DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seyfert et al. (US 2007/0181619).
Regarding claim 1, Seyfert discloses a firearm retention mechanism 10/60/70/20, for securely retaining a firearm within the internal contact surfaces of a holster, comprising: an ejector port 120/132 lock of the firearm retention mechanism for engaging an ejector port of the firearm in an engagement position (Figure 11), to prevent rearward movement of the firearm out of the holster; a hood 60/66 of the firearm retention mechanism for contacting a rear face of the firearm against rearward movement and thereby securing the firearm into the holster in the engagement position; an internal actuator 70/80 of the firearm retention mechanism for performing a first operation of disposing the hood into a disengagement position from the rear face of the firearm (see Figure 11 and the downward arrow at lead line 69) and a second operation of releasing the ejector port lock from the ejector port (see Figure 11 and the rightward facing arrow below lead line 132), thereby permitting rearward movement of the firearm out of the holster (Figure 12).
Regarding claim 2, first and second ejector port lock bosses 124 are formed on opposing sides of the ejector port lock, for engaging respective first and second ejector port lock mating apertures (paragraph 46, first sentence) formed respectively on first and second internal contact surfaces of the holster, wherein the ejector port lock bosses and ejector port lock mating apertures define an axis of rotation for the ejector port lock, enabling the ejector port lock to rotationally lock into the ejector port of the firearm (see Figures 11 and 12 showing the rotation of lock 132).
Regarding claim 5, the hood 60 further comprises at least one hood catch surface along a bottom periphery of the hood (see bottom surface of hood wall 69 which engages lip 148), adjacent to and aligned with at least one of the first and second hood mating apertures 68 (see Figure 11), wherein the at least one catch surface is rotatable to a configuration to retain the hood into the engagement position (paragraph 46, third sentence).
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) 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seyfert et al. in view of Luna (US 11,644,247).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Seyfert discloses the invention substantially as claimed but does not disclose the spring being a torsional spring held within a torsion spring pocket around the hood mating apertures. However, Luna teaches a similar firearm retention mechanism with a hood 190 and ejector port lock 160 wherein the hood is biased to the disengagement position by a torsion spring 198 which is held within a torsion spring pocket surrounding hood mating apertures (see in Figure 13 directly below spring 198 and Figure 16 above lead line 130). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to replace the coil spring of Seyfert with a torsional spring as taught by Luna in order to provide an alternative biasing device that is easier to replace/fix/service (i.e. by being accessible from an external side of the holster).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seyfert et al. in view of Yeates (US 2022/0107159).
Regarding claim 16, Seyfert discloses the invention substantially as claimed but does not disclose an optic shroud as claimed. However, Yeates teaches a similar firearm retention mechanism and holster wherein the holster itself is formed with an optic shroud portion 160 that it is rotatably movable and removable from the holster. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the holster of Seyfert with a similar optic shroud portion to accommodate firearms having a mounted optic accessory.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seyfert et al. in view of Badr (US 10,145,663).
Regarding claim 17, Seyfert discloses the invention substantially as claimed but does not disclose a plurality of side cover accessories. Badr teaches a holster 100 wherein a side cover 206/208 is provided for ammunition holders 106/108. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the holster of Seyfert with a similar side cover and side cover accessories to allow extra ammunition to be conveniently carried with the holster.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-15 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 filed 4/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that Seyfert fails to disclose separate operations of releasing the hood and ejector lock. Applicant argues that Seyfert only discloses a single release lever that simultaneously releases the latch and hood. However, as presently recited, there is no language requiring separate actions/movements of the internal actuator to release the hood and ejector port lock. Regardless of whether the internal actuator releases both the hood and ejector port lock at the same time, it nonetheless still performs both of those operations. There is no language in the claim defining how the internal actuator moves relative to both of those operations and no requirement that those operations be initiated by separate, distinct movements of the actuator. Examiner maintains that as presently claimed, the holster of Seyfert discloses an internal actuator 70/80 that performs two operations: 1) releasing the hood, and 2) releasing the ejector port lock. No additional structure is required by the claim.
Applicant also argues that Seyfert does not disclose a rotating ejector port lock. This argument is not understood as the claimed feature is clearly disclosed by Seyfert as in Figures 11 and 12. Specifically, Figure 11 of Seyfert which applicant reproduced has an arrow showing the rotation of the ejector port lock. For further clarification, Figure 11 discloses the ejector port lock before being rotated and Figure 12 discloses the position of the ejector port lock after being rotated.
Applicant also argues regarding claim 5 that Syfert discloses the lip being on a top end of the latch member and not a bottom as claimed. However, the terms top and bottom are terms of orientation. Just because Seyfert refers to one surface being the top and another being the bottom does not negate the fact that Syfert shows hood catch surface at a position on the bottom side of the hood as oriented in the figures. It is suggested that the relative position of the various components be defined in relation to another structural component on the device rather than relying on terms of orientation.
Regarding claim 6/7, applicant argues that Luna does not disclose a torsional spring for biasing the hood. Applicant argues that biasing element 166 of Luna biases the ejection port restraint and not the hood. This argument fails to address the rejection as applied. Specifically, Examiner relies on torsion spring 198 NOT 166. As in Figure 12 of Luna, spring 198 clearly biases hood 190.
Regarding amended claims 16 and 17, see the new ground of rejection applied above.
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 at 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
