DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites that “the first and second holster components comprise internal contact surfaces that conform to a left and a right portion of the firearm.” This renders the claim indefinite because internal contact surfaces are already recited in claim 1 and it is unclear if claim 2 is further defining those contact surfaces or if additional contact surfaces are being claimed. For examination, the claim will be treated as reciting “wherein the internal contact surfaces conform to a left and a right portion of a firearm.”
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the external surface of the outer holster" in line 1/2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the closed position" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-5, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jenkins et al. (US 2006/0156525).
Regarding claim 1, Jenkins discloses a holster 10, comprising: a first inner holster component and a second inner holster component (34; see paragraph 23 wherein flat molded insert 34 is formed with two halves, essentially a right and left inner holster component, defined on either side of a hinge structure thereby defining first and second inner holster components), wherein the first and second inner holster components are configured in a mating arrangement into an inner holster 42 (paragraph 23, 5th sentence); internal contact surfaces (see paragraph 8, sentences 4-5) formed on an interior 46 of each of the first and second inner holster components, wherein the internal contact surfaces are conformed to the shape of a predetermined firearm design (see paragraph 8, sentences 4-5), in order to securely receive and retain a respective firearm within the inner holster; an external mating surface 44 defining an exterior of the inner holster 42; and an outer holster 36 having an interior 38 defined by an internal mating surface 38 for receiving and engaging with the external mating surface of the inner holster, wherein the internal and external mating surfaces are configured to encircle the first and second holster components, and thereby securely receive and retain the inner holster within the outer holster (paragraphs 8 and 9).
Regarding claim 2, the first and second holster components comprise internal contact surfaces 22 that conform to a left and a right portion of a firearm (paragraph 8, 4th sentence).
Regarding claim 3, Jenkins discloses use with different internal holsters and different firearms as claimed – see paragraph 8, 7th-8th sentences.
Regarding claim 4, to the degree that the “front plate” has been defined, the flat mounting surface having four holes (shown in Figure 1 to the right of lead line 40 on the outer holster) is considered a front plate configured to receive at least one detachable accessory (e.g. a belt clip, and noting that the claim does not define any specific area of the holster to be the front, rear, or any other directional areas of the holster).
Regarding claim 5, the internal contact surfaces further comprise internal extensions 22 for contacting and supporting the firearm.
Regarding claim 14, the external mating surface further comprises ribs 22 formed thereon to provide structural strength to the inner holster while enabling the internal contact surfaces to have maximum contact area with the firearm.
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) 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins et al. in view of Mickels-Silva (US 2022/0364824).
Regarding claim 6, Jenkins discloses the invention substantially as claimed but does not disclose a bottom cap attached to a bottom periphery of the outer holster. Mickels-Silva discloses a similar outer holster 12 wherein a bottom cap 74 is attached to the bottom periphery of the outer holster. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a similar bottom cap to the outer holster 36 of Jenkins in order to prevent dirt and debris from entering the holster through the bottom end thereof. In doing so, the cap would further receive and retain the inner holster within the outer holster (e.g. by closing off access to the inner holster).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the claim only functional recites the material covering and the outer holster of Jenkins is capable of accepting a material covering to the degree presently claimed. Furthermore, the bottom cap taught by Mickels-Silva would provide at least a minimal degree of protection to edges of a material covering (i.e. by preventing articles from puncturing the open end of the holster/covering).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins et al. in view of Rogers et al. (US 9,541,348).
Regarding claim 17, Jenkins discloses the invention substantially as claimed but does not disclose an optic shroud. Rogers discloses a holster 15 with an optical shroud 16 rotatably mounted to an external surface of the outer most holster portion at pivots 25. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a similar optic shroud on the outer holster of Jenkins in order to protect a firearm having a top optic mounted thereon.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9-13, and 15-16 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. Regarding claims 10 and 15, the prior art teaches attachment holes and mechanical engagement components on either side of an outer holster but there is no teaching or motivation to provide them on both sides of the inner holster member.
Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. While the prior art teaches various optic shrouds that are retained in a closed position via detents, there is no teaching or motivation to mount the shroud on the outer holster while then having the detents on the inner holster as claimed.
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 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