Golf Inventions, Patents, and Technology via The IP Golf Guy (aka The Golf Patent Attorney)

Need Tunes on the Course?

2012-05-17T05:00:00Z

A lot of golfers must like to listen to music on the course. Personally, I like the peace and quiet, mixed with the sounds of an occasional four letter word screamed from several hundred yards away. If you just can’t leave your iPod behind when you hit the links then the head cover disclosed in recently published application US Pub. No. 20120118452 may appeal to you. Check this out.

The application describes the invention as:

The invention comprises a combination golf club head cover and a golf club head cover pocket configured to hold, transport and/or secure an object, such as a watch, wallet, key, music device, and/or personal item. Optionally, the golf club head cover is configured with an integrated music device or a replaceably attachable music device. For example, a golf club cover and/or a novelty golf club system is configured with one or more music projection elements, such as a power source, receiver, power transmittal line, music source receiver, integrated music source, connector for a replaceably attached music source, music transmittal line, user controller, amplifier, and/or speaker. The system allows a golfer to safely transport and enjoy a music device while playing a round of golf and/or to enjoy the same music source while in an indoor area and/or a refreshment area where a bulky golf bag is not readily transported.

Not in my group please.

Dave Dawsey - The Golf Patent Lawyer

PS – Roughly three years ago I covered a PING golf bag strap patent application having a similar intent.

The Rest of the Story re Callaway’s Aerodynamic Hosel Patents

2012-05-15T05:00:00Z

It is hard to believe it has been a year since I covered three unique hosel design patents awarded to Callaway Golf (here, here, and here). At the time I commented that it is easy to dismiss one or two wacky design patents as just something dreamt up in R&D that is unlikely to ever see the light of day in an actual product; but by the time that a third variation appears in a design patent one has to start thinking “they may be serious about bringing some of these variations to market.” One of the posts concluded with the thought that there must be some performance benefit associated with these new hosel designs, otherwise it is hard to imagine a Tour player saying “boy that fits my eye, give me one of those.” I can't wait to learn "the rest of the story." Well, today we learn the rest of the story.

This morning Callaway was granted USPN 8,177,659 titled “Golf Club Head with Improved Aerodynamic Characteristics.” The application was filed on January 6th and issued just over four months later by taking advantage of a “request for prioritized examination.” Such a request increases the filing fee by a factor of five, leading me to believe that it is likely that we will be seeing some variation of this aerodynamic hosel design incorporated in future products. Now don’t get me wrong, the increase in patent office fees associated with such a request is generally worth the additional costs. However, since this is the first time that I have noticed a Callaway patent issue as the result of a prioritized examination, one has to wonder what is the rush associated with securing protection for this invention.

The patent describes the invention as:

A golf club head comprising an aerodynamic hosel is disclosed herein. In one embodiment, the hosel has an upper portion and a swept transition portion which connects to the golf club head, and all points at which the swept transition portion contacts the club head are spaced rearwardly from a vertical face plane. In a further embodiment, both the upper portion and the swept transition portion comprise coaxial shaft receiving bores. In yet another embodiment, the swept transition portion of the hosel has a trailing edge that is truncated, or that has one or more surface discontinuities. In yet another embodiment, the swept transition portion has a height and a diameter, each of which is less than or equal to one inch.

The patent goes on to explain:

2. Description of the Related Art

Technical innovation in the size, structure, configuration, material, construction, and performance of golf clubs has resulted in a variety of new products. The contribution of the hosel to overall drag of a club head can be significant, but it has largely been ignored by manufacturers and innovators even though the advent of adjustable hosel configurations with increased dimensions has resulted in a larger contribution to club head drag for some club head models. For low drag head shapes the contribution of the hosel becomes more important.

The hosel of a golf club head is the connection between the shaft and the head. It is typically circular in cross-section with a diameter that is larger than the shaft. Both tapered and constant cross-section approaches can be used. The hosel is a relatively small subcomponent of a golf club head, but it essentially travels at the same high speed as the head and is usually has a very aerodynamically inefficient shape. In addition, it operates in a flow field that is heavily influenced by larger club heads, particularly in drivers.

Although the prior art has disclosed many variations of golf club heads, including a variation disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 1,587,758 (entitled "Golf Club") to Charavay, the prior art has failed to provide a club head with a hosel configuration that does not interfere with or have a negative effect on airflow during a swing.
.
.
.

FIG. 3 shows the variation of the flow angle theta with flow velocity during a typical downswing with a head speed at impact of 100 mph. At the very earliest stages of the downswing, flow speeds are very low as the flow angle increases markedly. This is followed by a period of increasing speed and a near linear decline in flow angle. Just prior to impact, at the very highest flow speeds there is a rapid drop in flow angle. Flow about the hosel 20 is also heavily influenced by the adjacent head 10, which accelerates flow velocities and affects flow directions. This leads to a much higher drag than would be experienced by a hosel 20 alone on the end of a shaft 40 subjected to a standard swing profile.
.
.
.

FIG. 5 illustrates the difference between Reynolds Numbers at 100 mph for a circular cross-section hosel 20a and one configuration of an airfoil cross-section hosel 20b having the same thickness. The present invention is not limited to this configuration. FIG. 6 demonstrates how an airfoil cross-section hosel 20b has less than one fifth of the drag of a circle cross-section hosel 20a of the same thickness at speeds of 100 to 160 mph.

Drag and Energy Loss

Aerodynamic drag of the hosel 20 is a factor in overall club drag, and becomes more significant as drag of the head 10 is reduced. As with the head 10, drag of the hosel 20 varies significantly over the time of the downswing. Large changes are induced by significant changes in orientation. Overall drag force increases with the square of velocity.

Energy dissipated by drag is meaningful in that the goal of the downswing is to impart the maximum amount of energy to the club head, and hence the ball. Furthermore, this energy is supplied by a system with limited output: the golfer. Any energy lost to drag is not available at impact and degrades performance. In general, energy dissipated due to drag, or power loss, goes with the cube of velocity. This parameter is useful because it provides a weighting scheme, giving more weight to the higher velocity portions of the swing. Furthermore, by integrating power loss over the period of the downswing, a total energy loss can be computed, resulting in a single FIGURE of merit with which to compare various drag reduction methods. Different swings can also be compared with this approach.

Interesting stuff! Can’t wait for one to reach the market (and hear the marketing spin).

Dave Dawsey - Keeping an Eye on Innovative Golf Club Patents

How Much is Your Hosel, Ferrule, and Epoxy Hurting You?

2012-05-11T05:00:00Z

As an avid golfer and equipment junkie, I go through a lot of golf clubs. Not once have I thought about the negative performance impact associated with a club’s hosel, ferrule, or epoxy; probably because that is “just how it is done.” Perhaps such old-school thinking is outdated and due for a change, particularly if you are looking for the ultimate custom club. After all, club makers are always searching for every last bit of discretionary weight to give them a leg up on the competition. Since I recently read about Rickie’s $720 shaft, one has to wonder what this club would cost.

I am referring to a club that is disclosed in a patent application that recently published as US Pub. No. 20120115631 titled “Golf Club.” The application describes the invention as:

A golf club includes a golf club head, and a shaft extending from one side of the golf club head. The shaft and the golf club head are made as a one-piece body from a prepreg sheet including a fiber structure impregnated with a resin. The fiber structure extends continuously from the shaft to the golf club head.

The application goes on to explain:

[0004] 2. Description of the Related Art

[0005] Referring to Figs. 1 and 2, a conventional golf club 1 includes a golf club head 11, a shaft 12 inserted into the golf club head 11, a ferrule 13 sleeved on the top of a hosel 16 that defines the portion of the golf club head 11 to which the shaft 12 is attached, and a grip 14 sleeved on an end of the shaft 12 opposite to the golf club head 11. In the hosel 16, the golf club head 11 is coupled to the shaft 12 using an adhesive 15. When using the golf club 1, the user's power is transmitted to a golf ball (not shown) via the grip 14, the shaft 12, and the golf club head 11. However, the conventional golf club 1 still has the following defects:

[0006] 1. The striking performance cannot be fully utilized. This is because the user's power, aside from hitting the golf ball, will also be partially diminished by the adhesive 15 and gaps formed among the constructive elements of the golf club 1.

[0007] 2. The error tolerance for striking is poor. The inclusion of the ferrule 13, the adhesive 15, and other joining structures (not shown) among the elements of the golf club 1 moves a center of gravity of the golf club 1 upward and increases the weight of the golf club 1. This may reduce the error tolerance of striking, and is adverse to the adjustment of the center of gravity and weight of the golf club 1.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

[0008] Therefore, an object of the present invention is to provide a golf club that can overcome the aforesaid drawbacks associated with the prior art.

[0009] Accordingly, a golf club of this invention comprises a golf club head, and a shaft extending from one side of the golf club head. The shaft and the golf club head are made as a one-piece body from a prepreg sheet including a fiber structure impregnated with a resin, the fiber structure extending continuously from the shaft to the golf club head.
.
.
.
[0027] Accordingly, the golf club 2 of this invention has the following advantages:

1. Good Striking Efficiency

[0028] Since the fiber structure extends continuously from the shaft 21 to the golf club head 22, and since the shaft 21 and the golf club head 22 are formed as the one-piece body, gaps among constructive elements of the golf club 2, which may diminish the user power, can be effectively avoided and the adhesive is not necessary. Thus, the user's power is almost completely transmitted to the golf club head 22 to result in an improved striking efficiency.

2. Good Error Tolerance for Striking

[0029] As described above, since the shaft 21 and the golf club head 22 are formed as the one-piece body, joining structures for assembling the constructive elements or the adhesive for bonding together the shaft 21 and the golf club head 22 are not necessary. Thus, the total weight of the golf club 2 can be reduced, and the center of gravity of the golf club 2 is relatively low. This is beneficial for the adjustment of the center of gravity and weight of the golf club 2 to increase the error tolerance for striking.

Interesting idea, but is it practical?

Dave Dawsey - The Golf Invention Attorney

PING Goes for Gold, I Mean Pink

2012-05-07T05:00:00Z

In my April 9th post titled “No Pink Grip for You! (maybe… someday)” I wondered why Karsten (aka PING) had not yet attempted to grab some coverage associated with pink on club heads. I speculated that one reason may be a trademark registration owned by Frankly Consulting, the company formed by former USGA Technical Director Frank Thomas, directed to the Original Pink Frankly Frog Putter. The trademark registration describes the mark as:

The color(s) pink is/are claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of the color pink applied to the head of a golf putter. The broken lines are used to show the position of the mark on the goods and are not part of the mark.

Well, nine days later Karsten went for it and filed a trademark application seeking to protect a club head with a pink crown.

To hedge their bet, they also filed a second trademark application seeking to protect a club head with a pink crown in combination with a pink shaft.

Check out THIS picture and see if you can spot the abnormality. That’s right, Bubba’s bi-matrix shaft is not pink all the way down to the club head. Perhaps the 5000 limited edition pink drivers will have a different shaft.

Do you think Karsten should be allowed to register these trademarks?

David Dawsey – A Golf Trademark Attorney

PS – To update an old (i.e. probably outdated) post about BubbaGolf, in the past month Bubba has filed several new trademark applications (here, here).

New Putting Style Destined for the Tour

2012-05-04T05:00:00Z

Probably not, but amazing nonetheless. Golfers and their inventions never cease to amaze me. Check out this putting style found in a patent application that recently published as US Pub. No. 20120083356 titled “Method of Putting and a Putter.”

The application describes the invention as:

A method of putting a golf ball located on a putting green into a hole includes grasping a putter with at least one hand of a golfer and locating the putter at a first position such that the putter head is positioned proximate the golf ball and is at least four feet from the golfer. Furthermore, the method includes translating the putter head away from the golf ball to locate the putter at a second position, and orienting the shoulders of the golfer to be substantially perpendicular to the putter shaft in the second position. Additionally, the method includes translating the putter head towards the golf ball while the shoulders of the golfer face the hole, and instantaneously striking the golf ball with the putter head to cause the golf ball to develop a top spin and translate in a direction along a line of the putt towards the hole.

Is it possible to make putting more difficult? This may just be the perfect marriage of shuffleboard and golf!

Dave Dawsey - The Putter Patent Attorney

PS – Click HERE to get your fill of putter inventions.

New Nike Golf “Air” Golf Ball?

2012-05-03T05:00:00Z

If the patent applications coming out of the Nike Golf R&D department are any indication, “The Oven” must be a place that welcomes unconventional thinking and ideas. How about some “adjustable dimples” as an example of unconventional thinking?

Today a Nike Golf patent application published as US Pub. No. 20120108361 titled “Golf Ball with Changeable Dimples.” Check out these drawings from the application!

Yes, that is a hand pump being used to inflate the golf ball’s dimples! The application explains:

[0048] Another embodiment of a golf ball 500 is shown in FIGS. 8 and 9. Golf ball 500 includes a core 106, an intermediate portion 508, and an outer layer 110. Core 106 and outer layer 110 are as discussed above with respect to the embodiment shown in FIGS. 2 and 3. Golf ball 500 further includes a nipple 520, which is configured to be capable of interfacing with a nozzle 524 attached to a hose 522 which is ultimately attached to a pump. Nipple 520 allows for air (or other desired gas) to be introduced into intermediate portion 508.

[0049] Specifically, as shown in detail in FIG. 9, intermediate portion 508 may be an inflatable bladder that is located between core 106 and outer layer 110. Outer layer 110 overlays intermediate portion 508 in substantially all areas except at the base area 530 of a dimple 102, where intermediate portion 508 is the outermost structural layer. Intermediate portion 508 includes a top boundary layer 516, a bottom boundary layer 518, and connectors 532 and connectors 534 between top boundary layer 516 and bottom boundary layer 518. Areas 536 are open pockets into which gas may be introduced.

[0050] Intermediate portion 508 has a first configuration 512. First configuration 512 is associated with first dimple depth 502, and a first dimple volume. While golf ball 500 is in first configuration 512, open pockets 536 may contain a first amount of gas. The first amount of gas creates a first pressure in the pockets 536. The first pressure is a pressure that is at least sufficient to maintain the structural integrity of golf ball 500 during use in a normal round of golf.

[0051] When additional gas is introduced into pockets 536, intermediate portion 508 changes from first configuration 512 into a second configuration 514. Second configuration 514 is associated with a second dimple depth 504, and a second dimple volume. In the specific embodiment shown in FIG. 9, intermediate portion 508 changes into second configuration 514 when sufficient additional gas is introduced into pockets 536 so as to create a second pressure therein. The second pressure should be sufficient to cause top boundary layer 516 to expand upward into dimple 102. When this occurs, certain of the connectors 534 elongate by stretching in order to retain the connection between the bottom boundary layer 518 and the new location of the top boundary layer 516. Other connectors 532 do not stretch, because outer layer 110 overlaps intermediate portion 508 in such a manner that top boundary layer 516 may only expand upward at the bottom surface 530 of dimple 102. When top boundary layer 516 of intermediate portion 508 expands upwards, it creates new bottom surface 550 of dimple 102. Second dimple height 504 is therefore the distance between new bottom surface 550 and line 208.

[0052] Each of the different embodiments shown in FIGS. 1-9 includes a mutable material that is configured to change in a manner so as to alter the dimple depth and dimple volume. In the embodiment shown in FIGS. 8 and 9, the mutable material comprises top boundary layer 516, which is part of a flexible inflatable bladder. In such embodiments, the mutable material may be (for example) an elastomer having sufficient flexibility to deform under the second pressure. In other embodiments, the mutable material may be a solid polymeric material. For example, each of intermediate layer 108 in golf ball 100, portion 308 of cover layer 310 on golf ball 300, and portion 408 of cover layer 410 on golf ball 400 may each respectively be made of a continuous polymer material.
.
.
.
[0059] FIG. 11 shows an alternative embodiment of the method. As was discussed with respect to FIGS. 8 and 9, golf ball 500 may include intermediate portion 508 that changes configuration in response to a change in internal gas pressure. Golf ball 500 therefore, first, exists in first configuration 512 associated with first dimple depth 502. The gas pressure in pockets 536 may then be increased by introducing additional gas into pockets 536 through nipple 520. Specifically, a golfer may use a hand 528 held pump 526, having hose 522 and nozzle 524, to introduce additional gas. The additional gas may be air, sucked into the pump 526 from the atmosphere. Alternatively, for example, the additional gas may be a desired inert gas contained in a reservoir (not shown) in the pump 526. One or more golf ball(s) 500 may be sold in a kit along with pump 526 and one or more such reservoirs. As a result of the increased gas introduced by pump 526, the internal pressure in pockets 536 increases, causing golf ball 500 to achieve second configuration 514 associated with second dimple depth 504.

[0060] Although several embodiments of external stimuli, such as heating or changing gas pressure, are discussed above, the method of the present disclosure may generally include any external stimulus that can affect a change in the mutable material. For example, external stimuli such as radiating (even without heating), wetting, physical pressure, or exposure to a specific chemical composition are all methods of inducing a change in a polymeric material that may be used in the present method.

[0061] Finally, FIG. 12 shows how the change in dimple depth affects the play characteristics of the golf ball. As was discussed above, a golf ball having shallow dimples will generally experience increased loft, and so fly along a higher flight path. On the other hand, a golf ball having deeper dimples will generally fly along a lower flight path. Golfer 602 may therefore customize the flight path golf ball 100 takes, all other factors being equal. Specifically, when golf ball 100 is in first configuration 212, golf ball 100 will generally take a first flight path 608 after being stuck by golf club 600 under generally dry conditions and with a typical swing speed not exceeding 100 mph. First flight path 608 will generally achieve increased vertical distance 612 at its peak, and slightly increased horizontal distance 606. First flight path 608 is generally symmetrical about its peak, the shifted peak shown in FIG. 12 is exaggerated for clarity.

[0062] On the other hand, when golf ball 100 is in second configuration 214, it will generally take second flight path 610, assuming the same conditions as first flight path 608. Second flight path 610 will generally achieve a lower vertical distance 614 at its peak, and very slightly less horizontal distance 606. Golfer 602 may therefore choose which configuration is most advantageous to the specific conditions under which the round of golf is being played.

Props to them if they can pull it off. Unfortunately my golf balls seem to find enough cart path bounces that I would be afraid of getting a flat.

David Dawsey – Keeping an Eye on Golf Ball Technology

PS – click HERE to read about a Nike dimple that changes with the weather.

Patent Attorneys Breathe a Sigh of Relief; Finally More Golf GPS Rangefinder Patent Litigation

2012-05-02T05:00:00Z

It is hard to believe it has been almost 1.5 years since I reported on any patent litigation concerning golf GPS rangefinders. Especially in light of the fact that back in 2007-2008 virtually every manufacturer of golf GPS devices was in midst of at least one patent infringement lawsuit. I eventually stopped following the cases because they were sucking me in like quicksand and consuming too much of my time.

Perhaps we are about to see a resurgence in golf GPS litigation. Yesterday a patent infringement complaint was filed by GPS Industries, LLC alleging that Deca International Corp., maker of the GolfBuddy line of products, is infringing USPN 5,438,518 and USPN 6,263,279. You may review the entire complaint HERE.

The complaint alleges the following (keep in mind that this is simply the view of GPS Industries):

COUNT 1 – PATENT INFRINGEMENT
DECA International, Inc.’s Infringement of the ‘518 and ‘279 Patents

17. DECA has infringed and continues to directly infringe, either literally or by equivalents, the ‘518 and ‘279 patents by making, using, selling, offering to sell, leasing, importing and/or exporting GPS-based range finders, and contributing to and or inducing infringement of one or more claims of the ‘518 and ‘279 patents.

18. The DECA products that infringe the ‘518 and ‘279 patents include, but are not limited to, its “Golf Buddy” rangefinder product line, including the Golf Buddy Pro, the Golf Buddy Tour, the Golf Buddy World, the Golf Buddy World Platinum, the Golf Buddy Platinum, and the Golf Buddy Voice (collectively referred to herein as the “DECA Rangefinder Systems”).

19. In addition to its direct infringement of the ‘518 and ‘279 patents, DECA has infringed and continues to infringe, either literally or by equivalents, the ‘518 and ‘279 patents by actively inducing direct infringement by end-users who purchase and use the aforementioned DECA Rangefinder Systems.

20. Upon information and belief, DECA had actual knowledge of the ‘518 and ‘279 patents prior to the filing of this complaint and as early as December 6, 2010. DECA was sued for the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,456,938, which identifies on its face both the ‘518 and ‘279 patents. On or about December 6, 2010, DECA was served with a copy of a complaint for patent infringement along with U.S. Patent No. 6,456,938 in connection with the lawsuit styled: SkyHawke Technologies, LLC v. Deca International Corp., No. 3:09-cv-01403-K, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.

21. Since becoming aware of at least the ‘518 and ‘279 patents, DECA has continued to intentionally, actively, and knowingly both advertise about and sell, or offer to sell, the DECA Rangefinder Systems at least through its own website, www.golfbuddyglobal.com/ .

22. Since becoming aware of at least the ‘518 and ‘279 patents, DECA’s said advertising and sales have intentionally, actively, and knowingly contained and continue to contain instructions, directions, suggestions, and/or invitations that intentionally, actively, and knowingly invite, entice, lead on, influence, prevail on, move by persuasion, cause, and/or influence the public, DECA’s distributors, DECA’s retailers, DECA’s website users, customers, and/or end users to make, use, sell, and/or offer to sell the DECA Rangefinder Systems, and/or use the DECA Rangefinder Systems to practice the inventions claimed in the ‘518 and ‘279 patents, and thus directly infringe these patents, either literally or by equivalents.

23. Since becoming aware of the ‘518 and ‘279 patents, DECA was willfully blind, knew, or should have known that its distributors, retailers, website users, customers, and/or end users’ acts relative to making, using, selling, and/or offering to sell the DECA Rangefinder Systems, and/or using the DECA Rangefinder Systems to practice the inventions claimed in the ‘518 and ‘279 patents, directly infringe these patents, either literally or by equivalents. For these reasons, DECA is liable for inducing infringement of the ‘518 and ‘279 patents.

24. The DECA Rangefinder Systems and the components thereof sold, made, operated, and/or serviced by DECA constitute a material part of the inventions claimed in the ‘518 and ‘279 patents and are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use.

25. Since becoming aware of the ‘518 and ‘279 patents, DECA was willfully blind, knew, or should have known that the DECA Rangefinder Systems and the components thereof were especially made and/or especially adapted for use in infringing the ‘518 and ‘279 patents.

26. Since becoming aware of the ‘518 and ‘279 patents, DECA was willfully blind, knew, or should have known that the DECA Rangefinder Systems and the components thereof were not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use.

27. By selling, offering to sell, or importing into the United States the DECA Rangefinder Systems and the components thereof, DECA has contributed to the infringement of distributors, retailers, customers, and/or end-users who sell, offer for sale, purchase, make, and/or use the DECA Rangefinder Systems to practice the inventions claimed in the ‘518 and ‘279 patents, and thus directly infringe these patents, either literally or by the doctrine of equivalents.

28. DECA knew or should have known that its actions would induce or contribute to the direct infringement, either literally or by equivalents, of the ‘518 and ‘279 patents by end users who use the aforementioned DECA Rangefinder Systems.

29. Upon information and belief, DECA provides continuing support services to end-users with the intent of enabling them to practice the methods claimed in the ‘518 and ‘279 patents without a license.

30. By making, using, selling, offering to sell, leasing, importing and/or exporting the DECA Rangefinder Systems, DECA has infringed and continues to infringe, either directly (literally or by equivalents) or indirectly (by inducing infringement or contributory infringement), at least claims 1, 33, and 41 of the ‘518 patent and at least claim 3 of the ‘279 patent.

31. DECA infringes the ‘518 and ‘279 patents either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.

DAMAGES

32. The infringement of the ‘518 and ‘279 patents as alleged above has injured, and continues to injure, GPSi, and GPSi thus is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate for DECA’s infringement, which in no event can be less than a reasonable royalty.

It seems like just a matter of time before all the smartphone application developers of golf GPS apps find themselves on the receiving end of a patent infringement complaint!

David Dawsey – Keeping an Eye on Golf GPS Patent Infringement

Would it Work? Bomb Your Drives with a Little Magnetic Help

2012-04-30T05:00:00Z

Building on my three prior “Would it Work” posts (HERE, HERE, and HERE), today we turn our attention to magnets. Golf inventors seem convinced that the magical powers of magnets must be able to improve golf equipment.

The patent under consideration today is USPN 5,482,282 titled “Golf Club.” The patent describes the invention as:

A novel club construction utilizes a permanent magnet fixed within the club head at a selected spot. Separated from the magnet by a non-magnetic spacer material is a keeper of ferromagnetic material which is believed to shape the flux field of the permanent magnet. This combination is used to establish a permanent field of flux within the club head.

Check it out!

The patent goes on to explain:

Note that the striking plate 16 is a hard region, which in wooden clubs may be a plate of a hardened material attached to the body of the head by a set of screws 19, which overlies the center of gravity of the club, which is referred to as the sweet spot. As is well known, hitting the ball at the sweet spot is the intention of the golfer, however it is somewhat more difficult than a non-golfer would imagine. In my invention, I form a cavity in the body into which I seat a permanent magnet 21 in alignment with the sweet spot and the loft of the striking plate, as shown in FIG. 5. The permanent magnet of choice is a horseshoe magnet or a variant thereon such as a button magnet which also has north and south poles in lateral relation. As shown in FIG. 4, the poles of the magnet are positioned facing the strike plate and are covered by a layer of non-magnetic spacer 22 material such as nylon, mylar or an adhesive layer. In a wooden club or any metallic club wherein the strike plate is non-magnetic, a keeper plate 23 of a ferromagnetic material is placed across the poles separated therefrom by the spacer 22. The striking plate thus overlies the magnet assembly. Where the club design is such that the striking plate itself is ferromagnetic, then the striking plate will serve as the effective keeper and no additional keeper plate is needed. Note that the keeper must be separated from the poles of the magnet by the spacer. Although I do not imply that the following measurements are critical to the utilization of the invention, it may be helpful for others to confirm and duplicate my club to know that the magnetic strength is between 1000 to 6000 gauss and the magnet weighs between 8 and 20 grams for a driver and between 4 and 40 grams for all other clubs. The spacer thickness varies between 0.003 and 0.25 inches. From my observations, a space must exist between the magnet and the ferromagnetic keeper plate.

An alternative construction is shown in FIG. 4A, wherein I employ a pot magnet 51, a spacer 22, and a rare earth magnet 52. In this construction, the magnetic field is set up between the two permanent magnets.

It is important to note that the variation in mass of the club is not dramatically altered by the use of the invention, nor should the mere variation in weight cause the level of difference in performance observed with my prototype woods. To test whether the improved performance was due to the mass or whether to some magnetic phenomenon, I prepared duplicate woods in which I inserted non-magnetic assemblies of the same physical description as the above magnetic assembly and had two accomplished golfers "blind test" the two versions without knowing which club contained the magnet assembly or even what was in the clubs. Using a metal wood, the two golfers drove identical balls an average of 291.3 and 288.7 yards off the tee when the magnetic assembly was present. This compared to average drives of 255.1 and 268.6 yards using an identical club which had the non-magnetic assembly in place. Similar results were attained using a persimmon wood with the magnetic and non-magnetic assemblies in place.

It will be appreciated that the rules of golf forbid the use of a club with a moving part in it; thus, the magnetic assembly is fixed in place with adhesive and a screw 24 as in FIG. 3. Thus, there does not appear to be any possibility of a mechanical rebound in the construction. I have also learned that by orienting the poles of the magnet such that the north pole is closest to the heel of the club head, as in FIG. 4, the tendency to slice the ball, i.e. imparting a clockwise spin for a right handed golfer causing the ball to fade to the right of the intended course, is greatly reduced. Likewise, placing the magnet off center toward the hosel, as in FIG. 7, reduces the tendency to slice the ball and placing the magnet off center toward the toe, FIG. 6, reduces the tendency to hook. As noted in FIG. 8, the club may even have a central main magnet assembly with one or two minor magnet assemblies at the heel or toe side to increase distance and reduce the tendency of the club head to strike the ball at an angle.

My favorite paragraph of the patent is:

While I do not know why the phenomenal results are achieved, the necessity of the flux field being present in the non-magnetic spacer indicates that movement of the club in the arc required to strike the ball interacts with the magnetic field of the earth in a manner which resists the change in inertia when the ball is struck, thus providing an extra pseudo mass to the club head as it strikes the ball.

It is magic, of course! This must be the same flux found in the flux capacitor that powered Michael J. Fox’s DeLorean “back to the future.”

So, “would it work?” My guestimate…. not a chance.

Dave Dawsey - The Golf Attorney

PS – Follow me on Twitter (@GolfPatents) to receive the latest golf patent updates

Would it Work? A Spring Loaded Golf Ball

2012-04-26T05:00:00Z

Building on my two prior “Would it Work” posts (HERE and HERE), today we turn our attention to a golf ball design. Specifically a golf ball containing springs and ball bearings.

The design is found in USPN 6,755,753 titled “Golf Ball Having a Controlled Variable Moment of Inertia.” The patent describes the invention as:

A golf ball is provided having a controlled variable moment of inertia. The golf ball includes a core defining at least one hollow channel. At least one movable weight is located within each hollow channel. The end of the hollow channel at the outer edge of the core is enclosed with a plug. The movable weight and plug may each further include a magnet or the hollow channel may include a placement member such as a spring to control the movement of the weight. When the present golf ball is struck, the spin rate forces the weights to move from the interior of the core outwardly towards the outer edge of the core, thereby varying the moment of inertia of the golf ball. A method of manufacturing the present golf ball is also provided. The golf ball also significantly reduces hooks and slices due to the gyroscopic effect of the moving weight(s) to the outer edge of the core.

Check it out!

So, “would it work?” I wouldn’t bet against the brains in the R&D department at Callaway; it just looks too difficult to manufacturer and most likely nonconforming.

Dave Dawsey - Protecting Golf Inventions

PS – Follow me on Twitter (@GolfPatents) to receive the latest golf patent updates

Would it Work? Driver Head with “Flowing Moving Part”

2012-04-24T05:00:00Z

Building on my prior post’s “Would it Work” topic, today we take a look at another common theme of golf club patents, specifically the topic of liquids within club heads. As I mentioned, the “Would it Work” category is directed to golf inventions that are likely to make at least half the readers say “come on, that would not work.”

Today’s installment takes a look at USPN 6,641,490 titled “Golf Club Head With Dynamically Movable Center of Mass.” The patent describes the invention as:

A golf club, namely a driver, includes a flowing moving part within the head such as mercury or a flowable solid in an inclined U shaped hollow passage (11). The moving part (12) remains captive at the rear of the head during the downswing on an axis defined by the direction of travel and the center of mass. A golf ball impacting the head away from this axis e.g. at the toe (17) causes the head to rotate and subsequently causing the flowing moving part (18) and hence the center of mass to move to behind the point of impact i.e. the toe, thus reducing head rotation head rotation and increasing the sweet spot.

Check it out!

The patent goes on to explain:

This invention reveals a golf club that has built into it's head, a movable material that in play moves to cause the center of gravity to shift. The material referred to can be a fluid, such as mercury or it could be small metal spheres. All further references to "mercury" shall also be taken to mean `small metal spheres`. The mercury will be confined to a relatively small area in a modified "U" shaped passage contained inside the head and be constrained by centrifugal force during the downward swing of the club that takes place just before the golf ball is struck in the course of play to an area usually positioned at the lowest part of the passage and well back toward the rear of the head. Upon impacting a golf ball and the subsequent slowing of the head's fixed parts, the mercury continues to move forward at or close to the speed of the club at impact. The position impacted on the face of the club will dictate whether the mercury divides, as would be the case with a center hit ball, or if a ball is struck well off center, all or the greater part of the mercury will be driven by kinetic energy into that sector of the passage leading to the struck area and with areas struck between these two positions causing the mercury to divide in proportions that match the impact point.

The present invention thus provides a golf club namely a driver, having a driver head, the head having a toe and a heel at opposite ends of a ball striking face for application of an impact force to a golf ball and a sole on the underside thereof, a shaft extending from the head, a surface within the head on the rear side of the ball striking face for application of a secondary impact force to a golf ball, a hollow passage within the head, the passage having first and second ends terminating at the rear surface at first and second positions on opposite sides of a central impact zone on the ball striking face, the hollow passage being arranged such that when the sole is supported on level ground with the ball striking face substantially upright, the hollow passage is inclined from the first and second positions downwardly and rearwardly from the rear surface of the ball striking face, and a liquid or flowable solid partly filling the passage, whereby upon downswing of the golf club, the liquid or flowable solid under the influence of centrifugal force will locate in a region of the passage intermediate the ends thereof and spaced from the rear surface and wherein the liquid or flowable solid will divide for application of a secondary impact force to the rear surface at the first and second positions where a golf ball is impacted by the ball striking face at or adjacent the central impact zone and wherein the liquid or flowable solid or the majority thereof will be directed for application of a secondary impact force on the rear surface at the first or second position depending upon which position is adjacent the point of impact of the ball striking face upon a golf ball.

So, “would it work?” My guestimate…. unlikely to have any influence on the ball flight.

Dave Dawsey - The Golf Patent Attorney

PS – Follow me on Twitter (@GolfPatents) to receive the latest golf patent updates

PPS - Click HERE to read about PING's "Dynamically Variable MOI" Driver

Would it Work? A Steel Ball WITHIN the Club Head to Collide with the Inside of the Face when a Golf Ball is Struck

2012-04-23T05:00:00Z

I have created a new category for the sidebar on the right. The category is titled “Would it Work.” It is the perfect place to categorize posts covering golf inventions that are likely to make at least half the readers say “come on, there is no way that would work.”

The first addition to the category is a club head design revealed in USPN 5,366,222 titled “Golf Club Head Having a Weight Distributing System.” The patent describes the invention as:

A wood golf club head includes a golf club head cavity, a steel ball within the golf club head cavity, and a permanent magnet plate attached to the back side of the club head cavity whereby upon hitting the golf ball, the steel ball moves and hits an inner sweet point corresponding to a sweet point of the front surface face of golf club head, so that the struck ball will fly in a straight direction and in a longer distance compared with an expected golf ball distance.

Check out this design!

The patent goes on to explain:

The steel ball 20 is provided with a size and weight similar to those of a conventional golf ball 22 (FIG. 4). However, the size and weight of the steel ball 20 can be adjusted depending on many factors such as a woman's golf club.

The golf club 10 having the golf club head 12 according to the present invention operates as follows. As shown in FIG. 4, when a golfer swings forward (not shown) and hits a golf ball 22, the golf ball 22 strikes a sweet point, for example A, B, C, of the front surface face 13 (see dotted line golf ball). At this time, simultaneously, the steel ball 20 moves from the permanent magnet plate 18 to an inner sweet point of the interior of front surface face 13 within the golf club head cavity 21.

Accordingly, if the golf player hits the golf ball 22 at the "C" sweet point, at this time, simultaneously the steel ball 20 hits behind the "C" sweet point. Therefore, the golf ball 22 will fly in a straight direction so that the golf ball 22 may be on the fairway and also, a golf ball distance is longer than the golf ball 22 can fly under original circumstances. The air aperture 19 functions as a kind of air passage to the atmosphere in order to freely move the steel ball 20 within the golf head cavity 21 during operation. Thus, the golf club 10 according to the present invention can enlarge the hitting area of the front surface face 13 so as to hit the golf ball 22, directs the golf ball 22 in a straight direction, and extends the golf ball distance compared with that in the original situation.

So, “would it work?” My guestimate…. not a chance.

Dave Dawsey - Monitoring Golf Club Patents

PS – Follow me on Twitter (@GolfPatents) to receive the latest golf patent updates

One Million Degrees of Club Head Adjustability

2012-04-22T05:00:00Z

No explanation needed, check out this puzzle!

The drawings come from a Nike Golf patent application that recently published as US Pub. No. 20120083359 titled “Golf Club Head or Other Ball Striking Device Having Adjustable Weighting Features.” The application describes the invention as:

A ball striking device, such as a golf club, includes a head with a face having an outer surface configured for striking a ball, a body connected to the face, and a plurality of inserts connected to the outer surface of the body. The plurality of inserts are removable and interchangeable with other inserts, and at least one of the inserts has a weight that is greater than at least another one of the inserts. The inserts may be substantially identical in size and shape to enable the inserts to be interchanged with each other. Additionally, one or more of the inserts may be a primary insert with a secondary insert connected to the primary insert.

I can just imagine the TV commercial.

Dave Dawsey - Monitoring Golf Inventions

PS – Follow me on Twitter (@GolfPatents) to receive the latest golf patent updates

Dick’s and Golf Galaxy Sued for Alleged Golf Towel Patent Infringement

2012-04-20T05:00:00Z

Golfers need an exciting new patent infringement case to fill the void left by the settlement of the Pro V1 golf ball patent dispute. Unfortunately golf towel patent litigation isn’t quite as sexy as golf ball litigation with at least 9 figures at risk.

The patent at the center of this litigation is USPN 5813080 titled “Towel Structure,” which describes the invention as:

An improved hand-held towel structure suitable for cleaning and drying athletic apparatus and other implements in wet weather is described. The towel structure includes an outer layer of towel material having a first predetermined absorbency which is separated from an inner layer of wiping material having a second predetermined absorbency by a film layer that substantially inhibits transfer of water from the towel material to the wiping material. The improved towel structure is arranged such that the outer layer of towel material may be utilized for wiping and cleaning the athletic equipment or other implements, while the film layer inhibits transfer of any soil or water to the inner wiping layer. The structure substantially defines an inner pocket open at the bottom in which the athletic equipment or other implements can be inserted for further wiping and drying. Various structures for retaining the elements of the towel structure in position relative to each other are described.

The product at the center of the dispute is the Maxfli Dry Tech Towel. Click HERE to read the entire complaint.

Is there a lesson to take away from this post? Of course! Aside from the obvious, that golf towel patent litigation is not very interesting, the lesson to learn is that if you are going to launch ANY type of product in the golf industry you MUST start with the assumption the product probably infringes at least one patent, then work to identify the sources of risk and investigate potential "design-around" alternatives.

Dave Dawsey - The Golf Litigation Attorney

PS – If you just can’t read enough about golf industry patent litigation, here is a list of past posts directed to ancillary golf products (not traditional golf club or ball litigation). Enjoy.

a) Golf Sandal Patent Litigation
b) Divot Tool Patent Litigation
c) Shuttlecock Golf Ball Patent Litigation
d) Lighted Golf Ball Patent Litigation
e) Golf Shoe Cleat Patent Infringement Litigation
f) Golf Cart Patent Litigation
g) Golf Hat Patent Litigation (involving Greg Norman Interactive)
h) Golf Simulator Patent Litigation
i) Golf Bag Patent Litigation

A Golf Club Shaft Containing Moveable Weights; Will Nike Golf Bring it to the Market?

2012-04-19T05:00:00Z

I have commented in the past that adjustability of the golf club may be trending away from the golf club head. For instance, recent posts have covered several club manufacturers efforts at developing adjustable shaft stiffness systems (Nike Golf, TaylorMade), adjustable length systems, and even adjustable grips. It was just a matter of time before someone zeroed in on placing moveable weights within the golf club shaft.

Today Nike Golf had a patent application publish as US Pub. No. 20120094780 titled “Device for Changing Mass Characteristics of a Golf Club.” The application describes the invention as:

A device for changing the mass characteristics of a golf club may include a first movable mass. The device may also include a first movable mass guide configured to accommodate longitudinal travel of the first movable mass along the golf club shaft. The first movable mass guide may not extend beyond the distal end of the golf club shaft. The golf club head may include a second movable mass and a second movable mass guide that accommodates travel of the second movable mass.

It goes on to explain:

[0067] FIG. 1 schematically illustrates a portion of the golf club shaft 12 cut-away, with an enlarged view showing the details of the cut-away of shaft 12 provided with a movable mass 330. In this particular embodiment, the movable mass 330 is configured to move longitudinally within shaft 12. Additionally, in this particular embodiment, the movable mass 330 is included as part of a movable mass device 300 that is provided within shaft 12. The movable mass device 300 further includes a moveable mass guide 310 configured to guide the movable mass 330 for movement along the length of the shaft 12. In the example embodiment of FIG. 1, the movable mass guide 310 is a slideway formed as a conduit 312 within which the movable mass 330 may travel.
.
.
.
[0069] According to certain aspects, the movable mass 330 may be located entirely within the shaft 12, as shown in FIGS. 1 and 2. According to other aspects, for example, as shown in FIGS. 3A and 3B, a movable mass 330 may be located external to the shaft 12.

.
.
.
[0076] As even another example, as shown in FIG. 4, the movable mass guide 310 may be formed as one or more flexible, strand-like elements 316, e.g., compliant wires, filaments, cables, etc. The movable mass 330 may slide along the length of the flexible, strand element 316. Referring to another example embodiment as shown in FIG. 4, the movable masses 330a, 330b are slidably located on the strand-like elements 316a, 316b, respectively. In this example embodiment, the strand-like elements 316a, 316b are formed as thick wires extending between two plug-like elements that are secured to the inside walls of the shaft 12. The movable masses 330a, 330b are provided with a central bore through which the strand-like elements 316a, 316b extend. In this example embodiment, any slight lateral motion of the movable masses 330a, 330b may be restrained by the conduits 312a, 312b.
.
.
.
[0079] The physical characteristics of a movable mass guide 310 need not be constant along its length. For example, as shown in FIG. 2, one or more of the ends of the movable mass guide 310 may be enlarged to accommodate a resilient element 308. The resilient element 308 may provide a cushion to slow the movable mass 330 right before and as the movable mass 330 reaches the end of its travel, thereby reducing impact loads and sounds. In one aspect, the resilient element 308 may act as a "soft stop." The resilient element 308 may be provided as a spring, an elastomeric pad, etc. Further, the resilient element 308 may be shaped to capture or retain movable mass 330. Thus, as shown at the proximal end 12a of the shaft 12, the resilient element 308a may be formed with a relatively soft, foam material having a conically-shaped bore that allows movable mass 330 to become lodged within resilient element 308a. The capture of movable mass 330 by resilient element 308a may be overcome, i.e., movable mass 330 may be released, due to the action of gravity or dynamic forces developed during a downswing. As another example (not shown), the cross-section of the conduit 312 may decrease at one or both of its ends 312a, 312b. The decreasing cross-section at the ends may provide an increased friction force on the movable mass 330, thereby causing the movable mass 330 to slow down and eventually stop. The change in cross-sectional area, if any, may occur abruptly or gradually.
.
.
.
[0081] Alternatively, the movable mass 330 may be a deformable mass. For purposes of this disclosure, a deformable mass 330 may be categorized as either flowable or non-flowable.

[0082] In general, a flowable deformable mass 330 has no predefined shape, but rather assumes the shape of the vessel that contains. By way of non-limiting examples, a flowable mass 330 may include non-solids, such as a liquid, a paste, or a gelatin. As another example, a flowable mass 330 may include solids, such as beads or fine particles forming, in the aggregate, a flowable material. Water, with a relatively low-viscosity, may be suitable. Liquid with higher viscosities, such as glycerol or certain oils, may also be suitable. Optionally, as another example, a flowable mass 330 may include a combination of particulates and liquid.

[0083] On the other hand, a non-flowable deformable mass 330 has a predefined shape when no forces are acting on it, but may assume a different shape when subjected to external forces. Referring to FIGS. 8A and 8B, as a non-limiting example, a non-flowable deformable mass 330 may include a flexible external member or skin 331 surrounding a flowable material 332. Thus, as an example, a non-flowable deformable mass 330 could be formed as a liquid-filled elastomeric capsule. As another example, a non-flowable deformable mass 330 could be formed as a gelatin- or paste-filled elastomeric capsule. As even another example, a non-flowable deformable mass 330 may be formed as an elastomeric capsule containing glass or polymeric beads or other material that is flowable in the aggregate. In these examples, the external skin 331 surrounds the flowable material 332 such that the flowable material is contained.

[0084] According to certain aspects, a deformable movable mass 330 may be advantageous. For example, as shown in FIGS. 8A and 8B, a deformable movable mass 330e may be provided in a conduit 312e having a constriction 319 (i.e., a reduced inner dimension). The constriction 319, which may be formed integrally with the conduit 312 as shown in FIGS. 8A and 8B, may function as a catch or restraining mechanism. In other words, under certain circumstances, the constriction 319 may restrict the movement of the movable mass 330. The constriction 319 may optionally be formed from an elastomeric material that deforms to allow passage of at least a portion of the movable mass 330 or that provides a gripping force on the movable mass. Under the application of gravity, with the club in any orientation, the deformable movable mass 330e may be wedged or fitted within the conduit 312e at the constriction 319 (see FIG. 8A). However, upon the application of the dynamic centrifugal forces experienced during a downswing, the deformable movable mass 330e may elongate along the line of forces, e.g., in the longitudinal direction `A`. This elongation in the longitudinal direction could be accompanied by a corresponding decrease in the cross section of the deformable movable mass 330e (see FIG. 8B), such that under certain dynamic forces the deformable movable mass 330e could be released to slide within the conduit 312e.

Will this be the next hot adjustability selling point? Can't you just hear the salesperson saying "the liquid-filled shaft produces too much spin, the paste-filled shaft launches the ball too low, but that gelatin-center is just right!"

Dave Dawsey - The Golf Invention Attorney

PS – click here to read about an adjustable golf ball design

A Different Spin, Twist, or Rotation on Moveable Weight Technology

2012-04-16T05:00:00Z

Over the past five years golfers have been bombarded with various adjustable weight systems, all having a unique manufacturer specific acronym or catchy name. Like most golfers I played around with the weights on the driving range two or three times before accepting that the problem was my swing, not whether 10 grams were located closer to the toe or heel of the club head. The Mizuno “Fast Track Technology” was the most fun to play with, although it didn't seem to force the ball into the middle of the fairway as I expected.

A recent Nike Golf patent application published and gives us a look at a different spin on adjustable weights. The application published as US Pub. No. 20120083360, appropriately titled “Golf Club With Adjustable Weight.” The application describes the invention as:

A golf club with a golf club head having one or more adjustable weights is presented. The club head may include a club head body having a recessed formed therein. In some arrangements, the recess may be formed in a sole portion of the club head body. The golf club head further includes an adjustable weight that may be rotated from a first position to a second position to adjust the weight characteristics, and thus the performance characteristics of the golf club. In some arrangements, the adjustable weight and/or any hardware, fasteners, etc. associated with the adjustable weight may be constantly connected to the golf club head such that adjustment of the weight does not include removal of the weight and/or any hardware, fasteners, etc.

Here are a few variations of the invention.

Tweet me (@GolfPatents) the best acronym you can come up with for this “exciting new technology,” as the marketers would say. You won’t win anything, but it may inspire me to start using Twitter.

Dave Dawsey - Monitoring Adjustable Driver Patent Applications

No Pink Grip for You! (maybe… someday)

2012-04-09T05:00:00Z

Over the past year and a half I have covered the attempted IP grabs at white crowns, matching crowns/shafts/grips, and colors in general related to golf club design. Most recently I covered a Cobra Golf design patent in the post titled “Will White Club Heads Still Be Around in 5 Years?”

In that post I touched on the trademark wrangling of Cobra and TaylorMade in their quest to own white via the trademark process and the design patent process. A Cobra trademark application has matured to registration on the Supplemental Register, see registration here, while the TaylorMade application remains pending. You can refresh your memory by reading the prior post here. The post also touched upon Cobra’s design patent USPN D652464 and pointed out that while the Cobra trademark application seemed to be directed to “the color white as applied to the entirety of a golf club excepting the collar and face of the golf club head,” i.e. including the sole, their design patent is geared toward only the color of the crown in combination with the color of the shaft and the grip (white or black). White crown, white shaft, white grip = Cobra design patent, but also black crown, black shaft, black grip = Cobra design patent!

Interestingly Cobra has taken it a step further, as revealed in a utility patent application that published last week as US Pub. No. 20120083354. A proposed claim of the application seeks to lay claim to a golf club on which “an exposed portion” of the crown, “an exposed portion” of the shaft, and “an exposed portion” of the grip are “the same hue.” You have to love patent attorneys!

Never underestimate the value of intellectual property!

This got me thinking, surely Karsten (aka PING) has attempted to grab some coverage associated with the color pink on club heads, right? Well, not yet.

One reason may be a trademark registration (on the Supplemental Register) owned by Frankly Consulting, the company formed by former USGA Technical Director Frank Thomas. The trademark registration describes the mark as:

The color(s) pink is/are claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of the color pink applied to the head of a golf putter. The broken lines are used to show the position of the mark on the goods and are not part of the mark.

The registration is clearly directed to the Original Pink Frankly Frog Putter. Hindsight being 20/20, I bet Frankly Consulting wishes the description had simply said “golf club head” rather than “golf putter.”

So, hopefully Bubba likes the black grip that he is currently using because if the Cobra application were to issue as a patent, which is a big IF, he may not be able to completely match his golf club’s outfit!

David Dawsey – A Golf IP Attorney

PS – click here to read an old (i.e. probably outdated) post about BubbaGolf.

The Free Thinking Years of Dave Pelz

2012-04-08T05:00:00Z

It just occurred to me that I short changed Mr. Pelz in my prior post “Patents by Dave Pelz – Phil Mickelson’s Short-Game Coach.” Turns out he has 16 golf related utility patents, not the 12 previously reported. Three of the utility patents were overlooked simply due to the age of the patents, namely USPN’s 3912277, 3549300, and 3462155, while one (USPN 7,225,663) issued since the date of the original post.

Two of his patents from the late 1960’s reveal some rather unusual thinking. Check out these two putter designs!

Wow!

Dave Dawsey - The Putter Patent Attorney

PS – check out some posts on his recent patent applications here, here, and here

Callaway’s Next Step in Adjustability? I Hope Not

2012-04-05T05:00:00Z

Callaway Golf seems to be taking so many steps in the right direction lately that I beg them to forget that they ever thought of an articulated hosel. Great new clubs, fabulous golf balls, and an outstanding hire for the CEO position; but please just walk away from the articulated hosel concept disclosed in a patent application that published today as US Pub. No. 20120083358 titled “Golf Club Head with Articulated Hosel.” The application describes the invention as:

A golf club head having a body, a hosel, and a bolt that connects the hosel to the body such that the hosel can rotate around the bolt is disclosed herein. In one embodiment, a worm gear engages gear teeth located at an interface of the hosel and the body, and turning the worm gear causes the hosel to rotate around the bolt. In another embodiment, a circular wedge is disposed between the hosel and the body, and rotating the circular wedge around the bolt changes the orientation of the hosel with respect to the body.

Check out this beauty..

The application explains:

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

[0003] 1. Field of the Invention

[0004] The present invention relates to a golf club head having a hosel configuration that permits changes to be made to the orientation of the hosel with respect to the golf club head without the use of bending fixtures or bending tools.

[0005] 2. Description of the Related Art

[0006] Technical innovation in the configuration, material, construction and performance of golf clubs has resulted in a variety of new products. The advent of metals as a structural material has largely replaced natural wood for wood-type golf club heads, and is but one example of this technical innovation resulting in a major change in the golf industry. Another important example is the use of composite or plastic materials to form components of golf club heads, including the face, crown, and/or sole.

[0007] A further example of innovation in the construction and design of golf clubs is the use of configurable hosels that permit golfers to change the orientation of golf club heads with respect to their shafts. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,626,528 to Toulon teaches a unitary hosel having a continuous curved bottom groove extending completely about the hosel to form a reduced bending moment region enabling the making of minor adjustments in both lie and face angle of the club. Another example is U.S. Pat. No. 6,186,903 to Beebe et al., which teaches a hosel having a notch formed in the lower surface of the hosel neck. This patent teaches that the desired orientation of the hosel bore can be adjusted by bending the hosel neck at the notch. The drawback of the hosel configurations taught by these two patents is the fact that they require significant bending pressure to change the orientation of the club head with respect to the shaft.

[0008] Although the prior art has disclosed many variations of golf club heads, the prior art has failed to provide a club head with a hosel that permits easy modification of the golf club head orientation.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

[0009] Golfers have personalized preferences for the orientation of the hosel on their golf clubs. Many golfers prefer to change the orientation of a golf club hosel on the clubs. The present invention provides an improvement over prior art configurations and constructions because it makes it easy for golfers to change the hosel orientation even after construction of the golf club is complete.

[0010] An aspect of the invention is a golf club head comprising a body, a hosel, and a bolt, wherein the bolt connects the hosel to the body and wherein the hosel can rotate around the bolt. In further embodiments, the hosel is angled with respect to the bolt, and rotating the hosel around the bolt changes the angular orientation of the hosel with respect to the body. In some embodiments, the hosel may be composed of metal or composite material. In other embodiments, the body may be composed of metal or composite material.

[0011] In one embodiment, the golf club head further comprises gear teeth at the interface between the hosel and the body and a worm gear engaging the gear teeth, wherein turning the worm gear moves the gear teeth and rotates the hosel around the bolt. In further embodiments, the worm gear is composed of a metal or composite material. In other embodiments, the golf club head further comprises a washer affixed to the bolt.

[0012] In another embodiment, the golf club head further comprises a circular wedge disposed between the hosel and the body and secured therebetween by the bolt, wherein the circular wedge tilts the hosel such that it forms an angle with the body and wherein the circular wedge can rotate around the bolt. In further embodiments, rotating the circular wedge around the bolt changes the orientation of the hosel with respect to the body. In some embodiments, the circular wedge is composed of a metal or a composite material. In a further embodiment, the golf club head further comprises a washer affixed to the bolt.

A worm gear has no place on a golf club! Although... it would be impressive if they could pull off the engineering to make such a connection system durable and reliable.

Dave Dawsey - Monitoring Adjustable Golf Club Inventions

Which 3 Masters Champions are also Patent Holders?

2012-04-03T05:00:00Z

It is a fitting time to revisit prior posts that cover Masters champions who are also inventors. So, with respect to utility patents check out the prior post titled "Which Two Masters Champions Have Been Issued Utility Patents since 1976?"; and with respect to design patents check out the prior post titled "Which Top 5 Golfer is an Inventor on a Golf Club Patent? And Who Owns the Patent?" (yes, I realize that he is no longer a "top 5" golfer). Additionally, one of the champions has had some recent patent activity covered here, here, and here.

Dave Dawsey - The Golf Patent Attorney

Ahh, Masters' Week is Finally Here

2012-04-02T05:00:00Z

It is that time of year again to check out Augusta's trademark portfolio. Check out my prior post One More Reason to Admire Augusta National – The Trademark Portfolio, which illustrates that there are some pretty smart people that know how to capitalize on Augusta's fame.

David Dawsey - The IP Golf Guy