s “mesh” as shown in figures 63-64 could have been incorporated to the second grooves of the embodiment of figures 67-69 given that this embodiment teaches that the grooves can be positioned at an angle. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parsons et al (US2023/0330496A1) hereinafter (Parsons) in view of Ueda et al (10,639,525) herein after (Ueda).
Claim 8, Parsons discloses the claimed device with the exception of the pitch of the first fine grooves, a pitch of the second fine grooves, and a pitch of the third fine grooves are 0.06 mm or more and 0.5 mm or less. However, Ueda (column 16, lines 43-45 teaches “Although, the upper limit for the pitch P is not particularly limited, the pitch P is preferably 4 w+(0.4 mm or less), more preferably 4 w+(0.3 mm or less)”) discloses a range for the pitch which fall within the limitations set forth in the claim. In view of Ueda, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fine grooves of Parsons to reflect the specific claimed pitch, the motivation being to enable the striking plate to impart a desired amount of ball spin to a struck golf ball.
Claim 9, Parsons discloses the claimed device with the exception of the pitch of the first fine grooves, a pitch of the second fine grooves, and a pitch of the third fine grooves are 0.06 mm or more and 0.15 mm or less. However, Ueda (column 16, lines 43-45 teaches “Although, the upper limit for the pitch P is not particularly limited, the pitch P is preferably 4 w+(0.4 mm or less), more preferably 4 w+(0.3 mm or less)”) discloses a range for the pitch which fall within the limitations set forth in the claim. In view of Ueda, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fine grooves of Parsons to reflect the specific claimed pitch, the motivation being to enable the striking plate to impart a desired amount of ball spin to a struck golf ball.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tateno et al (8,287,401); Shimahara (9,149,692).
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/
22 June 2026
Prosecution Insights