DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to amendments received 17 July 2026.
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
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, line 24, “club head” should be changed to putter head.
Regarding claim 13, line 4, “a clubface element” should be changed to the clubface element since the clubface element has been previously introduced in claim 1.
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 9-11 and 21 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.
The term “approximately” in claims 9-11 and 21 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This renders the distance between the connecting point of the putter head and the center of mass in the y-axis direction, the mass distribution of the putter head, the predefined distance from the bending point of the angled coupled to the connecting point of the putter head, the predefined bending angle of the angled coupler, and the distance between the connecting point and the center of mass in the y-axis direction indefinite.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the connecting point" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the y-axis direction" 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.
Claims 15-16 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Parsons et al. (US 2023/0405422 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Parsons discloses a heel-shafted golf putter (Figure 14) (also see [3200] in Figure 32) comprising: a grip [3230]; a club head [100, 3210] having a body [110] with a toe portion [120] and a heel portion [130] and a clubface [145] between the toe and heel portions [120, 130] that is configured to contact a golf ball, the body [110] having a center of mass [1420], and the heel portion [130] having a shaft mounting area [135]; a shaft assembly [1400, USP; 3220, 3221] (see annotated Figure 14 below for all reference letters) attached to the heel portion [130] of the club head [100, 3210], the shaft assembly [1400, USP; 3220, 3221] comprising: a lower shaft portion [LSP] connected to the club head [100, 3210] and configured to be a predetermined length, an angled coupler [AC] connecting the lower shaft portion [LSP] to an upper shaft portion [USP, 3220] and configured at a predetermined angle, the upper shaft portion [USP, 3220] extending from the angled coupler [AC] to the grip [3230], and placed at a first end [3222] of the shaft assembly [1400, USP; 3220, 3221], the shaft assembly [1400, USP; 3220, 3221] configured to orient a central axis [1410] of the shaft assembly [1400, USP; 3220, 3221] to converge at a location [1420] of the club head [100, 3210]; and wherein the predetermined angle and the predetermined length are configured to adjust the orientation of the upper shaft portion [USP, 3220] relative to the lower shaft portion [LSP] to enable the clubface [145] to seek approximately square or reduce a twisting torque on the shaft assembly [1400, USP; 3220, 3221] during a putting stroke without requiring additional torque from the golfer (paragraph 0042: “to moderately reduce the inertial force required to rotate the golf club head 100 during a putting stroke,” and “may promote face balancing”), and wherein the grip [3230] comprises a channel configured to receive the upper shaft portion [USP, 3220] therein and having a channel center axis [1410] (paragraphs 0030-0031, 0042, 0055, Figures 1-2, 32, and annotated Figure 14 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
628
553
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Parsons discloses the golf putter of claim 15, wherein the angled coupler [AC] is configured to be formed in variable degrees between the upper and lower shaft portions [USP, 3220; LSP] to accommodate golfer preferences and putting styles (paragraph 0042 and annotated Figure 14 above; specifically see “interchangeable hosel system,” “the hosel bore 135 may be configured to receive a variety of hosel types,” and “[b]y employing one or both of the weighting system and the interchangeable hosel system described herein, the mass properties of the golf club head 100 may be adjusted to fit the needs of any individual regardless of putting style or swing tendencies).
Regarding claim 26, Parsons discloses a heel-shafted golf putter (Figure 14) (also see [3200] in Figure 32), comprising: a grip [3230]; a club head [100, 3210] having a body [110] with a toe portion [120] and a heel portion [130] and a clubface [145] between the toe and heel portions [120, 130] that is configured to contact a golf ball, the body [110] having a center of mass [1420], and the heel portion [130] having a shaft mounting area [135]; a shaft assembly [1400, USP; 3220, 3221] (see annotated Figure 14 above for all reference letters) attached to the heel portion [130] of the club head [100, 3210] at the shaft mounting area [135], the shaft assembly [1400, USP; 3220, 3221] having a bending angle at a bending point [BP] configured to orient a central axis [1410] of the shaft assembly [1400, USP; 3220, 3221] to converge at a location [1420] of the club head [100, 3210]; wherein an amount of the bending angle is proportional to a distance between the bending point [BP] and the shaft mounting area [135] (paragraph 0042; wherein, to orient the shaft axis [1410] through a center of gravity location [1420] using a double bend hosel [1400], the degree of bending angle and the distance from the bending point [BP] to the shaft mounting area [135] are correlated variables); and wherein the bending angle and a predetermined length of the shaft assembly [1400, USP; 3220, 3221] are configured to adjust the orientation of the shaft assembly [1400, USP; 3220, 3221] to enable the clubface [145] to seek approximately square or reduce a twisting torque on the shaft assembly [1400, USP; 3220, 3221] during a putting stroke without requiring additional torque during the putting stroke (paragraph 0042: “to moderately reduce the inertial force required to rotate the golf club head 100 during a putting stroke,” and “may promote face balancing”) (paragraphs 0030-0031, 0042, 0055, Figures 1-2, 32, and annotated Figure 14 above).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parsons as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Bauer et al. (US 2006/0009306 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Parsons does not disclose the distance from the bending point of an angled coupler to the shaft mounting area being 3 inches. However, Parsons discloses the design of the double bend hosel achieving the result of orienting a shaft axis through a center of gravity (paragraph 0042); thus a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the design of the hosel, including hosel length, is a result-effective variable. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the predefined distance to be 3 inches to achieve aligning a shaft axis through the center of gravity, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 II. Additionally, Bauer discloses a similar golf putter hosel having a length of 3 inches (paragraph 0039). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the predefined distance to be approximately 3 inches because Bauer teaches that this putter hosel dimension is known in the art (paragraph 0039).
Claims 17-20 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parsons as applied to claims 16 and 26 above, and further in view of Kobayashi.
Regarding claims 17-18 and 28-29, Parsons does not disclose the predetermined/bending angle being in the range of 65° to 75°, specifically, 70°. However, Parsons discloses the design of the double bend hosel achieving the result of orienting a shaft axis through a center of gravity (paragraph 0042); thus a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the design of the hosel, including the predetermined/bending angle, is a result-effective variable. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the predetermined/bending angle to be approximately 70° to achieve aligning a shaft axis through the center of gravity, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 II. Additionally, Kobayashi teaches a similar conventional heel-shafted golf putter [P’] (Figure 6) with a shaft center axis converging with a center of gravity [G5] of the putter head [H5], wherein the lie angle [α] is 70° (pages 2 and 4 and Figure 6). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Parson’s predetermined/bending angle (which corresponds to the lie angle of the putter) to be 70° because Kobayashi teaches that golf putters lie angle is “usually about 70°” such that this angle is conventional in the art.
Regarding claim 19, the modified Parsons discloses the golf putter of claim 17, wherein the angled coupler [AC] is configured to maintain the alignment of the upper shaft portion's center axis [1410] with the location [1420], preserving an effect despite the change in orientation introduced by the angled coupler [AC] (paragraph 0042 and annotated Figure 14 above).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Parsons discloses the golf putter of claim 17, wherein the angled coupler [AC] is constructed as an integral part of the shaft assembly [1400, USP; 3220, 3221] or as a separate component made of a material providing structural integrity and precise angular adjustment (paragraphs 0042, 0055, Figure 32, and annotated Figure 14 above).
Claims 22 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parsons in view of Kobayashi.
Regarding claims 22 and 24, Parsons discloses a heel-shafted golf putter (Figure 14) (also see [3200] in Figure 32), comprising: a grip [3230]; a club head [100, 3210] having a body [110] with a toe portion [120] and a heel portion [130] and a clubface [145] between the toe and heel portions [120, 130] that is configured to contact a golf ball, the body [110] having a center of mass [1420], and the heel portion [130] having a shaft mounting area [135]; a shaft assembly [1400, USP; 3220, 3221] (see annotated Figure 14 above for all reference letters) attached to the heel portion [130] of the club head [100, 3210], the shaft assembly [1400, USP; 3220, 3221] having a bending angle configured to orient a central axis [1410] of the shaft assembly [1400, USP; 3220, 3221] to converge at a location [1420] of the club head [100, 3210]; and wherein the bending angle and a predetermined length of the shaft assembly [1400, USP; 3220, 3221] are configured to adjust the orientation of the shaft assembly [1400, USP; 3220, 3221] to enable the clubface [145] to seek approximately square or reduce a twisting torque on the shaft assembly [1400, USP; 3220, 3221] during a putting stroke without requiring additional torque during the putting stroke (paragraph 0042: “to moderately reduce the inertial force required to rotate the golf club head 100 during a putting stroke,” and “may promote face balancing”), wherein the degree of the bending angle is proportional to the predetermined length of the shaft assembly [1400, USP; 3220, 3221] (paragraph 0042; wherein, to orient the shaft axis [1410] through a center of gravity location [1420] using a double bend hosel [1400], the degree of bending angle and the predetermined length of the shaft assembly [1400, USP; 3220, 3221] are correlated variables) (paragraphs 0030-0031, 0042, 0055, Figures 1-2, 32, and annotated Figure 14 above). Parsons does not disclose the bending angle being in a range of 65° to 75°, specifically 70°. However, Parsons discloses the design of the double bend hosel achieving the result of orienting a shaft axis through a center of gravity (paragraph 0042); thus a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the design of the hosel, including the bending angle, is a result-effective variable. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the bending angle to be 70° to achieve aligning a shaft axis through the center of gravity, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 II. Additionally, Kobayashi teaches a similar conventional heel-shafted golf putter [P’] (Figure 6) with a shaft center axis converging with a center of gravity [G5] of the putter head [H5], wherein the lie angle [α] is 70° (pages 2 and 4 and Figure 6). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Parson’s bending angle (which corresponds to the lie angle of the putter) to be 70° because Kobayashi teaches that golf putters lie angle is “usually about 70°” such that this angle is conventional in the art.
Regarding claim 25, the modified Parsons discloses the golf putter of claim 22, wherein the degree of the bending angle is proportional to the distance from the bending point [BP] of the shaft assembly [1400, USP; 3220, 3221] to a connecting point [135] where the shaft assembly [1400, USP; 3220, 3221] is attached to the club head [100, 3210] (paragraph 0042, Figure 32, and annotated Figure 14 above; wherein, to orient the shaft axis [1410] through a center of gravity location [1420] using a double bend hosel [1400], the degree of bending angle and the distance from the bending point [BP] to the connecting point [135] are correlated variables).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parsons in view of Kobayashi as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Bauer.
Regarding claim 23, the modified Parsons does not disclose the predetermined length from the bending angle to a connecting point (see hosel bore [135]) on the heel portion being in the range of 2 to 4 inches. However, Parsons discloses the design of the double bend hosel achieving the result of orienting a shaft axis through a center of gravity (paragraph 0042); thus a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the design of the hosel, including hosel length, is a result-effective variable. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the predetermined length to be in the range of 2 to 4 inches to achieve aligning a shaft axis through the center of gravity, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 II. Additionally, Bauer discloses a similar golf putter hosel having a length of in the range of 2 to 4 inches (paragraph 0039: 2”-3” which falls within the claimed range). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the predetermined length to be 2 to 4 inches because Bauer teaches that putter hosel dimensions in this range are known in the art (paragraph 0039).
Additional Subject Matter
Claim 21 is not rejected under art; however, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and is therefore not allowable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 12-14 allowed.
Claims 9-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 30 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 1, the combination including a clubface element, wherein the lower shaft portion is attached to the body at a first connection area and wherein the body and the clubface element are abutted by the first connection area and a second connection area in the invention as claimed is neither disclosed nor rendered obvious by the prior art. Regarding claim 30, the combination including the golf putter with the recited dimensions in the invention as claimed is neither disclosed nor rendered obvious by the prior art.
Interview Request
Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form was received 17 July 2026. However, due to the limited time allotted to the examiner for prioritized examination for Track One cases, an interview was not able to be scheduled before time elapsed. If an interview is still desired, the examiner encourages the applicant to request an interview via telephone or Automated Interview Request (AIR) form before filing a response.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding page 14 of the Remarks, the applicant argued that Parsons does not disclose the claimed combination of a heel-mounted shaft assembly having both the recited predetermined length and predetermined angle arranged through an angled coupler to produce the claimed convergence and torque-reduction relationship. The examiner disagrees. Parsons clearly discloses a lower shaft portion [LSP] having a predetermined length and an angled coupler [AC] having a predetermined angle (paragraph 0042 and annotated Figure 14 above). Parsons discloses this double bend hosel orienting a shaft axis through a center of gravity to reduce the inertial force required to rotate the golf club head during a putting stroke and to promote face balancing (paragraph 0042). As such, the examiner maintains that Parsons still anticipates claim 15 as outlined above.
Regarding pages 14-15 of the Remarks, the applicant argued that Parsons does not disclose the claimed proportional relationship between the amount of bending angle and the distance between the bending point and the shaft mounting area. The examiner disagrees. Parsons discloses a double bend hosel for orienting a shaft axis through a center of gravity to reduce the inertial force required to rotate the golf club head during a putting stroke and to promote face balancing (paragraph 0042). The lengths of the hosel sections and the bending angles of the hosel must be specifically configured to ensure the shaft axis [1410] passes through the center of gravity [1420] (paragraph 0042 and Figure 14). Thus, to orient the shaft axis [1410] through a center of gravity location [1420], the degree of bending angle and the distance from the bending point [BP] to the shaft mounting area [135] are correlated variables. If the bending angle is greater, the distance between the bending point [BP] and the shaft mounting area [135] must be shorter, and vice versa, to ensure the shaft axis [1410] passes through the center of gravity [1420] for the benefits provided by Parsons (paragraph 0042). As such, the examiner maintains that Parsons anticipates claim 26 as outlined above.
Regarding page 16 of the Remarks, the applicant argued that the examiner does not explain why a person or ordinary skill in the art would have combined the disparate teachings of the secondary references to arrive at the claimed combination as a whole. The examiner disagrees. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the secondary references disclose conventional golf putter properties as outlined above. Additionally, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding page 20 of the Remarks, the applicant argued that Kobayashi does not disclose the degree of the bending angle being proportional to the predetermined length of the shaft assembly. The examiner agrees. However, Parsons discloses this relationship. Parsons discloses a double bend hosel for orienting a shaft axis through a center of gravity to reduce the inertial force required to rotate the golf club head during a putting stroke and to promote face balancing (paragraph 0042). The lengths of the hosel sections and the bending angles of the hosel must be specifically configured to ensure the shaft axis [1410] passes through the center of gravity [1420] (paragraph 0042 and Figure 14). Thus, to orient the shaft axis [1410] through a center of gravity location [1420], the degree of bending angle and the predetermined length of the shaft assembly [1400, USP; 3220, 3221] are correlated variables. If the bending angle is greater, the shaft length must be shorter, and vice versa, to ensure the shaft axis [1410] passes through the center of gravity [1420] for the benefits provided by Parsons (paragraph 0042). Kobayashi was simply relied upon for the teaching of a bending angle in the claimed range. As such, the examiner maintains that Parsons in view of Kobayashi renders obvious claim 22 as outlined above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY B. WALTER whose telephone number is (571)270-5286. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at (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.
/AUDREY B. WALTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights