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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because they are of insufficient quality to permit reproduction. The drawings are in grayscale, handwritten, schematic in nature, and have linework which would reproduce poorly. The drawings should be in black and white . Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claims 7-23 have been renumbered 6-22.
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the geometric center" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, as best understood by the Examiner, “the geometric center” will be interpreted as “a geometric center”. Examiner suggests amending the phrase as such to overcome the antecedent basis issues.
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.
(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) 1-4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Golden et al. (US 2160067561), hereinafter: “Golden”.
Regarding Claim 1
Golden teaches:
A golf club head that(100), when oriented in a reference position, comprises:
a crown(106);
a heel portion(portion proximate 116);
a toe portion opposite the heel portion(portion proximate 114);
a sole opposite the crown(not shown; P[0074]);
a striking face(102) comprising:
a striking face periphery(112,114,116);
a heel-wardmost extent(heel end of axis 220; Fig 2);
a toe-wardmost extent(toe end of axis 220; Fig 2);
a lowermost extent(sole end of axis 223);
an uppermost extent(crown end of axis 223);
a face center(201, 401, 601, 701, 1001); and
a maximum characteristic time corresponding to a point P1 on the striking face, P1 being laterally spaced from the face center by a distance D6 no less than 21.3mm(max CT corresponding to a point P1 outside the perimeter of the impact area 1080, P[0102], the point P1 spaced from the 1001 by a distance greater than K equal to 0.84” or 21.336 mm, P[0100]; ).
Regarding Claim 2
Golden teaches:
The golf club head of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the maximum characteristic time is no less than 250µs(“maximum CT value of the toe area 1084 and the maximum CT value of the heel area 1086 are each greater than or equal to 257 microseconds”; P[0102]).
Regarding Claim 3
Golden teaches:
The golf club head of claim 2(see rejection of claim 2 above), wherein the maximum characteristic time is greater than 257µs(“maximum CT value of the toe area 1084 and the maximum CT value of the heel area 1086 are each greater than or equal to 257 microseconds”; P[0102])
Regarding Claim 4
Golden teaches:
The golf club head of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein P1 is located toe-ward of the face center(1084 is toe-ward of the face center 1001; Fig 10) .
Regarding Claim 6
Golden teaches:
The golf club head of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising a sweet spot(742; Fig 9) that is laterally spaced from the geometric center by a distance D2 that is no greater than 2mm(D = 0.25 mm, 1 mm as the sweet spot 742 is centered on 741 which is offset from 701 by a distance D; Fig 9; P[0090]-[0094]).
Regarding Claim 7
Golden teaches:
The golf club head of claim 6(see rejection of claim 6 above), wherein the sweet spot is laterally spaced from the face center by a distance D3 that is greater than D2(as clearly shown in Fig 9, the sweet spot 742 extends laterally to include a portion of the sweet spot that extends beyond a distance D from the center of the sweet spot, namely a distance E and/or F, which is greater than a distance D; therein a distance D3 = a distance E or a distance F > a distance D2; Fig 9; P[0090]-[0094])
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golden in view of Bacon et al. (US 20250195964), hereinafter: “Bacon”.
Regarding Claim 5
Golden teaches:
The golf club head of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above),
Golden fails to teach:
wherein the geometric center is laterally spaced from the face center by a distance D1 no less than 2mm.
Bacon teaches:
An analogous golf club head wherein a geometric center(128) is laterally spaced from the face center(FC) by a distance D1 no less than 2mm(-10mm to 10 mm; P[0098]-P[0099]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Golden to incorporate the teachings of Bacon to offset the geometric center from the face center by -10mm to 10mm laterally to help mitigate CT hotspots in the strike face and normalize CT across the strikeface(P[0099]).
Regarding Claim 9
Golden teaches:
The golf club head of claim 8(see rejection of claim 8 above),
Golden fails to teach:
wherein D2/D3 is no greater than 0.5.
Bacon teaches:
An analogous golf club head wherein a sweet spot(124) having a center(128) is laterally spaced from the geometric face center(FC) by a distance D2 no greater than 2mm(-10mm to 10 mm; P[0098]-P[0099]), further comprising a portion of the sweet spot that is laterally spaced from the geometric face center(FC) by a distance D3 that is greater than D2, D3 being any portion of the sweet spot beyond D2; e.g. D2 = 1mm and D3 = 2mm which gives D2/D3 = 1mm/2mm = 0.5; P[0098-P[0099]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Golden to incorporate the teachings of Bacon to offset the center of the sweet spot from the face center by a distance D2 and another portion of the sweet spot by a distance D3, wherein D2/D3 < 0.5, to help mitigate CT hotspots in the strike face and normalize CT across the strikeface(P[0099]).
Regarding Claim 10
Golden teaches:
A golf club head that(100), when oriented in a reference position, comprises:
a crown(106);
a sole opposite the crown(not shown; P[0074]);
a heel portion(portion proximate 116);
a toe portion opposite the heel portion(portion proximate 114);
a striking face(102) comprising:
a heel-wardmost extent(heel end of axis 220; Fig 2);
a toe-wardmost extent(toe end of axis 220; Fig 2);
a lowermost extent(sole end of axis 223);
an uppermost extent(crown end of axis 223);
a face center(201, 401, 601, 701, 1001); and
a geometric center being a point on the striking face vertically halfway between the uppermost extent and the lowermost extent(inherent feature), and laterally halfway between the heel-wardmost extent and toe-wardmost extent(inherent feature),
Golden fails to teach:
wherein the geometric center is laterally spaced from the face center by a distance D1 no less than 2mm.
Bacon teaches:
An analogous golf club head wherein a geometric center(128) is laterally spaced from the face center(FC) by a distance D1 no less than 2mm(-10mm to 10 mm; P[0098]-P[0099]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Golden to incorporate the teachings of Bacon to offset the geometric center from the face center by -10mm to 10mm laterally to help mitigate CT hotspots in the strike face and normalize CT across the strikeface(P[0099]).
Regarding Claim 11
Golden in view of Bacon teaches:
The golf club head of claim 10(see rejection of claim 10 above), wherein D1 is no less than 4mm(-10mm to 10 mm; P[0098]-P[0099]).
Regarding Claim 12
Golden in view of Bacon teaches:
The golf club head of claim 11(see rejection of claim 11 above), further comprising a sweet spot(742; Fig 9) that is laterally spaced from the geometric center by a distance D2 that is no greater than 2mm(D = 0.25 mm, 1 mm as the sweet spot 742 is centered on 741 which is offset from 701 by a distance D; Fig 9; P[0090]-[0094]).
Regarding Claim 13
Golden in view of Bacon teaches:
The golf club head of claim 12(see rejection of claim 12 above), wherein the sweet spot is laterally spaced from the face center by a distance D3 that is greater than D2(as clearly shown in Fig 9, the sweet spot 742 extends laterally to include a portion of the sweet spot that extends beyond a distance D from the center of the sweet spot, namely a distance E and/or F, which is greater than a distance D; therein a distance D3 = a distance E or a distance F > a distance D2; Fig 9; P[0090]-[0094])
Regarding Claim 14
Golden in view of Bacon teaches the invention of claim 14 using the same rationale as applied to claim 9 above.
Claim(s) 10 and 15-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golden in view of Zabytko et al. (US 6241624), hereinafter: “Zabytko”.
Regarding Claims 10 and 15
Golden teaches:
The golf club head of claims 1 and 11(see rejection of claims 1 and 11 above), comprising a sweet spot that is laterally spaced from the geometric center by a distance D2 that is no greater than 2mm(see claim 7 above)
Golden fails to teach:
wherein the crown comprises alignment indicia that is laterally spaced from the geometric center by a distance no greater than 2mm.
Zabytko teaches:
An analogous golf club(Col 1, ln. 4-12) wherein the crown(2; Fig 3) comprises alignment indicia(8) that is laterally aligned with the sweet spot of the club face(Col 2, ln. 35-55; Fig 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Golden to incorporate the teachings of Zabytko to use alignment indicia on the crown of the club head that is laterally spaced from the geometric center by a distance no greater than 2mm since this ensures the alignment indicia is aligned with the sweet spot of the club face to increase the precision and accuracy of the golf shot(Col 1, ln. 35-40)
Regarding Claim 16
Golden teaches:
A golf club head that(100), when oriented in a reference position, comprises:
a crown(106);
a sole opposite the crown(not shown; P[0074]);
a heel portion(portion proximate 116);
a toe portion opposite the heel portion(portion proximate 114);
a striking face(102) including a face center(201, 401, 601, 701, 1001),
a sweet spot(741) offset from the face center by a distance of 4mm to 6mm(P[0092]).
Golden fails to teach:
the crown having alignment indicia thereon, and
the face center located such that the alignment indicia is laterally spaced from the face center by a distance D4 greater than 2mm.
Zabytko teaches:
An analogous golf club(Col 1, ln. 4-12) wherein the crown(2; Fig 3) comprises alignment indicia(8) that is laterally aligned with the sweet spot of the club face(Col 2, ln. 35-55; Fig 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Golden to incorporate the teachings of Zabytko to use alignment indicia on the crown of the club head that is laterally spaced from the face center by a distance between 4mm and 6mm since this ensures the alignment indicia is aligned with the sweet spot of the club face to increase the precision and accuracy of the golf shot(Col 1, ln. 35-40)
Regarding Claim 17
Golden in view of Zabytko teaches:
The golf club head of claim 16(see rejection of claim 16 above), wherein D4 is no less than 4mm(in combination D4 would be 4mm to 6mm; P[0092] of Golden).
Regarding Claim 18
Golden in view of Zabytko teaches:
The golf club head of claim 16(see rejection of claim 16 above), wherein the alignment indicia is spaced toe-ward of the face center(in combination the alignment indicia would be spaced toe-ward of face center; P[0092], Fig 9 of Golden).
Regarding Claim 19
Golden in view of Zabytko teaches:
The golf club head of claim 16(see rejection of claim 16 above), further comprising:
a maximum characteristic time corresponding to a point P1 on the striking face, P1 being laterally spaced from the face center by a distance D6 no less than 21.3mm(max CT corresponding to a point P1 outside the perimeter of the impact area 1080, P[0102], the point P1 spaced from the 1001 by a distance greater than K equal to 0.84” or 21.336 mm, P[0100]; ).
Regarding Claim 20
Golden in view of Zabytko teaches:
The golf club head of claim 19(see rejection of claim 19 above), wherein the maximum characteristic time is greater than 256µs(“maximum CT value of the toe area 1084 and the maximum CT value of the heel area 1086 are each greater than or equal to 257 microseconds”; P[0102]).
Regarding Claim 21
Golden in view of Zabytko teaches:
The golf club head of claim 19(see rejection of claim 19 above), wherein P1 is located toe-ward of the face center(1084 is toe-ward of the face center 1001; Fig 10 of Golden).
Regarding Claim 22
Golden in view of Zabytko teaches:
The golf club head of claim 16(see rejection of claim 16 above), further comprising a sweet spot(741) that is laterally spaced from the face center by a distance D3 greater than 2mm( a distance of 4mm to 6mm(P[0092]).
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20140080634 A1
Golden; Charles E. et al.
US 11318358 B1
Story; Robert et al.
US 20250222312 A1
SUKMAN; Jesse D.
US 20180296887 A1
MOTOKAWA; Yuki
US 20250001267 A1
HAYASHI; Kazuhiro et al.
US 10335659 B2
Motokawa; Yuki et al.
US 20260158344 A1
HIRAI; Junko et al.
US 12064670 B2
Kroloff; Caleb S. et al.
US 12186637 B2
Milleman; Travis D. et al.
US 10398949 B2
Hayashi; Kazuhiro et al.
US 10850168 B2
Kato; Masatoshi
US 10981040 B2
Nunez; Christopher A. G. et al.
US 11771962 B2
Griffin; Sean P. et al.
US 8979672 B2
Samson; Mitchell et al.
US 12629570 B2
Greaney; Mark Vincent et al.
US 12053677 B2
Greensmith; Matthew et al.
US 10632350 B2
Beach; Todd P. et al.
US 11883724 B2
Halberg; Connor Mark et al.
The above references are cited for teaching golf club head with features similar to that of the instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P WOLCOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-9837. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
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.
/BRIAN P WOLCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights