Patent Grant
11478683
The current disclosure relates to golf club heads. More specifically, the current disclosure relates to golf club heads with features for improving playability, including at least one of relocation of center of gravity and boundary condition features.
A golf club head includes a golf club body including a crown, a sole, and a skirt connected between the crown and the sole, the golf club body including a front including a leading edge and a back including a trailing edge, and a hosel connected to the golf club body; a face connected to the front of the golf club body, the face including a geometric center, the golf club head including modifiable boundary conditions.
The features and components of the following figures are illustrated to emphasize the general principles of the present disclosure. Corresponding features and components throughout the figures may be designated by matching reference characters for the sake of consistency and clarity.
Disclosed is a golf club including a golf club head and associated methods, systems, devices, and various apparatus. It would be understood by one of skill in the art that the disclosed golf club is described in but a few exemplary embodiments among many. No particular terminology or description should be considered limiting on the disclosure or the scope of any claims issuing therefrom. For the sake of simplicity, standard unit abbreviations may be used, including but not limited to, “mm” for millimeters, “in.” for inches, “lb.” for pounds force, “mph” for miles per hour, and “rps” for revolutions per second, among others.
Portions of the following disclosure are coincident with application for U.S. patent bearing Ser. No. 13/839,727, entitled “GOLF CLUB WITH COEFFICIENT OF RESTITUTION FEATURE,” filed Mar. 15, 2013, which is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety. Although portions of the disclosure have been omitted from the current disclosure in the interest of efficiency, one of skill in the art would understand that the features and designs disclosed in the referenced application would apply to the descriptions of the technology of the current disclosure, and the full incorporation of Application for U.S. patent bearing Ser. No. 13/839,727 is beneficial for a complete understanding of the scope of the current disclosure. Additionally, claimed subject matter may include features or descriptions supplied in more full detail by the incorporation of application for U.S. patent bearing Ser. No. 13/839,727, and claims covering content in the reference application are related to the disclosure such application.
In the game of golf, when a player increases his or her distance with a given club, the result nearly always provides an advantage to the player. While golf club design aims to maximize the ability of a player to hit a golf ball as far as possible, the United States Golf Association—a rulemaking body in the game of golf—has provided a set of rules to govern the game of golf. These rules are known as The Rules of Golf and are accompanied by various Decisions on The Rules of Golf. Many rules promulgated in The Rules of Golf affect play. Some of The Rules of Golf affect equipment, including rules designed to indicate when a club is or is not legal for play. Among the various rules are maximum and minimum limits for golf club head size, weight, dimensions, and various other features. For example, no golf club head may be larger than 460 cubic centimeters in volume. No golf club face may have a coefficient of restitution (COR) of greater than 0.830, wherein COR describes the efficiency of the golf club head's impact with a golf ball.
COR is a measure of collision efficiency. COR is the ratio of the velocity of separation to the velocity of approach. In this model, therefore, COR is determined using the following formula:
COR=(νclub-post−νball-post)÷(νball-pre−νclub-pre)
where,
Although the USGA specifies the limit for maximum COR, there is no specified region in which COR may be maximized. While multiple golf club heads have achieved the maximum 0.830 COR, the region in which such COR may be found has generally been limited—typically, in a region at a geometric center of the face of the golf club head or in a region of maximum COR that is in relatively small proximity thereto. Many golf club heads are designed to launch a golf ball as far as possible within The Rules of Golf when properly struck. However, even the greatest of professional golfers do not strike each and every shot perfectly. For the vast majority of golfers, perfectly struck golf shots are an exception if not a rarity.
There are several methods to address a particular golfer's inability to strike the shot purely. One method involves the use of increased Moment of Inertia (MOI). Increasing MOI prevents the loss of energy for strikes that do not impact the center of the face by reducing the ability of the golf club head to twist on off-center strikes. Particularly, most higher-MOI designs focus on moving weight to the perimeter of the golf club head, which often includes moving a center of gravity of the golf club head back in the golf club head, toward a trailing edge.
Another method involves use of variable face thickness (VFT) technology. With VFT, the face of the golf club head is not a constant thickness across its entirety, but rather varies. For example, as described in application for U.S. patent bearing Ser. No. 12/813,442, entitled “GOLF CLUB,” filed Jun. 10, 2010—which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety—the thickness of the face varies in an arrangement with a dimension as measured from the center of the face. This allows the area of maximum COR to be increased as described in the reference.
While VFT is excellent technology, it can be difficult to implement in certain golf club designs. For example, in the design of fairway woods, the height of the face is often too small to implement a meaningful VFT design. Moreover, there are problems that VFT cannot solve. For example, edges of the golf club face tend to be more rigid than the center of the golf club face because the edges include connection features to the sole, crown, or skirt of the golf club head. Because the edges of the typical golf club face are integrated (either through a welded construction or as a single piece), a strike that is close to an edge of the face necessarily results in poor COR as it is proximate the rigid edge. It is common for a golfer to strike the golf ball at a location on the golf club head other than the center of the face. Typical locations may be high on the face or low on the face for many golfers. Both situations result in reduced COR. However, particularly with low face strikes, COR decreases very quickly. In various embodiments, the COR for strikes 5 mm below center face may be 0.020 to 0.035 difference. Further off-center strikes may result in greater COR differences.
To combat the negative effects of off-center strikes, certain designs have been implemented. For example, as described in application for U.S. patent bearing Ser. No. 12/791,025, entitled “HOLLOW GOLF CLUB HEAD,” filed Jun. 1, 2010, and application for U.S. patent bearing Ser. No. 13/338,197, entitled “FAIRWAY WOOD CENTER OF GRAVITY PROJECTION,” filed Dec. 27, 2011—both of which are incorporated by reference herein in their entirety—coefficient of restitution features located in various locations of the golf club head provide advantages. In particular, for strikes low on the face of the golf club head, the coefficient of restitution features allow greater flexibility than would typically be seen otherwise from a region low on the face of the golf club head. In general, the low point on the face of the golf club head is not flexible and, although not entirely rigid, does not experience the COR that may be seen in the geometric center of the face.
Although coefficient of restitution features allow for greater flexibility, they can often be cumbersome to implement. For example, in the designs above, the coefficient of restitution features are placed in the body of the golf club head but proximal to the face. While the close proximity enhances the effectiveness of the coefficient of restitution features, it creates challenges from a design perspective. Manufacturing the coefficient of restitution features may be difficult in some embodiments. Particularly with respect to application for U.S. patent bearing Ser. No. 13/338,197, entitled “FAIRWAY WOOD CENTER OF GRAVITY PROJECTION,” filed Dec. 27, 2011, the coefficient of restitution feature includes a sharp corner at the vertical extent of the coefficient of restitution feature that experiences extremely high stress under impact conditions. It may become difficult to manufacture such features without compromising their structural integrity in use. Further, the coefficient of restitution features necessarily extend into the golf club body, thereby occupying space within the golf club head. The size and location of the coefficient of restitution features may make mass relocation difficult in various designs, particularly when it is desirous to locate mass in the region of the coefficient of restitution feature.
In particular, one challenge with current coefficient of restitution feature designs is the ability to locate the center of gravity (CG) of the golf club head proximal to the face. As described in application for U.S. patent bearing Ser. No. 13/839,727, entitled “GOLF CLUB WITH COEFFICIENT OF RESTITUTION FEATURE,” filed Mar. 15, 2013 and application for U.S. patent bearing Ser. No. 14/144,105, entitled “GOLF CLUB,” filed Dec. 30, 2013, it has been discovered that it is desirous to locate the CG low in the golf club head. Such location of CG provides a low projection of CG onto the face of the golf club head, which results in reduced spin, leading to greater distance. In certain types of heads, it may still be the most desirable design to locate the CG of the golf club head as low as possible regardless of its location within the golf club head. However, for reasons explained in the references cited, it has unexpectedly been determined that a low and forward CG location may provide some benefits not seen in prior designs or in comparable designs without a low and forward CG.
For reference, within this disclosure, reference to a “fairway wood type golf club head” means any wood type golf club head intended to be used with or without a tee. For reference, “driver type golf club head” means any wood type golf club head intended to be used primarily with a tee. In general, fairway wood type golf club heads usually have lofts of greater than 14 degrees. In general, driver type golf club heads have lofts of 14 degrees or less, and, more usually, 12 degrees or less. In general, fairway wood type golf club heads have a length from leading edge to trailing edge of 73-97 mm. Various definitions distinguish a fairway wood type golf club head form a hybrid type golf club head, which tends to resemble a fairway wood type golf club head but be of smaller length from leading edge to trailing edge. In general, hybrid type golf club heads are 38-73 mm in length from leading edge to trailing edge. Hybrid type golf club heads may also be distinguished from fairway wood type golf club heads by weight, by lie angle, by volume, and/or by shaft length. Fairway wood type golf club heads of the current disclosure preferably are 16 degrees of loft. In various embodiments, fairway wood type golf club heads of the current disclosure may be from 15-19.5 degrees. In various embodiments, fairway wood type golf club heads of the current disclosure may be from 13-17 degrees. In various embodiments, fairway wood type golf club heads of the current disclosure may be from 13-19.5 degrees. In various embodiments, fairway wood type golf club heads of the current disclosure may be from 13-26 degrees. Additionally, most fairway wood type golf club heads are between 150 cc and 250 cc in volume as measured according to methods of the USGA. See U.S.G.A. “Procedure for Measuring the Club Head Size of Wood Clubs,” Revision 1.0.0, Nov. 21, 2003, for the methodology to measure the volume of a wood-type golf club head. Exemplary fairway wood type golf club heads of the current disclosure may be between 180 cc and 240 cc. In various embodiments, fairway wood type golf club heads of the current disclosure are between 200 cc and 220 cc. Driver type golf club heads of the current disclosure preferably are 12 degrees or less of loft in various embodiments. Driver type golf club heads of the current disclosure may be 10.5 degrees or less in various embodiments. Driver type golf club heads of the current disclosure may be between 9 degrees and 14 degrees of loft in various embodiments. In various embodiments, driver type golf club heads may be as much as 16 degrees of loft. Additionally, most driver-type golf club heads are over 375 cc in volume. Exemplary driver-type golf club heads of the current disclosure may be over 425 cc in volume. In some embodiments, driver-type golf club heads of the current disclosure are between 440 cc and 460 cc in volume.
One embodiment of a golf club head 100 is disclosed and described with reference to
A three dimensional reference coordinate system 200 is shown. An origin 205 of the coordinate system 200 is located at the geometric center of the face (CF) of the golf club head 100. See U.S.G.A. “Procedure for Measuring the Flexibility of a Golf Clubhead,” Revision 2.0, Mar. 25, 2005, for the methodology to measure the geometric center of the striking face of a golf club. The coordinate system 200 includes a z-axis 206, a y-axis 207, and an x-axis 208 (shown in
As seen with reference to
As seen with reference to
Referring back to
The cutaway view of
For reference, a center line 214 that is parallel to the z-axis 206 is shown at the center of the CORF 300 in the view of
Also seen in
With returning reference to
A center of gravity 400 (CG) of the golf club head 100 is seen in
The location of the CG 400 and the actual measurements of Δz and Δ1 affect the playability of the golf club head 100. A projection 405 of the CG 400 can be seen orthogonal to the TFP 235. A projection point (not labeled in the current embodiment) is a point at which the projection 405 intersects the TFP 235. In the current embodiment, the location of the CG 400 places the projection point at about the center of the face 110, which is the location of the origin 205 (at CF) in the current embodiment. In various embodiments, the projection point may be in a location other than the origin 205 (at CF).
The location of the CG 400—particularly the dimensions Δz and Δ1—affect the use of the golf club head 100. Particularly with fairway wood type golf club heads similar to the golf club head 100, small Δz has been used in various golf club head designs. Many designs have attempted to maximize Δ1 within the parameters of the particular golf club head under design. Such a design may focus on MOI, as rearward movement of the CG can increase MOI in some designs.
However, there are several drawbacks to rearward CG location. One such drawback is dynamic lofting. Dynamic lofting occurs during the golf swing when the Δ1 (for any club, Δ1 is the distance from the shaft plane to the CG measured in the direction of the y-axis 207) is particularly large. Although the loft angle (seen in the current embodiment as angle 213) is static, when the Δ1 is large, the CG of the golf club head is in position to cause the loft of the club head to increase during use. This occurs because, at impact, the offset CG of the golf club head from the shaft axis creates a moment of the golf club head about the x-axis 208 that causes rotation of the golf club head about the x-axis 208. The larger Δ1 becomes, the greater the moment arm to generate moment about the x-axis 208 becomes. Therefore, if Δ1 is particularly large, greater rotation is seen of the golf club head about the x-axis 208. The increased rotation leads to added loft at impact.
Dynamic lofting may be desired in some situations, and, as such, low and rearward CG may be a desired design element. However, dynamic lofting causes some negative effects on the resulting ball flight. First, for each degree of added dynamic loft, launch angle increases by 0.5-0.8°. Second, for each degree of added dynamic loft, spin rate increases by about 200-250 rpm. The increased spin rate is due to several factors. First, the dynamic lofting simply creates higher loft, and higher loft leads to more backspin. However, the second and more unexpected explanation is gear effect. The projection of a rearward CG onto the face of the golf club head creates a projection point above center face (center face being the ideal impact location for most golf club heads). Gear effect theory states that, when the projection point is offset from the strike location, the gear effect causes rotation of the golf ball toward the projection point. Because center face is an ideal impact location for most golf club heads, offsetting the projection point from the center face can cause a gear effect on perfectly struck shots. Particularly with rearward CG fairway woods, loft of the golf club head causes the projection point to be above the center face—or, above the ideal strike location. This results in a tumbling motion of the head such that the gear effect increases backspin on center strikes, generating even greater backspin. Backspin may be problematic in some designs because the ball flight will “balloon”—or, in other words, rise too quickly—and the distance of travel of the resultant golf shot will be shorter than for optimal spin conditions. A third problem with dynamic lofting is that, in extreme cases, the trailing edge of the golf club head may contact the ground, causing poor golf shots; similarly, the leading edge may raise off the ground, causing thin golf shots. It should be noted that the paragraph above assumes an ideal strike location of centerface. However, center face is not necessarily the predicted or ideal strike location, and in various embodiments the CG projection may be above center face but still below the intended strike location.
A further consideration with offsetting the CG such that the projection point is not aligned with center face is the potential loss of energy due to spin. Because of the aforementioned gear effect problem, moving the projection point anywhere other than the ideal strike location reduces the energy transfer on ideal strikes, as more energy is turned into spin. As such, golf club heads for which the projection point is offset from the ideal strike location may experience less distance on a given shot than golf club heads for which the projection point is aligned with the ideal strike location (assumed to be at center face).
As stated previously, in some embodiments, the events described above are desired outcomes of the design process. In the current embodiment, the location of the CG 400 creates a projection point (not labeled) that is closely aligned to the CF (at the origin 205).
As can be seen, the golf club head 100 of the current embodiment is designed to produce a small Δz and, thereby, to have a relatively low CG 400. In various embodiments, however, the size of Δ1 may become more important to the goal to achieve ideal playing conditions for a given set of design considerations.
A measurement of the location of the CG from the origin 205 (CF) along the y-axis 207—termed CGy distance—is a sum of Δ1 and the distance 241 between the z-axis 206 and the shaft plane z-axis 209. In the current embodiment of the golf club head 100, distance 241 is nominally 13.25 mm, and Δ1 is nominally 11.5 mm, although variations on the CGy distance are described herein. In the current embodiment, the CGy distance is 24.75 mm, although in various embodiments of the golf club head 100 the CGy distance may be as little as 18 mm and as large as 32 mm.
Knowing the CGy distance allows the use of a CG effectiveness product to describe the location of the CG in relation to the golf club head space. The CG effectiveness product is a measure of the effectiveness of locating the CG low and forward in the golf club head. The CG effectiveness product (CGeff) is calculated with the following formula and, in the current embodiment, is measured in units of the square of distance (mm2):
CGeff=CGy×Δz
With this formula, the smaller the CGeff, the more effective the club head is at relocating mass low and forward. This measurement adequately describes the location of the CG within the golf club head without projecting the CG onto the face. As such, it allows for the comparison of golf club heads that may have different lofts, different face heights, and different locations of the CF. For the current embodiment, CGy is 24.75 mm and Δz is about 12 mm. As such, the CGeff of the current embodiment is about 297 mm2. In various embodiments, CGeff is below 300 mm2, as will be shown elsewhere in this disclosure. In various embodiments, CGeff of the current embodiments is below 310 mm2. In various embodiments, CGeff of the current embodiments is below 315 mm2. In various embodiments, CGeff of the current embodiments is below 325 mm2.
Further, CGy distance informs the distance of the CG to the face as measured orthogonally to the TFP 235. The distance to the CG measured orthogonally to the TFP 235 is the distance of the projection 405. For any loft θ of the golf club head (which is the same as angle 213 for the current embodiment), the distance of the golf club face to the CG (DCG) as measured orthogonally to the TFP 235 is described by the equation below:
DCG=CGy×cos(θ)
For the current embodiment, a loft of 15 degrees and CGy of 24.75 mm means the DCG is about 23.9 mm. In various embodiments, DCG may be 20-25 mm. In various embodiments, DCG may be 15-30 mm. In various embodiments, DCG may be less than 35 mm. In various embodiments, DCG may be governed by its relationship to previously determined CGy, Δ1, Δz, or some other physical aspect of the golf club head 100.
The CORF 300 of the current embodiment is defined proximate the leading edge 170 of the golf club head 100, as seen with reference to
The CORF 300 is defined over a distance 370 from the first sole portion 355 to the first weight pad portion 365 as measured along the y-axis. In the current embodiment, the distance 370 is about 3.0 mm. In various embodiments, the distance 370 may be larger or smaller. In various embodiments, the distance 370 may be 2.0-5.0 mm. In various embodiments, the distance 370 may be variable along the CORF 300. It would be understood by one of skill in the art that, in various embodiments, the first sole portion 355 may extend in a location for which no rearward vertical surface 385b is immediately adjacent and, as such, the distance 370 may become large if measured along the y-axis 207. As previously discussed, the center line 214 passes through the center of the CORF 300. The center of the CORF 300 is defined by a distance 366, which is exactly one half the distance 370. In the current embodiment, the distance 366 is 1.5 mm.
The CORF 300 is defined distal the leading edge 170 by the first weight pad portion 365. The first weight pad portion 365 in the current embodiment includes various features to address the CORF 300 as well as the modular weight port 240 defined in the first weight pad portion 365. In various embodiments, the first weight pad portion 365 may be various shapes and sizes depending upon the specific results desired. In the current embodiment, the first weight pad portion 365 includes an overhang portion 367 over the CORF 300 along the y-axis 207. The overhang portion 367 includes any portion of the weight pad 350 that overhangs the CORF 300. For the entirety of the disclosure, overhang portions include any portion of weight pads overhanging the CORFs of the current disclosure. The overhang portion 367 includes a faceward most point 381 that is the point of the overhang portion 367 furthest toward the leading edge 170 as measured in the direction of the y-axis 207.
The overhang portion 367 overhangs a distance that is about the same as the distance 370 of the CORF 300 in the current embodiment. In the current embodiment, the weight pad 350 (including the first weight pad portion 365 and the second weight pad portion 345) are designed to provide the lowest possible center of gravity of the golf club head 100. A thickness 372 of the overhang portion 367 is shown as measured in the direction of the z-axis 206. The thickness 372 may determine how mass is distributed throughout the golf club head 100 to achieve desired center of gravity location. The overhang portion 367 includes a sloped end 374 that is about parallel to the face 110 (or, more appropriately, to the TFP 235, not shown in the current view) in the current embodiment, although the sloped end 374 need not be parallel to the face 110 in all embodiments. A separation distance 376 is shown as the distance between an inner surface 112 of the face 110 and the sloped end 374 as measured orthogonally to the TFP 235. In the current embodiment, the separation distance 376 of about 4.5 mm is seen as the distance between the inner surface 112 of the face 110 and the sloped end 374 of the overhang portion 367 as measured orthogonal to the TFP 235. In various embodiments, the separation distance 376 may be 4-5 mm. In various embodiments, the separation distance 376 may be 3-6 mm. The CORF 300 includes a beveled edge 375 (shown as 375a and 375b in the current view). In the current embodiment, the beveled edge 375 provides some stress reduction function, as will be described in more detail later. In various embodiments, the distance that the overhang portion 367 overhangs the CORF 300 may be smaller or larger, depending upon the desired characteristics of the design.
As can be seen, an inside surface 382 of the first sole portion 355 extends downward toward the sole 130. The inside surface 382 terminates at a low point 384. The CORF 300 includes a vertical surface 385 (shown as 385a,b in the current view) that defines the edges of the CORF 300. The CORF 300 also includes a termination surface 390 that is defined along a lower surface of the overhang portion 367. The termination surface 390 is offset a distance 392 from the low point 384 of the inside surface 382. The offset distance 392 provides clearance for movement of the first sole portion 355, which may deform in use, thereby reducing the distance 370 of the CORF 300. Because of the offset distance 392, the vertical surface 385 is not the same for vertical surface 385a and vertical surface 385b. However, the vertical surface 385 is continuous around the CORF 300. In the current embodiment, the offset distance 392 is about 0.9 mm. In various embodiments, the offset distance 392 may be 0.2-2.0 mm. In various embodiments, the offset distance 392 may be up to 4 mm. An offset to ground distance 393 is also seen as the distance between the low point 384 and the GP. The offset to ground distance 393 is about 2.25 mm in the current embodiment. The offset to ground distance 393 may be 2-3 mm in various embodiments. The offset to ground distance 393 may be up to 5 mm in various embodiments. A rearward vertical surface height 394 describes the height of the vertical surface 385b and a forward vertical surface height 396 describes the height of the vertical surface 385a. In the current embodiment, the forward vertical surface height 396 is about 0.9 mm and the rearward vertical surface height 394 is about 2.2 mm. In various embodiments, the forward vertical surface height 396 may be 0.5-2.0 mm. In various embodiments, the rearward vertical surface height 394 may be 1.5-3.5 mm. A termination surface to ground distance 397 is also seen and is about 3.2 mm in the current embodiment. The termination surface to ground distance 397 may be 2.0-5.0 mm in various embodiments. The termination surface to ground distance 397 may be up to 10 mm in various embodiments.
In various embodiments, the vertical surface 385b may transition into the termination surface 390 via fillet, radius, bevel, or other transition. One of skill in the art would understand that, in various embodiments, sharp corners may not be easy to manufacture. In various embodiments, advantages may be seen from transitions between the vertical surface 385b and the termination surface 390. Relationships between these surfaces (385, 390) are intended to encompass these ideas in addition to the current embodiments, and one of skill in the art would understand that features such as fillets, radii, bevels, and other transitions may substantially satisfy such relationships. For the sake of simplicity, relationships between such surfaces shall be treated as if such features did not exist, and measurements taken for the sake of relationships need not include a surface that is fully vertical or horizontal in any given embodiment.
The thickness 372 of the overhang portion 567 of the current embodiment can be seen. The thickness 372 in the current embodiment is about 3.4 mm. In various embodiments, the thickness 372 may be 3-5 mm. In various embodiments, the thickness 372 may be 2-10 mm. As shown with relation to other embodiments of the current disclosure, the thickness 372 maybe greater if combined with features of those embodiments. Additionally, the rearward vertical surface height 394 defines the distance of the CORF 300 from the termination of the bevel 375 to the termination surface 390 as well as the distance of the vertical surface 385b, although such a relationship is not necessary in all embodiments. As can be seen, each of the offset distance 392, the offset to ground distance 393, and the vertical surface height 394 is less than the thickness 372. As such, a ratio of each of the offset distance 392, the offset to ground distance 393, and the vertical surface height 394 to the thickness 372 is less than or equal to 1. In various embodiments, the CORF 300 may be characterized in terms of the termination surface to ground distance 397. For the current embodiment, a ratio of the termination surface to ground distance 397 as compared to the thickness 372 is about 1, although it may be less in various embodiments. For the sake of this disclosure, the ratio of termination surface to ground distance 397 as compared to the thickness 372 is termed the “CORF mass density ratio.” While the CORF mass density ratio provides one potential characterization of the CORF, it should be noted that all ratios cited in this paragraph and throughout this disclosure with relation to dimensions of the various weight pads and CORFs may be utilized to characterize various aspects of the CORFs, including mass density, physical location of features, and potential manufacturability. In particular, the CORF mass density ratio and other ratios herein at least provide a method of describing the effectiveness of relocating mass to the area of the CORF, among other benefits.
The CORF 300 may also be characterized in terms of distance 370. A ratio of the offset distance 392 as compared to the distance 370 is about equal to 1 in the current embodiment and may be less than 1 in various embodiments.
In various embodiments, the CORF 300 may be plugged with a plugging material (not shown). Because the CORF 300 of the current embodiment is a through-slot (providing a void in the golf club body), it is advantageous to fill the CORF 300 with a plugging material to prevent introduction of debris into the CORF 300 and to provide separation between the interior 320 and the exterior of the golf club head 100. Additionally, the plugging material may be chosen to reduce or eliminate unwanted vibrations, sounds, or other negative effects that may be associated with a through-slot. The plugging material may be various materials in various embodiments depending upon the desired performance. In the current embodiment, the plugging material is polyurethane, although various relatively low modulus materials may be used, including elastomeric rubber, polymer, various rubbers, foams, and fillers. The plugging material should not substantially prevent deformation of the golf club head 100 when in use (as will be discussed in more detail later).
The CORF 300 is shown in the view of
The CORF 300 includes a heelward end 434 and a toeward end 436. Each end 434,436 of the CORF 300 is identified at the end of the beveled edge 375. In various embodiments, the beveled edge 375 may be omitted, and the ends 434,436 may be closer together as a result. A distance 452 is shown between the toeward end 436 and the heelward end 434 as measured in the direction of the x-axis 208. In the current embodiment, the distance 452 is 40-43 mm. In various embodiments, the distance 452 may be 33-50 mm. In various embodiments, the distance 452 may be larger or smaller than the ranges cited herein and is limited only by the size of the golf club head. The CORF 300 includes a distance 454 as measured in the direction of the y-axis 207. In the current embodiment, the distance 454 is 9-10 mm. In various embodiments, the distance 454 may be 7-12 mm. In various embodiments, the distance 454 may be larger or smaller than ranges cited herein and is limited only by the size of the golf club head.
As indicated previously, the disclosure of application for U.S. patent bearing Ser. No. 13/839,727, entitled “GOLF CLUB WITH COEFFICIENT OF RESTITUTION FEATURE,” filed Mar. 15, 2013, is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety. The remaining embodiments of application for U.S. patent bearing Ser. No. 13/839,727 have been omitted for efficiency. However, the entire disclosure of application for U.S. patent bearing Ser. No. 13/839,727 should be considered included herewith as if reproduced within the body of this disclosure.
As can be understood with reference to application for U.S. patent bearing Ser. No. 13/839,727, the inclusion of a CORF such as CORF 300 leads to increased flexibility of the golf club face 110, particularly on low face shots. One of skill in the art would understand that such a low face flexibility can increase COR for the entire golf club face 110, leading to higher energy transfer on any shot. Additionally, features described in the application for U.S. patent bearing Ser. No. 13/839,727 provide for low and/or forward CG location, explaining the spin-lowering effect of such arrangement of mass.
However, what is less understood by review of the application for U.S. patent bearing Ser. No. 13/839,727 is the effect of the CORF 300 and similar features on resultant spin, nor was it well understood how modifications to various CORF features would affect spin. Features of the current disclosure discuss, among other items, the effect of various modifications on the golf club head to alter spin.
In short, it has been surprisingly discovered that boundary conditions of the face of a golf club head dramatically influence spin profiles in addition to COR. As such, COR features (CORFs) are more appropriately termed “boundary condition features,” or BCFs, because the presence of such features alters spin in addition to COR and, perhaps, other features. BCFs of the current disclosure may include elements to soften the boundary condition along the face in various embodiments. BCFs of the current disclosure may include elements to stiffen the boundary condition along the face in various embodiments. One of skill in the art would understand that the CORFs of the application for U.S. patent bearing Ser. No. 13/839,727 are but a few exemplary embodiments of softening BCFs. Both softening BCFs and stiffening BCFs will be described in greater detail herein.
As generally understood by one of skill in the art, the boundary of any golf club face can be represented as the location that the face of the golf club head meets portions of the golf club body. Given the speed and intensity of impact of the golf club face with a golf ball, the boundaries may be relatively rigid as compared with the center of the golf club face, where the face may be thinner than the edges where reinforcement occurs. The relative flexibility of a particular boundary of the face is referred to herein as the “boundary condition.”
As noted, the manipulation of the boundary condition of the face of the golf club head can result in altered spin profiles given the same conditions of impact of the golf club head. In the most simple form, the rigidity of any boundary of the face can alter the resulting golf shot. As previously noted, it became advantageous to increase COR in certain golf club heads by freeing the boundary condition with CORFs such as CORF 300. However, such a CORF does not appear to have a material impact on the resultant shot if the boundary condition of the opposite side of the face is symmetrical—or, the same relative flexibility as the boundary condition proximate the CORF.
To increase COR low on the face, golf club heads of the disclosure of application for U.S. patent bearing Ser. No. 13/839,727 included a boundary softening feature—namely, CORFs such as CORF 300. Such features provided a reduction in the rigidity of the leading edge of the golf club heads of that disclosure, leading to increased flexibility low on the face. However, it was not understood at the time that rigidity of the top of the golf club face also had an impact on the resultant shot. Were a CORF to be included in the crown of the golf club head—for example, as described in application for U.S. patent bearing Ser. No. 12/791,025, entitled “HOLLOW GOLF CLUB HEAD,” filed Jun. 1, 2010—the crown region would be relatively less rigid than previously. The resulting effect would be that the face would flex similarly to its behavior without CORFs because both the crown boundary condition and the sole boundary condition of the face would be about the same flexibility—or, in other words, symmetrical. With a symmetrical boundary condition, the resulting impact is similar, regardless of whether the boundary condition is rigid or relatively more flexible.
When a golf club head includes one boundary condition as relatively rigid and another boundary condition as relatively less rigid or more ductile, the resulting boundary condition is termed “asymmetrical.” An asymmetrical boundary condition alters shot performance dramatically as compared to the symmetrical boundary condition. CORFs that result in asymmetrical boundary conditions provide greater impact on COR than CORFs that result in symmetrical boundary conditions. Further, creating an asymmetrical boundary condition has a material impact on golf ball spin characteristics, while creating a symmetrical boundary condition has almost no impact on golf ball spin characteristics as compared to a golf club head without a modified boundary condition.
In general, when one side of the boundary is rigid and one side is relatively ductile (asymmetrical boundary condition), it has been surprisingly discovered that the resulting spin profile will be altered in a direction consistent with the relatively more ductile boundary. For example, if the boundary condition of the face proximate the crown (the “crown boundary condition” or “CBC”) is generally more rigid than the boundary condition of the face proximate the sole (the “sole boundary condition” or “SBC”), then, upon impact with a golf ball, the ball will tend to spin in a direction toward the sole, thereby reducing backspin on the golf shot. If the CBC is more flexible than the SBC, then, upon impact with a golf ball, the ball will tend to spin in a direction toward the crown, thereby increasing backspin on the golf shot.
With this unexpected discovery comes the ability to manipulate the spin characteristics of various golf club heads. For example, it is generally desirable in driver-type golf club heads to provide a golf club head with as low spin as possible. Similarly, in some clubs used to approach a green (for example, hybrid type golf club heads), it may be desirable to reduce spin in some scenarios—which will generally increase distance—or to increase spin in other scenarios—which will allow for greater ability to hold greens on long approach shots. Many features of the current disclosure will be particularly described with reference to features of the sole of the golf club head. However, in various embodiments, features seen on the sole may be modified or relocated to provide similar interactions on the crown of the various golf club heads. One of skill in the art would understand that the descriptions provided herein are not intended to rely on placement in one location unless described in a manner commensurate with that location only, as would be understood by one of skill in the art.
As seen with reference to
The BCF 1300 of the current embodiment includes multiple portions that define its shape. The BCF 1300 includes a central portion 1422 that comprises a plurality of the BCF 1300. In the current embodiment, the central portion 1422 includes a curved shape. In contrast to some features of various embodiments discussed herein, the BCF 1300 includes a curvature that is opposite of the curvature of the leading edge 170. As such, a central point 1423 of a forwardmost edge 1425 of the BCF 1300 is further from the leading edge 170 than a first central portion end point 1433 or a second central portion end point 1435. In the current embodiment, central point 1423 is removed from the leading edge 170 to reduce stress concentration, which can cause weakening or failure of the golf club head. The BCF 1300 includes two additional portions. A heelward return portion 1424 and a toeward return portion 1426 are seen. The heelward return portion 1424 and toeward return portion 1426 diverge from the leading edge 170. In the current embodiment, the defining width of the BCF 1300 remains about constant, as the curvature of a rearwardmost edge 1439 generally follows the curvature of the forwardmost edge 1425. In various embodiments, the defining width of at least one of the heelward return portion 1424 and the toeward return portion 1426 may be variable with respect to the defining with of the central portion 1422. In the current embodiment, the divergence of the heelward return portion 1424 and the toeward return portion 1426 from the leading edge 170 provides additional stress reduction to avoid potential failure—such as cracking or permanent deformation—of the golf club head 1100 along the BCF 1300. In the current embodiment, the heelward return portion 1424, central portion 1422, and toeward return portion 1426 are not constant radius between the three portions. Instead, the BCF 1300 of the current embodiment is a multiple radius (hereinafter “MR”) BCF 1300.
The BCF 1300 includes a heelward end 1434 and a toeward end 1436. A distance 1452 is shown between the toeward end 1436 and the heelward end 1434 as measured in the direction of the x-axis 208. In the current embodiment, the distance 1452 is about 83 mm. In various embodiments, the distance 1452 may be 80-85 mm. In various embodiments, the distance 1452 may be 75-95 mm. In various embodiments, the distance 1452 may be larger or smaller than the ranges cited herein and is limited only by the size of the golf club head. The BCF 1300 includes a distance 1454 as measured in the direction of the y-axis 207. In the current embodiment, the distance 1454 is 10-14 mm. In various embodiments, the distance 1454 may be 7-20 mm. In various embodiments, the distance 1454 may be larger or smaller than ranges cited herein and is limited only by the size of the golf club head. In various embodiments, the distance 1452 is between 70% and 95% of the heel-to-toe length of the golf club head 1100, which is a length from the toe 185 to the heel 190. In various embodiments, the distance 1452 is 80% to 90% of the heel-to-toe length of the golf club head. In various embodiments, the distance 1452 may be compared as a percentage of the length 177.
As can be seen with reference to
With specific reference to
As seen with reference to
In the current embodiment, an absolute width 1370 of the BCF 1300 is provided. In the current embodiment, the absolute width 1370 is about 5.5 mm. In various embodiments, the absolute width 1370 may be between 4 mm to 7 mm. In various embodiments, the absolute width 1370 may be up to 10 mm. Prior embodiments provide other limits for the width 1370 of various types of BCFs and CORFs such that one of skill in the art would understand that different sized BCFs may be created in accord with the current disclosure. In the current embodiment, the absolute width 1370 is measured orthogonally to the vertical surfaces 385a,b, which, in the current embodiment, are not parallel to the SA or the z-axis 206. However, in the current embodiment, the distance of the BCF as measured parallel to the y-axis is about the same as the absolute distance. For ranges as to distances provided as absolute distances in the current disclosure, one of skill in the art would understand that measurements as attained in a particular coordinate system would not be substantially different if the angle of measurement is not a great angle with respect to the coordinate system. As such, in the current instance, the absolute width 1370 is about the same as a width as measured parallel to the y-axis. The BCF 1300 includes a radius 1402 connecting the sole 130 to the rearward vertical surface 385b. The radius 1402 may provide better turf interaction on shots wherein a filler material may not cover such a transition region between the rearward vertical surface 385b and the sole 130.
In the current embodiment, the first sole portion 355 includes a lip feature 1555. The lip feature 1555 provides a physical extension of the vertical surface 385a above what would be possible merely from the thickness of the first sole portion 355. As such, the lip feature 1555 is a thickened portion, and includes a thickness greater than the first sole portion 355. A fillet 1557 is included between the first sole portion 355 and the lip feature 1555. The lip feature 1555 of the current embodiment terminates without connecting to other features of the golf club head 1100, although various embodiments may include various connection features.
As can be seen, the first sole portion 355 is of a moderate thickness. As previously noted (with specific reference to
With reference to
The lip feature 1555 extends into the golf club head 1100 by a distance 1393 of about 6 mm in the current embodiment. The distance 1393 is an absolute distance, although the distance as measured parallel to the TFP 235 or the z-axis 206 would not be substantially different in the current embodiment. In various embodiments, the lip feature 1555 may be between 4 mm and 8 mm. In various embodiments, the lip feature 1555 may be as little as 2 mm and as large as 15 mm. A thickness 1558 of the lip feature 1555 is about 1.0 mm. In various embodiments, the thickness 1558 may be as little as 0.5 mm and as large as 4 mm. A termination surface 1390 of an overhang portion 1367 is located a distance 1397 above the GP of about 8 mm in the current embodiment. In various embodiments, the distance 1397 may be 4 mm to 18 mm. In various embodiments, the distance 1397 may be 6 mm to 12 mm. In various embodiments, the termination surface 390 may be omitted, and in various embodiments the overhang portion 1367 may be omitted in its entirety or may be enlarged.
As seen with reference to
As seen with reference to
With specific reference to
The golf club head 2100 is seen in greater detail with reference to
The view of
Also seen in the view of
As seen with reference to
A golf club head 3100 includes a BCF 3300 as shown with reference to
As can be seen in the view of
A golf club head 4100 includes a BCF 4300 as shown with reference to
As noted previously in this disclosure, the BCFs disclosed herein manipulate the boundary conditions to provide altered spin profiles for golf shots in accord with the current disclosure.
The distances as measured in various tests as described in the current disclosure are based on finite element analysis (FEA) simulations. In general, test parameters for both FEA and robot testing are set up the same. For fairway wood-type and hybrid-type golf club head testing and analysis, the test is setup having impact conditions of 107 mph club head speed, 4° de-lofting at impact, 0.5° downward path, and 0° scoreline relative to ground (score lines parallel to ground plane). This is experimentally verified with similar setup conditions in the methodology as follows. Utilizing a robot and a head tracker to set up the club for a center face shot. The impact conditions are 107±1 mph club head speed, 4±1° de-lofting, 0±1° scoreline lie angle relative to ground, 2±1° open face angle relative to target line, 2±1° inside-to-outside head path, and 0.5±1° downward path. For driver-type golf club head testing and analysis, target club head speed is 107 mph, 0° delofting, 0.5° downward path, and 0° scoreline relative to ground. For robot testing related to driver-type golf club head testing, impact conditions are 107±1 mph club head speed, 0±1° delofting, 0±0.5° scoreline relative to ground, face angle to target of 1.5°-2.0°, head path 1.5°-2.0° inside-to-outside, and −1°-0° downward path. For the purposes of this disclosure, the term “impact loft” can be described as head static loft minus delofting. As such, for a fairway wood type golf club head of about 15° static loft with about 4° delofting in FEA analysis, the impact loft is about 11°. Similarly, for a driver-type golf club head having 11° static loft and 0° delofting, the impact loft is about 11°. For the sake of robotic testing, impact loft is the loft of the golf club head as measured at impact. In various testing, dynamic lofting may occur. Depending on how far the CG of the golf club head is from the SA, dynamic loft may have a material impact on the impact loft of the test. For example, in various embodiments, if the golf club head is of about 15° static loft with about 4° delofting for the test conditions specified above, dynamic lofting may cause variance in the impact loft of the golf club head such that the impact loft of the test is greater than 11°. For example, if dynamic lofting added 2°, the net impact loft would be 13° instead of 11°. As such, for FEA testing, dynamic lofting is not considered, and impact loft is merely the static loft minus delofting. For robot testing, impact loft is the actual loft at impact factoring in static loft, test protocol delofting, and dynamic lofting.
Once the robot is set up to achieve the desired head impact conditions, the ball is placed on a tee for center face impact within ±1 mm. At least 10 shots are taken at the center face, and the average distance is measured (both carry and total). The average carry for center face is called DCCF and the average total distance for center face is called DTCF. Next, the tee is moved to another impact location (i.e., 5±1 mm heel of center face), and 10 more shots are taken with the average carry and total distance measured. The average carry for 5 mm heel is called DC5H and the average total distance for center face is called DT5H. This is repeated for each of the other impact locations where the average carry and total distance are measured based on at least 10 shots from each of these tee positions and the same head presentation as for the center face shot. These are called DC5T and DT5T for 5 mm toe, DC5A and DT5A for 5 mm above center face, and DC5B and DT5B for 5 mm below center face). After measuring average distances for each of the impact locations, the carry range, DCRANGE, (maximum average carry—minimum average carry) are determined, and the total distance range, DTRANGE, (maximum average total—minimum average total) are calculated. Furthermore, the standard deviation of carry, DCSDEV, is calculated from DCCF, DC5H, DC5T, DC5A and DC5B; the standard deviation of total distance, DTSDEV, is calculated from (DTCF, DT5H, DT5T, DT5A and DT5B). In various tests, such analysis and testing can be performed starting from the balance point instead of center face if the two are different. In various embodiments, various tests may follow the same protocol from the balance point—the projection of the CG onto the face. However, unless noted otherwise, data in this disclosure is measured using the test protocol with respect to the CF and not the balance point.
A suitable robot may be obtained from Golf Laboratories, Inc., 2514 San Marcos Ave. San Diego, Calif., 92104. A suitable head tracker is GC2 Smart Tracker Camera System from Foresight Sports, 9965 Carroll Canyon Road, San Diego, Calif. 92131. Other robots or head tracker systems may also be used and may achieve these impact conditions. A suitable testing golf ball is the TaylorMade Lethal golf ball, but other similar commercially available urethane covered balls may also be used. In general, similar commercially available golf balls are within similar specifications. As such, similar commercially available urethane covered balls include a polyurethane outer cover of a thickness between 0.02-0.05 inches and a Shore D hardness between 50 and 65; at least two layers, wherein at least one layer is a core; a PGA compression of 75-100; a diameter between 1.670-1.690 inches; and a mass between 45-46 grams, all ranges being inclusive. In various embodiments, the COR of the ball at 125 feet per second Vin is 0.800-0.820 inclusive, although such COR need not be within the range cited above for all test ball embodiments. In various embodiments, COR of the ball may be different from the range noted above. In most embodiments, at least one layer is an ionomer mantle layer; in most embodiments, the core is a polybutadiene core, although various resin-based core materials may perform similarly to polybutadiene core materials. All balls used for test must be commercially available and USGA conforming. The preferred landing surface for total distance measurement is a standard fairway condition. Also, the wind should be less than 4 mph average during the test to minimize shot to shot variability.
Table 1 includes FEA simulation data as indicated above. The data of Table 1 analyzes the golf club heads of the current disclosure as compared to golf club heads in the industry, particularly one embodiment of application for U.S. patent bearing Ser. No. 13/839,727 as implemented into the TaylorMade JetSpeed fairway wood. Each golf club head of Table 1 was set up with a loft of 14.6°, face angle of 1.0° open, club head speed of 107.0 mph. Data were measured at center face, 5 mm above center face, and 5 mm below center face.
As can be seen, each of the golf club heads of the current disclosure decreased spin on all comparable shots. Additionally, COR was higher at most locations, resulting in increased ball speed. As a result, shots struck with the various golf club heads traveled longer total distance than the comparable JetSpeed golf club head.
Table 2 includes robot test data setup as indicated above. Golf club head 1100 was of 15° loft angle. Golf club head 4100 was of 15° loft angle. The reference club—a TaylorMade JetSpeed fairway wood—was of 14.5° loft angle. All head speeds were between 106.5 mph and 107.9 mph at testing.
In various live player tests, a group of ten golfers, each having a USGA handicap index of 0.0-5.0, stuck shots with the golf club heads of the current disclosure and with at least one reference golf club head. Each golfer struck ten total shots with each golf club head and each reference golf club head. The test was performed by striking 5 shots with the same golf club head at a time, then striking 5 shots with another golf club head chosen at random.
In the test of the current example, two reference clubs were used and included the TaylorMade Burner fairway wood from 2008 (Burner '08) and the TaylorMade JetSpeed fairway wood along with golf club head 1100 and golf club head 4100.
Averages were determined as reproduced in Table 3.
A similar player test was performed with driver-type golf club heads of the current disclosure, including golf club heads 2100 and 3100, as compared to the JetSpeed driver as a reference club. The player test was set up as indicated previously with respect to golf club heads 1100 and 4100. All driver-type golf club heads tested were of static loft of 10.7°.
Averages were determined as reproduced in Table 4.
As can be seen from simulation, robot, and player testing data, BCFs of the current disclosure substantially decreased spin rates for similar shots in similar conditions. In various embodiments, COR increased as compared to reference clubs. In various embodiments, ball speed increased as compared to reference clubs. In the measurements of Table 4, impact loft was about 11±1°.
The golf club heads were tested for COR as indicated below with reference to Table 5. COR data was gathered at the balance point (projection of CG onto the face 110). Then data was taken at points moving out from the balance point. The data set includes points ±7.5 mm and ±15 mm heelward and toeward from the balance point wherein heelward is positive and toeward is negative. The data set includes points ±5 mm from the balance point and −10 mm from the balance point wherein crownward is positive and soleward is negative. Additionally, the data set includes points that are located ±10 mm heelward and toward from the balance point and ±5 mm crownward and soleward of the balance point. Measurements were made on the TaylorMade JetSpeed fairway wood as a reference club as compared to golf club heads 1100 and 4100. The data is summarized below with reference to Table 5.
Although various points are taken for the data of Table 5, more or fewer points may be taken as needed to determine more with more specificity the COR data for any golf club head. COR data for various golf club heads of the current disclosure is also seen with reference to
Data regarding COR of the various golf club heads is aggregated with reference to
However, the shapes of the COR bands are not perfectly circular. Although COR area can likely be calculated by interpolation software, an exact measure of the face area above a certain COR may be difficult to accomplish. As such, an approximation of COR area can be taken.
In order to determine an approximation of the COR area for any band, a first extent of the band is taken parallel to the z-axis, and a second extent of the band is taken parallel to the x-axis. The first extent and second extent are maximum dimensions of the shape for which the COR is at least the required number. From each of the first extent and the second extent, a circle is made using each extent as a diameter. The area of each circle is calculated, and an average of the areas of the two circles provides an approximation of the area within the band, also known as an equivalent area and represented as AreaEquivalent. Formulas representing the procedure above are provided below. For the sake of the formulas, the first extent is annotated as ZExtent and the second extent is annotated as XExtent.
As seen with particular reference to
With reference to
Similarly, with reference to
With respect to the various measurements, Table 6 reproduces data of the interpolation charts for the first and second extents of each COR for each club, as shown.
For Table, data points indicated with “ND” are meant to indicate that no data is collected for the data point. For the JetSpeed reference club, “0” is included wherein no area exists wherein the COR is above 0.810 as tested.
In testing, one methodology involves first finding the balance point of the club. Following such a determination, additional impact points that are coaxial with the balance point can be used as measured parallel to the x-axis and parallel to the z-axis. Tests may be performed along each of these axes to determine most closely the extent of a range having the desired COR. When the desired COR is determined in the ±x-axis and ±z-axis directions, these values may be substituted for the ZExtent and XExtent values to determine AEquivalent. In many embodiments, the determined value will be within 10% measurement and calculation error of the actual value.
The embodiment shown in
Because the BCFs of the current embodiment include through-slot embodiments (providing a void in the golf club body), it is advantageous to fill the BCFs with a plugging material to prevent introduction of debris and to provide separation between the interior and the exterior of the various golf club heads of the various embodiments. The plugging materials disclosed in application for U.S. patent bearing Ser. No. 13/839,727 are generally suitable for BCFs of the current embodiments and are incorporated herein by reference.
In various embodiments, the plugging material may be replaced with a plug such as plug 6400, shown in
The plug 6400 of the current embodiment is made of a polyurethane material. In various embodiments, thermoset or thermoplastic polyurethane may be used for the plug 6400. In various embodiments, multi-material construction may be used. In various embodiments, various plastics, rubbers, foams, and other similarly pliable material may be used. Similar to previously noted for plugging materials, the plug 6400 is designed to provide minimal interference with the deflection and movement of the BCFs of the current disclosure. In various embodiments, simply filling BCFs of the current disclosure with plugging materials may have a material impact on COR of the golf club head, providing adverse response as compared to a golf club head including a BCF that does not include a plugging material. The construction and material composition of the plug 6400 allows the plug 6400 to deform substantially without significant load being placed on the BCFs or golf club heads of the current disclosure when deformation occurs upon impact with a golf ball. As such, the plug 6400 does not significantly restrict the COR of the golf club heads of the current disclosure.
In various embodiments, golf club heads and golf clubs of the current disclosure may include features allowing modifiable boundaries. In various embodiments, boundary conditions may be adjustable during manufacturing or capable of alteration post-manufacture to provide selectable spin and COR modifications. In various embodiments, boundary conditions may be modifiable by utilizing a separate apparatus to provide varying boundary conditions. In various embodiments, boundary conditions may be user-selectable such that the boundaries are capable of being modified by user-selection.
As described and disclosed in further detail below with reference to
One embodiment of is golf club head 10100. As can be seen, the golf club head 10100 includes a sole-located BCF 10300 and a crown located BCF 10303. In the current embodiment, both BCFs 10300,10303 are softening BCFs, although various embodiments may replace softening BCFs with stiffening BCFs for alteration as desired. In the current embodiment, both BCFs 10300,10303 are consistent with the construction of CORF 300, although this is not necessary for all embodiments. Other BCFs disclosed herein may be interchanged with the BCFs 10300,10303 of the current embodiment. In the current embodiment, BCF 10300 is similar in structure to BCF 10303, although these two structures need not be similar in appearance or construction in various embodiments.
As seen in
BCF inserts 10325a,b,c provide a rigid attached by virtue of being rigid assemblies made of metal. As seen with reference to
However, another embodiment of a BCF insert 10330 is seen with reference to
In various embodiments, the BCF insert 10330 may be of varying hardness and of various durometer ratings. For example, in some embodiments, the BCF insert 10330 may be of a soft durometer rating, whereas the BCF insert 10330 may be of a relatively hard durometer rating in other embodiments.
Because the BCF insert 10330 generally fills the gap formed by the BCF 10303, it provides a mechanical connection between portions of the BCF 10303 that are proximate the face 110 and portions of the BCF 10303 that are more distal to the face 110. However, because the BCF insert 10330 is generally not made of highly rigid material, the mechanical connection achieved may be more closely tuned to the requirements of the particular player. For example, by using a relatively softer durometer material, the BCF 10303 including BCF insert 10330 may respond similarly to an open BCF 10303; in contrast, using a relatively hard durometer material, the BCF 10303 including BCF insert 10330 respond more similarly to a golf club head that did not include the BCF 10303; selecting an intermediate durometer may allow the golf club head 10100 to respond materially differently from both a golf club having an open or unrestricted BCF 10303 and a golf club having no BCF 10303.
As seen with reference to
In the current embodiment, BCF inserts 10335a,b are formed of metal and generally follow the shape of the respective BCF 10300,10303. The BCF inserts 10335a,b include bond interface portions 10336a,b that may be bonded to the golf club head 10100. In the current embodiment, bonding may be along an outer surface of the golf club head. Bonding, as referred in this portion of the disclosure, may include adhesive bonding, mechanical attachment, permanent attachment such as welding or co-molding, or a variety of other interfaces as would be understood by one of skill in the art. Although BCF inserts 10335a,b of the current embodiment include bond interface portions 10336a,b, other similar inserts may omit these portions in view of a different type of interface between the particular insert and the particular BCF.
Post-production modification of the boundary conditions may also be achieved against stiffening BCFs. As seen with reference to
In various embodiments, the linking ribs 11301,11304 behave as stiffening BCFs as disclosed elsewhere in this disclosure. As seen with reference to
As shown, an outermost edge 11302,11306 of the linking ribs 11301,11304, respectively, is recessed from the outer surface of the golf club head 11100. In various embodiments, BCFs 10300,10303 may be filled with a filling material. The recessed outermost edges 11302,11306 allows the filling material to be placed over the linking ribs 11301,11304, effectively hiding the linking ribs 11301,11304 from view. As described elsewhere in this disclosure and in the disclosure of application for U.S. patent bearing Ser. No. 13/839,727, apertures from the exterior to the interior of the golf club head 11100 are required to be covered according to USGA rules. As such, filling materials such as those disclosed herein and in the various disclosures of reference herein may be utilized to provide a cover over the aperture. In various embodiments, a cap, cover, or other surface may be utilized instead of a filling or plugging material. Such cover may be bonded to an outer surface of the golf club head 11100. In various embodiments, various covers may be utilized.
As seen with reference to
It is common in manufacturing golf club heads to polish away imperfections using hand processes. For example, to provide a surface finish on a face of a golf club head, it may be necessary to remove imperfections from casting, forging, or various other processes. When hand polishing occurs, it provides a relatively large range of tolerance for the thickness of the face of the golf club head that is being polished. Because of this, COR and contact time may be different between various golf club heads that are subject to hand-polishing or other post-production work done by hand. In some of these cases, COR may become out of the range for maximum COR required by United States Golf Association (USGA) rules. Such heads are often destroyed, leading to increased production costs. Sometimes, to address this variance, golf club designers will intentionally design golf club heads to COR lower than USGA rules allow, thus allowing for variance in hand polishing to stay below USGA limits. However, this results in the vast majority of golf clubs having a COR that is below USGA maximum. As such, when tested, these golf club heads will have COR that is lower than prior designs or competitor club heads that have achieved USGA maximum—for example, those that have designed to USGA limits and have scrapped heads per the process described above.
Inclusion of a modifiable BCF such as those disclosed herein allows designers to design close to the USGA limit while maintaining the ability to change COR at a later date. For example, the modifiable stiffening BCF described as linking ribs 11301,11304 are modifiable by selectively removing individual linking ribs 11301,11304 from the plurality. Such a removal will increase COR by a marginal amount. For example, COR may increase by 0.008 by removal of a particular linking rib 11301,11304. As such, removal of that particular rib 11301,11304 may be appropriate if a golf club head 11100 is tested after hand-polishing to have a COR of 0.822, thus allowing the golf club head 11100 to reach the USGA limit of 0.830 COR.
Additionally—and as discussed elsewhere in this disclosure—modifying boundary conditions affects the spin rates. As such, selective modification of the boundary condition may allow for tuning of the COR and spin rates by user selection. In various embodiments, BCFs may be modifiable through a variety of methods. For example, the stiffening BCFs of linking ribs 11301,11304 may include ribs that are bonded across the BCF 10300,10303; removing the bonding may allow the ribs to be removed without machining. It may also be possible to re-bond ribs into place to stiffen the boundary condition. Additionally, stiffer plugging or filling material may be used to provide modified stiffness of the boundary condition as would be understood by one of skill in the art as a modification combining multiple elements of multiple embodiments of the current disclosure.
The embodiment of golf club head 11100 may be modified in various embodiments. For example, in some embodiments, a golf club head similar to golf club head 11100 may include mechanical connectors such as linking ribs 11301,11304 without a BCF 10300,10303. In such circumstances, it may be possible to machine away the linking ribs from the exterior to provide a softer boundary condition without including a BCF 10300,10303 explicitly. In such embodiments, machining holes may be covered with filler, plugging material, or a cover or insert in accord with various other embodiments of the current disclosure.
In various embodiments of the current disclosure, boundary conditions may be user-modifiable. In various embodiments, boundary conditions may be temporarily modifiable. In various embodiments, boundary condition modifications may be permanent or semi-permanent. Various methods and apparatus would be understood by one of skill in the art to be inherent to the functionality of the disclosure and would be known to one of skill in the art. Modification to embodiments herein that do not substantially deviate from the spirit of the disclosure are intended to be included as variations to the disclosed embodiments and covered within this disclosure.
One should note that conditional language, such as, among others, “can,” “could,” “might,” or “may,” unless specifically stated otherwise, or otherwise understood within the context as used, is generally intended to convey that certain embodiments include, while other embodiments do not include, certain features, elements and/or steps. Thus, such conditional language is not generally intended to imply that features, elements and/or steps are in any way required for one or more particular embodiments or that one or more particular embodiments necessarily include logic for deciding, with or without user input or prompting, whether these features, elements and/or steps are included or are to be performed in any particular embodiment.
It should be emphasized that the above-described embodiments are merely possible examples of implementations, merely set forth for a clear understanding of the principles of the present disclosure. Any process descriptions or blocks in flow diagrams should be understood as representing modules, segments, or portions of code which include one or more executable instructions for implementing specific logical functions or steps in the process, and alternate implementations are included in which functions may not be included or executed at all, may be executed out of order from that shown or discussed, including substantially concurrently or in reverse order, depending on the functionality involved, as would be understood by those reasonably skilled in the art of the present disclosure. Many variations and modifications may be made to the above-described embodiment(s) without departing substantially from the spirit and principles of the present disclosure. Further, the scope of the present disclosure is intended to cover any and all combinations and sub-combinations of all elements, features, and aspects discussed above. All such modifications and variations are intended to be included herein within the scope of the present disclosure, and all possible claims to individual aspects or combinations of elements or steps are intended to be supported by the present disclosure.
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/193,116, filed Nov. 16, 2018, now U.S. Pat. No. 10,874,916, issued Dec. 29, 2020, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/573,701, filed Dec. 17, 2014, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/457,883, filed Aug. 12, 2014, now abandoned, which claims priority to and benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/027,692, filed Jul. 22, 2014, all of which are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety. This application references application for U.S. patent bearing Ser. No. 13/839,727, entitled “GOLF CLUB WITH COEFFICIENT OF RESTITUTION FEATURE,” filed Mar. 15, 2013, which is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety and with specific reference to discussion of center of gravity location and the resulting effects on club performance. This application also references U.S. Pat. No. 7,731,603, entitled “GOLF CLUB HEAD,” filed Sep. 27, 2007, which is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety and with specific reference to discussion of moment of inertia. This application also references U.S. Pat. No. 7,887,431, entitled “GOLF CLUB,” filed Dec. 30, 2008, which is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety and with specific reference to discussion of adjustable loft and lie technology described therein and with reference to removable shaft technology and hosel sleeve connection systems. This application also references Application for U.S. patent bearing Ser. No. 13/718,107, entitled “HIGH VOLUME AERODYNAMIC GOLF CLUB HEAD,” filed Dec. 18, 2012, which is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety and with specific reference to discussion of aerodynamic golf club heads. This application also references U.S. Pat. No. 7,874,936, entitled “COMPOSITE ARTICLES AND METHODS FOR MAKING THE SAME,” filed Dec. 19, 2007, which is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety and with specific reference to discussion of composite face technology. This application also references Application for U.S. patent bearing Ser. No. 14/144,105, entitled “GOLF CLUB,” filed Dec. 30, 2013, which is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety and with specific reference to discussion of moment of inertia, center of gravity placement, and the effect of center of gravity placement on mechanics of golf club heads. This application also references application for U.S. patent bearing Ser. No. 12/813,442, entitled “GOLF CLUB,” filed Jun. 10, 2010, which is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety and with specific reference to discussion of variable face thickness. This application references Application for U.S. patent bearing Ser. No. 12/791,025, entitled “HOLLOW GOLF CLUB HEAD,” filed Jun. 1, 2010, and application for U.S. patent bearing Ser. No. 13/338,197, entitled “FAIRWAY WOOD CENTER OF GRAVITY PROJECTION,” filed Dec. 27, 2011, which are incorporated by reference herein in their entirety and with specific reference to slot technology and coefficient of restitution features. This application also references U.S. Pat. No. 6,773,360, entitled “GOLF CLUB HEAD HAVING A REMOVABLE WEIGHT,” filed Nov. 8, 2002, which is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety and with specific reference to discussion of removable weight. This application also references U.S. Pat. No. 7,166,040, entitled “REMOVABLE WEIGHT AND KIT FOR GOLF CLUB HEAD,” filed Feb. 23, 2004, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Pat. No. 6,773,360, entitled “GOLF CLUB HEAD HAVING A REMOVABLE WEIGHT,” and which is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety and with specific reference to removable weight technology. This application also references Application for U.S. patent bearing Ser. No. 13/841,325, entitled “GOLF CLUB HEAD,” filed Mar. 15, 2013, application for U.S. patent bearing Ser. No. 13/946,918, entitled “GOLF CLUB HEAD,” filed Jul. 19, 2013, and U.S. Pat. No. 7,775,905, entitled “GOLF CLUB HEAD WITH REPOSITIONABLE WEIGHT,” filed Dec. 19, 2006, which are incorporated by reference herein in their entirety and with specific reference to sliding fasteners.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3606327 | Gorman | Sep 1971 | A |
| 3652094 | Glover | Mar 1972 | A |
| 4085934 | Churchward | Apr 1978 | A |
| 4432549 | Zebelean | Feb 1984 | A |
| 5299807 | Hutin | Apr 1994 | A |
| 5362055 | Rennie | Nov 1994 | A |
| 5397126 | Allen | Mar 1995 | A |
| 5492327 | Biafore, Jr. | Feb 1996 | A |
| 5676605 | Kobayashi | Oct 1997 | A |
| 5779560 | Buck | Jul 1998 | A |
| 5797807 | Moore | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5851160 | Rugge et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
| 5935020 | Stites et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5941782 | Cook | Aug 1999 | A |
| 6086485 | Hamada | Jul 2000 | A |
| 6139445 | Werner et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6193614 | Sasamoto | Feb 2001 | B1 |
| 6309310 | Shira | Oct 2001 | B1 |
| 6344002 | Kajita | Feb 2002 | B1 |
| 6368231 | Chen | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6602149 | Jacobson | Aug 2003 | B1 |
| 6605007 | Bissonnette | Aug 2003 | B1 |
| 6776723 | Bliss et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
| 6800038 | Willett et al. | Oct 2004 | B2 |
| 7025695 | Mitsuba | Apr 2006 | B2 |
| 7029403 | Rice | Apr 2006 | B2 |
| 7166038 | Williams et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
| 7582024 | Shear | Sep 2009 | B2 |
| 7674187 | Cackett et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
| 7674189 | Beach et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
| 7731603 | Beach et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
| 7749096 | Gibbs et al. | Jul 2010 | B2 |
| 7771291 | Willett et al. | Aug 2010 | B1 |
| 7927229 | Jertson et al. | Apr 2011 | B2 |
| 8012038 | Beach et al. | Sep 2011 | B1 |
| 8012039 | Greaney et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
| 8221261 | Curtis | Jul 2012 | B2 |
| 8366566 | Rollinson | Feb 2013 | B1 |
| 8403771 | Rice | Mar 2013 | B1 |
| 8430763 | Beach et al. | Apr 2013 | B2 |
| 8496544 | Curtis et al. | Jul 2013 | B2 |
| 8506415 | Franklin | Aug 2013 | B2 |
| 8517859 | Golden | Aug 2013 | B2 |
| 8523705 | Breier et al. | Sep 2013 | B2 |
| 8529368 | Rice et al. | Sep 2013 | B2 |
| 8663029 | Beach et al. | Mar 2014 | B2 |
| 8753222 | Beach et al. | Jun 2014 | B2 |
| 8821312 | Burnett | Sep 2014 | B2 |
| 8827831 | Burnett | Sep 2014 | B2 |
| 8888607 | Harbert et al. | Nov 2014 | B2 |
| 8900069 | Beach et al. | Dec 2014 | B2 |
| 8911301 | Allen | Dec 2014 | B1 |
| 8911302 | Ivanova | Dec 2014 | B1 |
| 8956240 | Beach et al. | Feb 2015 | B2 |
| 8986133 | Bennett et al. | Mar 2015 | B2 |
| 9033818 | Myrhum | May 2015 | B2 |
| 9162115 | Beach et al. | Oct 2015 | B1 |
| 9192825 | Nakamura | Nov 2015 | B2 |
| 9636552 | Cleghorn et al. | May 2017 | B2 |
| 9662545 | Beach et al. | May 2017 | B2 |
| 9770633 | Fossum et al. | Sep 2017 | B2 |
| 9849357 | Wahl et al. | Dec 2017 | B2 |
| 9914030 | Cleghorn et al. | Mar 2018 | B2 |
| 9937390 | Luttrell et al. | Apr 2018 | B2 |
| 10150016 | Willett et al. | Dec 2018 | B2 |
| 10213662 | Seluga et al. | Feb 2019 | B2 |
| 10646756 | Beach et al. | May 2020 | B2 |
| 10653927 | Murphy et al. | May 2020 | B2 |
| 20020183134 | Allen et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20030114239 | Mase | Jun 2003 | A1 |
| 20040121852 | Tsurumaki | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040157678 | Kohno | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040162156 | Kohno | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040192463 | Tsurumaki | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20050181888 | Hou | Aug 2005 | A1 |
| 20060116218 | Burnett et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20070072698 | Juang | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20080119303 | Bennett | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080146374 | Beach et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080318705 | Clausen | Dec 2008 | A1 |
| 20090124411 | Rae et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
| 20090137338 | Kajita | May 2009 | A1 |
| 20090149275 | Rae et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090163292 | Chao | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090170632 | Beach et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090191980 | Greaney et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20100087269 | Snyder | Apr 2010 | A1 |
| 20100255930 | Rice | Oct 2010 | A1 |
| 20100267463 | Stites | Oct 2010 | A1 |
| 20110021284 | Stites | Jan 2011 | A1 |
| 20110053703 | Stites | Mar 2011 | A1 |
| 20110124432 | Oldknow | May 2011 | A1 |
| 20110312437 | Sargent | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| 20120021849 | Gibbs | Jan 2012 | A1 |
| 20120122601 | Beach et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120142447 | Boyd | Jun 2012 | A1 |
| 20120165115 | Matsunaga | Jun 2012 | A1 |
| 20120202615 | Beach et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120289360 | Breier | Nov 2012 | A1 |
| 20120289361 | Beach et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
| 20130109487 | Stokke | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130130831 | Morales | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130165252 | Rice | Jun 2013 | A1 |
| 20130165254 | Rice | Jun 2013 | A1 |
| 20130165257 | Dipert | Jun 2013 | A1 |
| 20130210542 | Harbert et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
| 20130225306 | David | Aug 2013 | A1 |
| 20130331201 | Wahl | Dec 2013 | A1 |
| 20130344990 | Slaughter | Dec 2013 | A1 |
| 20140024475 | Motokawa | Jan 2014 | A1 |
| 20140080623 | de la Cruz | Mar 2014 | A1 |
| 20140080624 | Galvan | Mar 2014 | A1 |
| 20140080626 | Bezilla | Mar 2014 | A1 |
| 20140080627 | Bennett | Mar 2014 | A1 |
| 20140080634 | Golden | Mar 2014 | A1 |
| 20140106903 | Nakamura | Apr 2014 | A1 |
| 20140141904 | Deshmukh | May 2014 | A1 |
| 20140274454 | Snyder | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140274457 | Beach et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20150011328 | Harbert et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
| 20150065265 | Motokawa | Mar 2015 | A1 |
| 20150094164 | Galvan | Apr 2015 | A1 |
| 20150094166 | Taylor | Apr 2015 | A1 |
| 20150105177 | Beach et al. | Apr 2015 | A1 |
| 20150119163 | de la Cruz | Apr 2015 | A1 |
| 20150126304 | Cleghorn | May 2015 | A1 |
| 20150133233 | Bezilla | May 2015 | A1 |
| 20150165283 | Martens | Jun 2015 | A1 |
| 20150174461 | Bennett | Jun 2015 | A1 |
| 20150217167 | Frame | Aug 2015 | A1 |
| 20150231453 | Harbert et al. | Aug 2015 | A1 |
| 20150231454 | Parsons | Aug 2015 | A1 |
| 20150231806 | Parsons | Aug 2015 | A1 |
| 20150238826 | Llewellyn | Aug 2015 | A1 |
| 20150265885 | Hettinger | Sep 2015 | A1 |
| 20150367198 | Seagram | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20150375064 | Hasegawa | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20160023062 | Willett et al. | Jan 2016 | A1 |
| 20160023063 | Willett et al. | Jan 2016 | A1 |
| 20160067561 | Golden | Mar 2016 | A1 |
| 20160096082 | Boggs | Apr 2016 | A1 |
| 20160096085 | Boggs | Apr 2016 | A1 |
| 20160193508 | Issertell | Jul 2016 | A1 |
| 20160250534 | Solheim | Sep 2016 | A1 |
| 20160296808 | Harrington | Oct 2016 | A1 |
| 20160310809 | Boggs | Oct 2016 | A1 |
| 20160317880 | Boggs | Nov 2016 | A1 |
| 20160346644 | Larson | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20160367876 | Taylor | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20170028270 | Westrum | Feb 2017 | A1 |
| 20170072277 | Mata | Mar 2017 | A1 |
| 20170100649 | Seluga | Apr 2017 | A1 |
| 20170144034 | Seluga | May 2017 | A1 |
| 20170151472 | Beach et al. | Jun 2017 | A1 |
| 20170173417 | Seluga | Jun 2017 | A1 |
| 20170182381 | Seluga | Jun 2017 | A1 |
| 20180071591 | Seluga | Mar 2018 | A1 |
| 20180078833 | Johnson et al. | Mar 2018 | A1 |
| 20180104547 | Hall | Apr 2018 | A1 |
| 20180126228 | Penney | May 2018 | A1 |
| 20190015713 | Kato | Jan 2019 | A1 |
| 20190022472 | Del Rosario | Jan 2019 | A1 |
| 20190046845 | Greensmith et al. | Feb 2019 | A1 |
| 20190046846 | Sargent et al. | Feb 2019 | A1 |
| 20190046848 | Kato | Feb 2019 | A1 |
| 20190091524 | Slaughter | Mar 2019 | A1 |
| 20190091526 | Bacon | Mar 2019 | A1 |
| 20190168087 | Martens | Jun 2019 | A1 |
| 20190184246 | Harbert et al. | Jun 2019 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| H06190088 | Jul 1994 | JP |
| H10263118 | Oct 1998 | JP |
| H11114102 | Apr 1999 | JP |
| H11155982 | Jun 1999 | JP |
| 2002-052099 | Feb 2002 | JP |
| 2002136625 | May 2002 | JP |
| 200393554 | Apr 2003 | JP |
| 2003135632 | May 2003 | JP |
| 2003210621 | Jul 2003 | JP |
| 2003524487 | Aug 2003 | JP |
| 2003320061 | Nov 2003 | JP |
| 2004174224 | Jun 2004 | JP |
| 2004232397 | Aug 2004 | JP |
| 2004261451 | Sep 2004 | JP |
| 2004265992 | Sep 2004 | JP |
| 2004271516 | Sep 2004 | JP |
| 2004313762 | Nov 2004 | JP |
| 2004-351173 | Dec 2004 | JP |
| 2004351054 | Dec 2004 | JP |
| 2005073736 | Mar 2005 | JP |
| 2005111172 | Apr 2005 | JP |
| 2005137494 | Jun 2005 | JP |
| 2005137788 | Jun 2005 | JP |
| WO 2005009543 | Feb 2005 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| “Cleveland HiBore Driver Review,” http://thesandtrip.com, 7 pages, May 19, 2006. |
| First Office Action for related Japanese Application No. 2015-142657, dated Apr. 24, 2019, 7 pages (with English translation). |
| “Invalidity Search Report for Japanese Registered Patent No. 4128970,” 4 pp. (dated Nov. 29, 2013). |
| Lindsey, “Info—Build a Better Blade,” https://www.golfworks.com/build-a-better-blade/a/527/, 3 pages (May 2008). |
| Myspygolf, How This Tiny Thing Can Make a Huge Difference in Your Next Driver, CG Defined, https://mygolfspy.com/u golf-club-center-of-gravity-cg/ (May 2015). |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20210128993 A1 | May 2021 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 62027692 | Jul 2014 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 16193116 | Nov 2018 | US |
| Child | 17105043 | US | |
| Parent | 14573701 | Dec 2014 | US |
| Child | 16193116 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 14457883 | Aug 2014 | US |
| Child | 14573701 | US |
