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 3, 14, 17, and 20 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. In particular, each claim uses the term “about” while defining a range of distances for the thickness or spacing of an element of the holster. Using the term “about” in this context renders the claim indefinite because there is no clear standard to determine when something is “about” the claimed distance or dimension. Correction or clarification is required.
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) 1-4, and 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christoff (US 9,801,455) in view of Webb (US 11,612,190).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4 and 15, Christoff discloses a holster 10 substantially as claimed, including: a container 10 formed from a laminate including an inner layer having an inside surface and an outer layer having an outside surface opposite said inside surface (inner layer defined on interior 14 and outer layer on exterior 18, forming a laminate as claimed), said inside surface of the container defining a hollow interior 14 having a size and a shape corresponding to at least part of said article 12 to selectively receive said at least part of the article and allowing the article in the holster to be carried, said outside surface of the container including a substrate and a sticky rubber coating (silicone applied to the substrate, col. 2 line 63-col. 3 line 22), said sticky rubber coating being incapable of adhering to human skin and clothing (claim 1 of Christoff), wherein said sticky rubber coating form said outside surface, wherein said sticky rubber coating are capable of temporarily frictionally coupling the holster to a selected garment to carry the article in the holster (col. 2 line 63-col. 3 line 22).
Christoff discloses that “a greater or lesser amount of sticky material may be included on the exterior 18” (col. 2 line64-col. 3 line 1) but does not specifically disclose the coating being applied to a plurality of spaced areas separated from one another to define uncoated areas of the substrate. Webb discloses a means for adding grippy areas to an article of apparel 112 wherein a plurality of spaced areas 114 are coated with silicone 114 (silicone – col. 6 line 30), each area being spaced from one another to define uncoated areas therebetween (col. 7 lines 43+). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the sticky silicone coating to the exterior of the holster in a spaced pattern of areas and uncoated areas as taught by Webb in order to increase the breathability or flexibility of the holster exterior.
Regarding claim 3, modified Christoff discloses the claimed invention wherein the thickness of the sticky rubber coating may be within the claimed range – see Webb col. 8 lines 3-11.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, the coated areas taught by Webb are provided in a plurality of spaced rows that are spaced from one another in a parallel direction – see Web Figure 1.
Regarding claims 14 and 17, modified Christoff discloses the claimed invention except for the specific spacing of each row of sticky rubber coating. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the rows spaced 6-13mm apart to increase or decrease the relative breathability or flexibility of the area, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 16, modified Christoff discloses silicone (col. 6 line 30) and spaced parallel rows as claimed – see Webb Figure 1 showing the spaced pattern of raised areas 114.
Claim(s) 5-10, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christoff (US 9,801,455) in view of Webb (US 11,612,190), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Bianchi et al. (US 4,645,103).
Regarding claims 5, 6, 8-10, 18, and 19, modified Christoff discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including a laminate with an inner layer of nylon (col. 2 line 59) and an outer layer of sticky material but does not disclose the inner layer being ballistic nylon, a foam cushioning interior layer, or the outer layer being polyester with silicone applied thereto. Webb teaches that the silicone areas may be applied to a polyester material (col 10 lines 10-15, and col. 11 lines 23-30). Furthermore, Bianchi et al. teaches that is known to form layers of a holster laminate from ballistic nylon, and a foam inner layer (col. 1 lines 31-40). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to make the outer layer from silicone applied to a polyester material (as taught by Webb), to make the inner nylon from a ballistic nylon (as taught by Bianchi) and to interpose an inner foam layer therebetween in order to make the holster from common materials that balances strength, wear and comfort. 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.
Regarding claim 7, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the limitation reciting that the rubber coating is applied using a print jet has not been given patentable weight. The modified Christoff device discloses all materials as claimed.
Regarding claim 20, modified Christoff does not specifically disclose the cushioning having a thickness of 3mm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the foam layer 3mm thick, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christoff (US 9,801,455) in view of Webb (US 11,612,190), and Bianchi et al. (US 4,645,103), as applied to claim 9 above, and in further view of Gilliam (US 2004/0084494).
Regarding claim 11, modified Christoff discloses the invention substantially as claimed but does not disclose an elastic edging surrounding the laminate. Gilliam discloses that it is known to provide an elastic edging 4 at the edge of a panel in order to prevent edges of the holster from fraying (paragraph 35). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to surround the edges of the laminate with an elastic edging in order to prevent fraying of the edges.
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