DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to the following communication received:
03/23/2026 – application papers received, including Petition to Make Special (applicant’s age), and Power of Attorney;
04/01/2026 – Preliminary Amendment, including Substitute specification (including clean and marked-up copies), Replacement Drawings, Abstract and amendment to claims;
04/15/2026 – IDS; and
04/30/2026 – Preliminary Amendment, including Replacement Drawings and amendment to specification.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continuation Data
This application is a CON of 19/345,718 09/30/2025 PAT 12667765 which is a CON of 19/015,217 01/09/2025 PAT 12478850 which is a CON of 18/370,314 09/19/2023 which is a CON of 18/140,184 04/27/2023 PAT 12268945 which is a CON of 17/107,490 11/30/2020 PAT 11673035 which is a CON of 16/886,273 05/28/2020 PAT 10874928 which is a CON of 16/248,190 01/15/2019 PAT 10668351 which is a CON of 15/697,291 09/06/2017 PAT 10252138 which is a CON of 14/728,928 06/02/2015 PAT 9827479 which is a CON of 13/943,496 07/16/2013 PAT 9044662 which is a CON of 13/708,785 12/07/2012 PAT 8758154 which is a CON of 12/690,861 01/20/2010 PAT 8328654 which claims benefit of 61/205,647 01/21/2009.
Drawings
The replacement drawings (FIGS. 1A-19) were received on 04/01/2026. Replacement FIGS. 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3A-4B, and 5A-19 are acceptable.
The replacement drawings (FIGS. 1C, 1D, 1E, 2C, 2D, 2E, 4C, 4D, and 4E) were received on 04/30/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The substitute specification, including clean and marked-up copies, was received 04/01/2026 and has been entered.
The further preliminary amendment to the substitution, received 04/30/2026, has been entered.
Decision on Petition
The petition to make special, received 03/23/2026, has been GRANTED. See the decision, mailed 05/01/2026.
Status of Claims
Claim 1 has been cancelled.
Claims 2-30 remain pending.
Specification - Objections
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The phrases “first toe side portion”, “second toe side portion”, “first heel side portion” and “second heel side portion”, (emphasis added) selectively presented throughout claims 11, 15, 16, 21, 22, 24 and 25, lack proper antecedent basis in the specification. It is noted that the applicant directed that these phrases be deleted by way of the preliminary amendment to the specification, received 04/30/2026, in an effort to align the language in the instant specification with the language used in the copending parent application Serial No. 19/345,718. Perhaps the applicant may have intended to also delete these phrases identified hereinabove from the current claims, as these phrases were present in the originally-filed specification received 03/23/2026, were included in the claims via the preliminary amendment to the claims received 04/01/2026, and were subsequently deleted from the specification via the 04/30/2026 preliminary amendment. Clarification is requested.
FOLLOWING IS AN ACTION ON THE MERITS:
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 8, 10, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 24, 25 and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 2, line 15, “is” should read --being--;
As to claim 2, line 24, “where” should likely read --wherein--;
As to claim 2, line 32, “where” should likely read --wherein--;
As to claim 2, line 40, “the” (first occurrence) should read --an--;
As to claim 8, line 4, after “beam” (first occurrence), the phrase --of the plurality of beams-- should be inserted;
As to claim 8, line 5, after “beam” (first occurrence), the phrase --of the plurality of beams-- should be inserted;
As to claim 10, line 2, after “one”, the term --groove-- should be inserted;
As to claim 10, line 3, after “of”, the term --horizontal-- should be inserted;
As to claim 13, line 2, after “one”, the term --groove-- should be inserted;
As to claim 15, line 9, “where” should likely read --wherein--;
As to claim 15, line 13, “where” should likely read --wherein--;
As to claim 16, line 8, “where” should likely read --wherein--;
As to claim 18, line 4, after “beam” (first occurrence), the phrase --of the plurality of beams-- should be inserted;
As to claim 18, line 8, after “gap” (first occurrence), the phrase --of the plurality of beam gaps-- should be inserted;
As to claim 18, line 9, after “beam” (first occurrence), the phrase --of the plurality of beams-- should be inserted;
As to claim 19, line 3, after “gap”, the phrase --of the plurality of beam gaps-- should be inserted;
As to claim 22, line 14, “where” should likely read --wherein--;
As to claim 24, line 6, after “beam” (first occurrence), the phrase --of the plurality of beams-- should be inserted;
As to claim 25, line 4, “where” should likely read --wherein--;
As to claim 29, line 2, after “one”, the term --groove-- should be inserted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-4, 11, 15-16 and 21-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of USPN 12,667,765. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘765 patent are, on one hand, more specific than the instant claims. For example, the claims of the ‘765 patent further require “at least a portion of the heel and toe side portions are concave toward the ground center Y-axis; a total club head mass of 300-400 grams”. Additional differences between the instant claims and the claims of the ‘765 patent are considered minor phrasing differences and/or an obvious arrangement of the claimed features among the claims and/or are differences that are obvious and well known in the art.
As to claim 2, see claim 1 of the ‘765 patent.
As to claim 3, see claim 5 of the ‘765 patent.
As to claim 4, see claim 9 of the ‘765 patent.
As to claim 11, see claims 1 and 23 of the ‘765 patent.
As to claims 15 and 16, see claim 1 of the ‘765 patent.
As to claims 21 and 22, see claim 1 of the ‘765 patent.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of USPN 12,667,765 in view of US PUBS 2004/0121853 to Caldwell et al (hereinafter referred to as “Caldwell”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences are considered minor phrasing differences and/or an obvious arrangement of the claimed features among the claims and/or are differences that are obvious and well known in the art.
As to claim 5, the claims of the ‘765 patent lack “a second sole material different from the first sole material”. Here, Caldwell shows it to be old in the art to construct a lower face of the club head (i.e., a first sole region portion of the bottom or sole portion) using a ceramic composite material (i.e., the first sole material) along with a sole plate being constructed from a glass fiber reinforced plastic material (i.e., a second sole material) to raise the center of gravity of the club head (i.e., see claim 13 and paragraph [0009] of Caldwell). In view of the teaching in Caldwell, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the claimed club head of the ‘765 patent by incorporating a first sole region formed of a first sole material and a second sole region formed of a second sole material different than the first sole material, with there being a reasonable expectation of success that a different material for at least a portion of the sole portion would have enabled the skilled artisan to customize and control the weight distribution of the club head for enhanced club head performance.
Claims 6-10, 12-14, 17-20, 23-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of USPN 12,667,765 in view of US PUBS 2005/0130764 to Frame.
The claimed invention of the ‘765 patent lacks the requirements of a face insert made of a specific material, as required by claims 6, 12, 17, 20 and 28, and further lacks the particulars of the groove design that is part of the face insert, including a plurality of angled grooves and further wherein the face includes a plurality of beams, as selectively required by claims 7-10, 13-14, 18-19, 23, 25-26 and 29. Here, Frame teaches that a face insert constructed from titanium or polymeric material may be provided with beams that deflect and rebound to impart desirable topspin to a struck golf ball (i.e., Abstract and paragraphs [0008], [0032] – [0033] and [0057] in Frame). The beams disclosed by Frame are arranged in a horizontal orientation across the striking face insert and are provided with a thickness and arranged with a gap between adjacent beams (i.e., paragraphs [0038] – [0039] in Frame). The beams also extend at a particular beam angle (i.e., paragraphs [0044] – [0045] in Frame). Also, TABLES 1 and 2 in Frame provide further particulars of the construction of the beam and of the face insert. As shown in FIGS. 10-11 of Frame, the face is provided with a plurality of grooves. Moreover, selection of a specific, known material for the face insert, to take advantage of the properties of the known material would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See MPEP 2144.07: The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol.) See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious); Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Claimed agricultural bagging machine, which differed from a prior art machine only in that the brake means were hydraulically operated rather than mechanically operated, was held to be obvious over the prior art machine in view of references which disclosed hydraulic brakes for performing the same function, albeit in a different environment.). In view of the teaching in Frame, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the claimed device in the ‘765 patent by including grooves on the strike face insert and arranging a plurality of grooves in a horizontal fashion and further providing at least one of the plurality of grooves with a groove surface angled downward at a 6-76 degree angle measured from a vertical axis, with there being a reasonable expectation of success that the grooves on the strike face insert would have contributed in desirably altering the spin characteristics of the putter head. Also, in view of the teaching in Frame and the above reasoning, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected an appropriate material(s) for the face insert of the claimed invention of the ‘765 patent based upon the specific advantages (e.g., strength, flexibility, weight) provided by the known material(s) and required by the club head designer. More specific to claims 24, 27 and 30, see claim 1 of the ‘765 patent.
Further Observations on Obviousness-Type Double Patenting
Applicant is respectfully urged to maintain a clear line of demarcation between the instant claim set and the claims in the related prior patents and copending application listed below. While no double patenting rejections based on the prior patents and copending application listed below are currently being made of record, maintaining a clear distinction between the instant claims and the claims of each of the related patents and copending application listed here will help to reduce the likelihood of obviousness-type double patenting concerns arising during later prosecution in the instant case. It is clear that the applicant, who in this case is most familiar with the language, content and prosecution history of the prior patents and copending application identified here, is best equipped to recognize any potential double patenting concerns and should therefore make an effort to amend the instant claims or file appropriate terminal disclaimers. The applicant is respectfully requested to provide further comment as to whether the applicant believes that the claims of the prior patents and copending application listed here conflict, or do not conflict, with the claims of the instant application.
USPNs: 8328654; 8758154; 9044662; 9827479; 10252138; 10668351; 10874928; 11673035; 12268945; and 12478850.
Copending United States Application Serial No.: 19/375,665
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. In Ball Aerosol v. Ltd. Brands, 555 F.3d 984, 89 USPQ2d 1870 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Federal Circuit offered additional instruction as to the need for an explicit analysis. The Federal Circuit explained that the Supreme Court’s requirement for an explicit analysis does not require record evidence of an explicit teaching of a motivation to combine in the prior art.
"[T]he analysis that "should be made explicit" refers not to the teachings in the prior art of a motivation to combine, but to the court’s analysis. . . . Under the flexible inquiry set forth by the Supreme Court, the district court therefore erred by failing to take account of 'the inferences and creative steps,' or even routine steps, that an inventor would employ and by failing to find a motivation to combine related pieces from the prior art." Ball Aerosol, 555 F.3d at 993, 89 USPQ2d at 1877.
The Federal Circuit’s directive in Ball Aerosol was addressed to a lower court, but it applies to Office personnel as well. When setting forth a rejection, Office personnel are to continue to make appropriate findings of fact as explained in MPEP § 2141 and § 2143, and must provide a reasoned explanation as to why the invention as claimed would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. This requirement for explanation remains even in situations in which Office personnel may properly rely on intangible realities such as common sense and ordinary ingenuity.
I. EXEMPLARY RATIONALES
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
/
/
/
Claim 21 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over USPN 7,648,425 (filed 12/15/2006) to Wahl et al (hereinafter referred to as “Wahl”) in view of US PUBS 2004/0121853 to Caldwell et al (hereinafter referred to as “Caldwell”).
As to independent claim 21, Wahl shows a golf club putter head (FIG. 2), comprising: a golf club putter head geometric center (i.e., col. 3, lines 43-45); a head center of gravity (CG) having a CG X-axis, a CG Y-axis, and a CG Z-axis (i.e., the center of gravity is located as explained in col. 4, line 61 through col. 5, line 1); a top portion (i.e., FIG. 2 shows a top portion including top plate 52); a sole portion having a sole opening and formed of a sole portion material; a sole plate attached to the golf club putter head and closing the sole opening, the sole plate having a sole plate rear edge and a sole plate forward edge, wherein a portion of the sole plate rear edge is located rearward of the CG, a portion of the sole plate forward edge is located forward of the CG (i.e., note sole plate 66 in FIG. 1, which takes up a considerable amount of the area of the sole portion, and wherein the sole plate clearly is situated such that a portion of the sole plate rear edge is located rearward of the CG, a portion of the sole plate forward edge is located forward of the CG); a face portion (18; FIG. 1) having a striking surface with a striking surface width and a geometric center separating a heel side and a toe side of the golf club putter head (i.e., the striking surface clearly includes a width and clearly includes a geometric center), and the face portion comprising a face portion heel side (i.e., located adjacent heel side 34 of the putter head) and a face portion toe side (i.e., located adjacent toe side 24 of the putter head); a face insert (42) attached to a portion of the face portion; a ground center location located near a bottom edge of the face portion, a ground center X-axis, a ground center Y-axis, a ground center Z-axis; a first toe side portion (24) extending rearwardly from the face portion toe side and flaring outwardly from the striking surface thereby diverging from the ground center Y-axis, and a second toe side portion (30) extending rearwardly from the first toe side portion; a first heel side portion (32) extending rearwardly from the face portion heel side and flaring outwardly from the striking surface thereby diverging from the ground center Y-axis, and a second heel side portion (38) extending rearwardly from the first heel side portion; wherein the second toe side portion (30) and the second heel side portion (38) converge toward one another; and wherein the golf club putter head has a moment of inertia about the CG z-axis (Izz) that is at least 4,000 g-cm² and no more than 14,000 g-cm² (i.e., col. 4, lines 48-53 detail an MOI about the vertical axis of 490 kg-mm2, which is 4,900 g-cm2).
Wahl lacks the feature “and the sole plate is formed of a sole plate material different than the sole portion material”. Here, Caldwell, which may be directed to a putter-type club head (i.e., see paragraph [0015]) shows it to be old in the art to construct a lower face of the club head (i.e., the bottom or sole portion of a putter club head) using a ceramic composite material (i.e., a sole portion material) along with a sole plate being constructed from a glass fiber reinforced plastic material (i.e., sole plate material different from the sole portion material) to raise the center of gravity of the club head (i.e., see claim 13 and paragraph [0009] of Caldwell). In view of the teaching in Caldwell, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the club head in Wahl by incorporating a material for the sole plate which is different from the material of the sole portion material, with there being a reasonable expectation of success that a different material for a portion of the sole portion would have enabled the skilled artisan to customize and control the weight distribution of the club head for enhanced club head performance.
Claims 28-30 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over USPN 7648425 to Wahl et al (hereinafter referred to as “Wahl”) in view of US PUBS 2004/0121853 to Caldwell et al (hereinafter referred to as “Caldwell”) and also in view of US PUBS 2005/0130764 to Frame.
As to claims 28-29, Wahl, as modified by Caldwell, lacks “grooves” as part of the face insert, as required by claim 28, and further lacks the specifics of the grooves, including a plurality of horizontal grooves with at least one of the plurality of grooves including a groove surface angled downwardly at a 6-76 degree angle measured from a vertical axis, as required by claim 29. Note that Wahl does note the use of plastic material in the construction of the face insert (i.e., col. 3, lines 30-34). Here, Frame teaches that a face insert constructed from polymeric material may be provided with beams that deflect and rebound to impart desirable topspin to a struck golf ball (i.e., Abstract and paragraphs [0008], [0032] – [0033] and [0057] in Frame). The beams disclosed by Frame are arranged in a horizontal orientation across the striking face insert and are provided with a thickness and arranged with a gap between adjacent beams (i.e., paragraphs [0038] – [0039] in Frame). The beams also extend at a particular beam angle (i.e., paragraphs [0044] – [0045] in Frame). Also, TABLES 1 and 2 in Frame provide further particulars of the construction of the beam and of the face insert. As shown in FIGS. 10-11 of Frame, the face is provided with a plurality of grooves. Moreover, selection of a specific, known material for the face insert, to take advantage of the properties of the known material would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See MPEP 2144.07: The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol.) See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious); Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Claimed agricultural bagging machine, which differed from a prior art machine only in that the brake means were hydraulically operated rather than mechanically operated, was held to be obvious over the prior art machine in view of references which disclosed hydraulic brakes for performing the same function, albeit in a different environment.). In view of the teaching in Frame, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the device in Wahl by including grooves on the strike face insert and arranging a plurality of the grooves in a horizontal fashion and further including at least one of the plurality of grooves with a groove surface angled downward at a 6-76 degree angle measured from a vertical axis, with there being a reasonable expectation of success that the grooves on the strike face insert would have contributed in desirably altering the spin characteristics of the putter head. Also, in view of the teaching in Frame and the above reasoning, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected an appropriate material(s), such as polymeric material, for the face insert based upon the specific advantages (e.g., strength, flexibility, weight) provided by the known material(s).
As to claim 30, in Wahl, see weights (50), one of which is attached to a heel-side of the putter head while another weight is attached to a toe-side of the putter head. See col. 3, lines 44-50 in Wahl.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEBASTIANO PASSANITI whose telephone number is (571)272-4413. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM-5:00PM Mon-Fri.
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.
SEBASTIANO PASSANITI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3711
/SEBASTIANO PASSANITI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights