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 .
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-25 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits of these claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: “chamfer” is misspelled as “chamber”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: “either” is misspelled as “ether”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 21 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 21 recites the limitation "the top surface leading edge" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “the target line” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-11, 18, 24-25 are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Number 7,056,227 to Giraldi.
Regarding claim 1, Giraldi discloses a golf putter club head (putter head 12) comprising:
a front face having a heel side and a toe side (face surface 20);
a toe side vertical orientation corresponding to a vertical stance of the front face at the toe side, the toe side vertical orientation having a first angle relative to a baseline vertical orientation of the face (column 3, lines 30-32 disclose “At the front, or toe, of the putter head 12, the face surface 20 has a first loft angle”);
a heel side vertical orientation corresponding to a vertical stance of the front face at the heel side, the heel side vertical orientation having a second angle relative to the baseline vertical orientation of the face (column 3, lines 36-38 disclose “At the rear, or heel, of the putter head 12, the face surface 20 is twisted in a counter-clockwise direction to a predetermined second loft angle B”);
wherein the first angle is smaller than the second angle, such that the second angle generates more loft than the first angle (the abstract discloses “The loft angle associated with the striking surface of the putter varies from a positive loft angle near the heel to a negative loft angle near the toe”).
Regarding claim 2 (dependent on claim 1)¸ Giraldi discloses the first angle is negative and the second angle is positive (the abstract discloses “The loft angle associated with the striking surface of the putter varies from a positive loft angle near the heel to a negative loft angle near the toe”).
Regarding claim 4 (dependent on claim 1), Giraldi discloses the vertical stance of the front face at the toe side corresponds to a median slope of the front face at the toe side, and wherein the vertical stance of the front face at the heel side corresponds to a median slope of the front face at the heel side. Some point on the face surface at the toe and heel sides must correspond to a median slope at these sides.
Regarding claims 5 (dependent on claim 1), 7 (dependent on claim 5), Giraldi discloses a center vertical orientation corresponding to a vertical stance of the front face at a location between and substantially equidistant from the toe side and the heel side and having a third angle relative to the baseline vertical orientation between the first angle and the second angle, wherein the front face comprises a continuous twist from the toe side to the heel side, the continuous twist passing through the location of the center vertical orientation. Claim 1 discloses “said face surface has a loft angle configuration that continuously varies from a positive loft angle to a negative loft angle as said face surface extends from said heel end toward said heel end”.
Regarding claim 8 (dependent on claim 1), Giraldi discloses a loft curve forming a roll about a horizontal axis extending from the toe side to the heel side. Column 2, lines 18-20 disclose “The plane of the twisted striking surface is also slightly curved to eliminate any concave curvatures created by the twist”.
Regarding claim 9 (dependent on claim 8), Giraldi discloses the loft curve is continuously variable. Since the loft angle varies continuously from the heel end to the toe end and the surface is curved to eliminate concave curvatures created by the twist, the loft curve must also vary continuously in order to match the loft angle variations.
Regarding claim 10 (dependent on claim 8)¸ Giraldi discloses at least one of a bulge about a vertical axis or a rocker curve about a horizontal axis extending substantially perpendicular from the front face. Column 3, lines 56-58 disclose “From FIG. 3, it can be seen that the face surface 20 of the putter head 12 at the point of the imaginary mid-line M is curved to create a convex surface”.
Regarding claim 11 (dependent on claim 10), Giraldi discloses a sole defined by a front to back arcuate curvature (see bottom sole of head 12 in the Figures).
Regarding claim 18 (dependent on claim 1), Giraldi discloses a top surface having a substantially straight topline leading edge corresponding to an instantaneous horizontal tangent to the face at a location between the toe side and the heel side. (see substantially flat top of head 12 in the Figures).
Regarding claim 24 (dependent on claim 1)¸ Giraldi discloses the front face is a removable face (striking surface insert 22) mounted on a mounting surface, and wherein the mounting surface is substantially planar (see Figures 3-5B).
Regarding claim 25 (dependent on claim 24)¸ Giraldi discloses the mounting surface has a vertical orientation substantially perpendicular to a bottom surface of the club head (see Figures 4A-5B).
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 3, 6 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over US Patent Number 7,056,227 to Giraldi.
Regarding claims 3 (dependent on claim 1), 6 (dependent on claim 5), Giraldi does not disclose each of the first angle and the second angle are less than two degrees or the center vertical orientation substantially corresponds to the baseline vertical orientation of the face. However, column 6, lines 22-24 disclose “The angles of the changing loft can also be adjusted provided the selected lofts are within the USGA guidelines”. It would thus be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Giraldi to adjust the loft angles to different values to produce different amounts of loft as desired.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over US Patent Number 7,056,227 to Giraldi in view of US Patent Number 6,139,445 to Werner.
Regarding claim 12 (dependent on claim 9), Giraldi does not disclose the roll has a profile defined relative to a central tangent, and wherein a tangent to the roll profile increases or decreases exponentially at distances farther from the central tangent. However, this limitation is taught by Werner. Werner discloses different types of golf club head face surface shapes, and column 9, lines 5-13 disclose “Both mathematical and experimental processes use curved surfaces which are called ‘modification surfaces’ which provide the desired changes of local face shape…The modification surfaces are defined mathematically as…exponential curved surfaces”. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Giraldi using the teachings from Werner in order to provide desired changes to the face shape to produce the desired surface qualities.
Claim 19-21 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over US Patent Number 7,056,227 to Giraldi in view of US Patent Number 11,318,358 to Story.
Regarding claims 19 (dependent on claim 18), Giraldi does not disclose a chamfer extending from the topline leading edge to the front face and extending from the toe side to the heel side, wherein a width of the chamfer is larger on the toe side than on the heel side. However, this limitation is taught by Story. Story discloses a golf club head with a face insert, and column 53, lines 21-24 disclose “the face insert 2110 a chamfer substantially around the inside perimeter edge of the face insert, such as a chamfer between about 0.5 mm and about 1.1 mm”. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Giraldi using the teachings from Story to allow for a smoother transition between the top and the front of the head.
Regarding claim 20 (dependent on claim 19), Story further teaches the chamfer extends from the topline leading edge to the front face at a constant angle relative to the top surface, and wherein the width is in a direction of the constant angle (see Figure 1).
Regarding claims 21 (dependent on claim 18), Story further teaches a chamfer extending from the top surface leading edge to the front face and extending from the toe side to the heel side. Column 53, lines 21-24 disclose “the face insert 2110 a chamfer substantially around the inside perimeter edge of the face insert, such as a chamfer between about 0.5 mm and about 1.1 mm”.
Story does not disclose a width of the chamfer is larger between the toe side and the heel side than at either the toe side or the heel side. However, since Story discloses the chamfer between about 0.5 mm and about 1.1 mm, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the chamfer of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over US Patent Number 7,056,227 to Giraldi in view of JP 2020044312 to Aoto.
Regarding claim 22 (dependent on claim 1), Giraldi does not disclose a top center mark identifying a horizontal location of a neutral segment of the face. However, this limitation is taught by Aoto. Aoto disclose “A marker 8 is provided at the center of the upper end portion 3 and is used as a mark when putting is performed using the face surface 21”. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Giraldi using the teachings from Aoto in order to help the golfer line up the putter with the ball.
Regarding claim 23 (dependent on claim 1), Aoto does not disclose a top toe bias mark at an offset location wherein a face angle will present itself perpendicular to the target line, assuming approximately a 1-5 degree positive angle of attack, for a head tracking square to the path on a typical inclined plane of approximately 69-72 degree lie angle. However, having disclosed a marker 8 to be used as a mark for putting, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Aoto to use whatever angle is desired for the marker to facilitate the desired position for the head.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-17 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL H WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6554. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6:30.
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, Josh Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
MICHAEL H. WANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/MICHAEL H WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
