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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i), and in claim 1, page 1, lines 8 and 13 there should be an “and” before “wherein” and in claim 1, page 2, line 5, there should be no “and” before “wherein”. 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.
Claims 1-10 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.
Claims 1, 5, and 6 recites "titanium alloy material" and/or "steel material". It is unclear if these materials are an element that can be alloyed with Ti/steel or if the material is a Ti alloy or steel. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be interpreted as the latter. The examiner suggests deleting “material” to make this moot.
Claims 7 and 8 recite “a plane of a rear surface of the face component”. It is unclear if this plane is the same as that recited in claim 1, page 2. The examiner suggests amending to “the plane of the rear surface of the face component”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the iron-type golf club head”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner suggests amending the preamble of claim 1 to include “to form an iron-type golf club head”.
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 1 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demkowski et al. (US 2021/0046360 A1) in view of Jertson et al. (US 2010/0056298 A1), Wu et al. (US 2006/0255103 A1), and Prince & Izant Company “HT-37 Technical Data”.
Regarding claim 1, Demkowski teaches:
A method for joining multiple iron-type golf club head components [abstract and figures 11 and 12], the method comprising:
positioning a first attachment surface [faying surface at face opening (177)] of an iron-type body [body (102)] consisting of a steel material [stainless steel (SS); 0078-0081] to a second attachment surface [faying surface at face opening (177)]of a single material face component [strike plate (152)] consisting of a titanium alloy material [0078-0081],
the iron-type body having an internal edge [face opening (177)] defining a recess [internal cavity (132)],
the first attachment surface formed continuously around an entire perimeter portion of the body [see figures 6 and 12],
wherein the face component is disposed over the recess [see figure 12];
positioning a third attachment [faying surface at wall/shelf (179, 180)] surface of a weight component [tungsten weight (140); 0088] to a fourth attachment surface [wall/shelf (179, 180)] of the iron-type body,
wherein the weight component is composed of a tungsten material, wherein a second brazing material is applied to the third attachment surface [the weight may be brazed; 0073],
wherein the second attachment surface of the face component is formed continuously around an entire circumference of the rear surface of the face component [see figures 6 and 12], and
wherein the second attachment surface of the face component has a width ranging from 0.04 inch to 0.5 inch [0013, 0016] and
wherein the first attachment surface of the body has a width substantially matching the width of the second attachment surface of the face component [see figure 12].
Demkowski does not teach:
wherein a first brazing material is applied to the first attachment surface,
wherein the first brazing material is a nickel-based brazing material,
wherein the second brazing material is a copper alloy based brazing material consisting of copper, manganese and nickel,
performing a single brazing cycle within a vacuum brazing furnace to braze the face component to the iron-type body and the weight component to the iron-type body,
wherein the second brazing material is different than the first brazing material, and
wherein a miter joint is formed between the second attachment surface of the face component and the first attachment surface of the body and has an angle ranging from 10 degrees to 80 degrees relative to a plane of a rear surface of the face component.
Concerning brazing the body and strike plate, the miter/bevel joint, and width:
Jertson teaches brazing steel body (1710) and titanium face (1741) with copper, copper alloy, or other brazes, wherein brazed joint (6000) may be a butt joint or beveled joint, and the width of the faying surfaces of the joint are the same; 0048, 0056, 0061, 0074, claim 8, and figures 22 and 28-32.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to also braze the Demkowski body and strike plate since Jertson teaches this is a known option. One would have also been motivated to do so in order to avoid welding. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a bevel joint instead of a butt joint since these are known alternatives/options, the bevel creates a larger bonding surface area, and/or can facilitate placement and holding of the strike plate.
As for the degree of bevel, Jertson teaches about a 70 degree angle; using a protractor on the drawing. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use any angle, including those less than 70 degrees, minus any unexpected results. Furthermore, one would have been motivated to use lesser angles in order to increase the bonding surface area.
As for the claimed width, Demkowski teaches the width of the strike plate ranges from 3.1-1.0 mm; 0013, 0016, which makes the taught butt joint within the claimed width range. However, since a bevel joint is being used this width will only increase.
Concerning the Ni-based brazing of the face to the body:
Note that Demkowski is silent as to what braze one may use.
Wu teaches brazing stainless steel body (1) to Ti6Al4V striking plate (2) with silver-based, nickel-based, copper-based, or titanium-based alloys; 0029.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a Ni-based brazing alloy to braze the body and strike plate since this is a known option, minus any unexpected results.
Concerning the Cu-based brazing of the weight to the body:
Wu also teaches brazing Fe-based body (10) to W weight member (20) with silver-based, nickel-based, copper-based or titanium-based alloys; 0031.
Prince teaches HT-37 braze which consists of Cu-Mn-Ni wherein the braze can be used for steel and tungsten materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a Cu-based brazing alloy to braze the steel body and tungsten weight since this is a known option, minus any unexpected results. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use HT-23 since it is compatible with steel and tungsten materials, minus any unexpected results.
Concerning the single vacuum brazing cycle:
Wu teaches the golf club components can be furnace brazed; 0022.
Prince teaches HT-37 braze can be used in a vacuum furnace.
It is well-known that Cu brazes and Ni brazes have similar melting points since data sheets with this data are freely available online.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to braze the golf club components of the prior art in a furnace in order to perform batch processing. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a vacuum furnace in order to remove contaminates and/or because this is a known means, minus any unexpected results. Lastly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to choose a Ni braze that has a similar melting point to HT-37 in order to braze both simultaneously, which in turn saves time.
Regarding claim 5, Demkowski teaches :
wherein the steel material is selected from the group consisting of C300 maraging steel, 1020 steel, 1025 steel, 1045 steel, 4130 steel, 4140 steel, and 4340 steel, 17-4 stainless steel, 304 stainless steel, 304L stainless steel, 321 stainless steel, 303 stainless steel, 316 stainless steel, 316L stainless steel, 420 stainless steel, 425 stainless steel, 425M stainless steel, 450 stainless steel, 455 stainless steel, 475 stainless steel, and HSR300 stainless steel [0080].
Regarding claim 6, Demkowski teaches :
wherein the titanium alloy material is selected from the group consisting of 6-4 titanium, 811 titanium, FS2S titanium, FS2S+ titanium, SP700 titanium, Ti 17, Ti 21, and 15-3-3-3 titanium [0081].
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Demkowski teaches :
wherein the angle of the miter joint ranges from 25/30 degrees to 65/60 degrees relative to a plane of a rear surface of the face component [0016].
Regarding claim 9, Demkowski teaches :
wherein the iron-type golf club head has a loft angle ranging from 15 degrees to 34 degrees [0016].
Regarding claim 10, Demkowski teaches :
wherein the face component comprises a return portion [see figure 11].
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demkowski et al. (US 2021/0046360 A1) in view of Jertson et al. (US 2010/0056298 A1), Wu et al. (US 2006/0255103 A1), and Prince & Izant Company “HT-37 Technical Data” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of AWS Brazing Handbook “Chapter 14. Furnace Brazing”.
Regarding claim 2-4, Demkowski does not teach:
wherein a maximum vacuum level ranges from 10-2 Torr to 10-7 Torr, and the maximum temperature ranges from 1400oF to 1800oF (760-982 oC);
wherein the brazing cycle has a time period ranging from 200 to 300 minutes; and
wherein the brazing cycle comprises creating a reducing environment within the vacuum brazing furnace.
AWS teaches vacuum brazing is done with pressures of 10-3 to 10-6 torr, with reducing atmospheres, and the brazing temperature and time are dependent upon the braze and materials involved, pg. 292-295.
Prince also teaches HT-37 has a recommended brazing range of 1747-1797 oF.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to braze with the claimed parameters since these parameters are known result effective parameters and determining the proper brazing parameters for the brazement at hand is routine in the art. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a reducing gas in order to clean the braze and brazing components.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure; see PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS J GAMINO whose telephone number is (571)270-5826. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 5712723458. 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.
/CARLOS J GAMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
