DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/2/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 90 and 93 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beletsky et al. (US 2002/0162865) in view of Cook (US 4,485,947) and Mongan et al. (US 8,204,561).
Regarding claims 90 and 93, Beletsky discloses a holster 10, including: a holster body comprising a plurality of holster wall portions defining a handgun receiving cavity, a rearward opening to the cavity (see Figure 1); the holster body further comprising an inner polymer layer 23 (paragraph 42); and an outer polymer layer 21 (paragraph 39), wherein the inner polymer layer is adjacent to the outer polymer layer (Figure 2/2A), the inner polymer layer formed of a polymer that is soft and durable and an outer polymer layer having a high abrasion resistance and durability (Nytek is selected for its high abrasion resistance and durability and knit polyester chosen for being soft and durable, paragraph 39 and 42), the inner polymer layer comprising a handgun engagement surface configured to define at least a portion of the handgun receiving cavity and be directly adjacent the handgun (see paragraph 36 last sentence). Beletsky does not explicit disclose the inner layer being softer than the outer layer, the inner layer being directly adjacent the outer layers, or the inner and outer layers being injection molded polymers.
Regarding the relative hardness of each material, Cook also teaches a holster wherein inner layer 16 is soft and outer layer 12 is stiff. See col. 2 line 66 and col. 3 line 15. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to make the inner layer of the holster from a material that is softer than the outer material in order to prevent marring the surface of the weapon.
Beletsky modified by Cook does not specifically disclose injection molding of two layers such that the inner layer is directly adjacent the outer layer. In contrast, the Beletsky holster is made with a core layer 22 which enables the holster to retain its form and shape, the layers 21/22/23 being cut to size and stitched together around their edges (paragraph [0036]). However, Mongan teaches an apparatus and method of forming a similar holder/protective case 10 for a personal device wherein the case is formed through co-injection molding two materials to form two layers of the case (see abstract and claim 1). Mongan specifically teaches an inner polymer layer 13 (elastomer/rubber/silicon, claim 12) that is directly adjacent (Figure 2a and 2b) a harder outer polymer layer 12 (plastic/polycarbonate, claim 13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to make the holster of Beletsky from two injection molded layers, in the manner taught by Mongan, in order to make the holster easier to produce and to require minimal material in its production – see Mongan col. 1 lines 51-55.
Claim(s) 94 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beletsky in view of Cook and Mongan, as applied to claim 90 above, and further in view of Guerdrum et al. (US 9,774,713).
Regarding claim 94, modified Beletsky discloses the holster substantially as claimed wherein the polymer layers are co-molded to form a single integral structure – see abstract and claims of Mongan for the teaching of co-molding. Modified Beletsky does not disclose over molding the outer layer onto the inner layer. HowHhhhh lkjsdlkfjas;ldkfjsdklfja;lkajf Guerdrum et al. teaches a similar holster/protective case wherein inner liner layer 110 and outer layer 120 may be “comolded (or co-molded) onto the other, comolded with the other, or overmolded onto the other.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to make the modified Beletsky holster with overmolding rather than co-molding to enable separate molds to be used to manufacture the device.
Claim(s) 97 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beletsky in view of Cook and Mongan, as applied to claim 90 above, and further in view of Corcoran et al. (US 10,165,838).
Regarding claim 97, modified Beletsky discloses the holster substantially as claimed wherein the outer polymer may comprise a thermoplastic material (see Mongan claim 13 disclosing that the polymer can be polycarbonate) but does not disclose the inner layer being a thermoplastic elastomer. Corcoran discloses a similar protective case wherein the inner layer 250 may be made from a TPE material (col. 7 lines 49-52). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to make the modified Beletsky holster with an inner layer of TPE in order to provide a manufacturing material that is known and readily available in the art. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 74-89 and 96 are allowed.
Claims 91, 92 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 90-95 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COREY NELSON SKURDAL whose telephone number is (571)272-9588. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-4pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Newhouse can be reached on 571-272-4544. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/COREY N SKURDAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights