DETAILED ACTION
35 USC § 112
For the claims, the Examiner construes “approximately” to be “10% of the stated value” according to applicant’s par. [0034].
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 1-8 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. Claim 1, line 22 uses the term “substantially”. The term “substantially” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, 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.
Claims 9-15 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. Claim 9, line 13 uses the term “substantially”. The term “substantially” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, 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.
Claims 16-20 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. Claim 26, lines 18 and 19 use the term “about”. The term “about” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 (and its dependents), claim 9 (and its dependents) and claim 26 (and its dependents) would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The allowance of this child application is completely consistent with the allowance of parent application 18/170,659. The Examiner notes that a terminal disclaimer was approved on 6/23/26 eliminating the previous double patenting rejection (see Remarks, received 6/15/26, page 30).
Specifically, the Examiner does not find any of the 132 declarations compelling enough to overcome the previous rejection (including via secondary considerations of non-obviousness by way of commercial success). In the declaration filed 6/15//26 by Kevin Martin (the one with 22 enumerated items), enumerated items 13 and 15 discuss “market share” and sales data. Concerning the “market share”, it is entirely unclear what market share the invention has as compared to all putters sold (emphasis added). Item 13 only gives market share as compared to what Mr. Martin deems to be “zero-torque putters” (the Examiner entirely unsure how this is categorized, i.e. what structure creates what applicant considers “zero-torque” in applicant’s opinion). With regards to item 15, it is completely unclear if the increase in sales is attributable solely to the structure as claimed (i.e. what is required to show commercial success) or if the increase in sales is attributable to increased marketing (i.e. increased commercials, print advertisements, and social media), and/or professional endorsements.
The declaration by Liam Hunt adds nothing to evidence of commercial success. In addition, the declaration is merely opinion and carries little to no weight.
The second declaration by Kevin Martin (the one with 28 enumerated items) also does little to show commercial success or overcome nonobviousness. The declaration is a summary of the prior art which a POSA would readily understand. In item 26, specifically, Mr. Martin states “one skilled in the art, such as myself, would not modify Sussich with Kronogard as contemplated by the current Office Action” (emphasis added). With all due respect, this is the ultimate legal conclusion at issue (see MPEP 716.01(c)(III) stating “Although factual evidence is preferable to opinion testimony, such testimony is entitled to consideration and some weight so long as the opinion is not on the ultimate legal conclusion at issue”; emphasis added). As such, the second declaration by Mr. Martin is in no way compelling and is also given little to no weight.
Rather, the Examiner generally finds applicant’s arguments against combining the Sussich reference with the Kronogard reference as the ultimate reason for allowability (see Remarks, received 6/15/26, generally pages 19-29). In addition, Sussich continues to be the closest prior art or record.
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 MATTHEW BRIAN STANCZAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7831. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-10 and 1-3:30 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Weiss can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW B STANCZAK/
Examiner, Art Unit 3711
7/1/26
/NICHOLAS J. WEISS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights