DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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) 1-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slinkard (US 9,267,760) in view of Keepers (US 9,222,750).
Regarding claim 1, Slinkard discloses a holster capable of concealing a laser-sighted handgun comprising: a closed front tab (at 56); a closed rear tab (at 20); and a pouch (36) for storing a firearm between said closed front tab and closed rear tab, wherein the pouch comprises a top opening (at 36) for receiving a handgun barrel; wherein the front tab comprises a front tab fastener (24) configured to be attached to a user; wherein the rear tab comprises a rear tab (22) fastener configured to be attached to a user; wherein the front tab fastener can be nearer the top of the holster than the rear tab fastener (Fig. 2; and col. 2, ll. 58 - col. 3, ll. 13); wherein the holster is made from two pieces of material (col. 3, ll. 20-23); wherein the front tab fastener and rear tab fastener are capable of being configured to hold the front of the holster in a higher position than the rear tab fastener holds the rear of the holster such that the holster may be affixed to a user in an angled position and a handgun in the holster may remain in substantially the same position within the holster when a user bends. See Fig. 1-2. Slinkard does not disclose the bottom opening as claimed.
Keepers, which is drawn to a holster, discloses a first bottom opening (at 106) adjacent a tab, and a second bottom opening (other side of 106) adjacent a tab; and one of the two pieces having an extension (149), and the extension is folded to the opposing piece forming the bottom, the first bottom opening adjacent the tab, and the second bottom opening adjacent the tab. See Figs. 1-6. Thus, it 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 to have the bottom of Slinkard have a first and second bottom opening, as disclosed by Keepers, in order to allow debris to pass through the holster.
Regarding claim 2, as modified above, the bottom opening adjacent the rear tab can be larger than the bottom opening adjacent the front tab. See Keepers, Fig. 1. Moreover, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the bottom opening adjacent the rear tab be larger than the bottom opening adjacent the front tab, 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). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 3, the bottom opening adjacent the rear tab is capable of being configured to receive a laser sight mounted to a barrel of a handgun.
Regarding claim 4, the front tab fastener is a clip configured to be attached to a belt of the user. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 5, the rear tab fastener is a clip configured to be attached to a belt of the user. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 6, the pouch extends upwardly above the closed front tab. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 7, the pouch extends upwardly above the closed rear tab. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 8, the pouch extends upwardly above the closed rear tab and closed front tab, and wherein the holster is configured such that a handgun remains in substantially the same position and substantially concealed when a user bends forward. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 9, the closed front tab, the closed rear tab, and the pouch are configured such that the holster conforms to a user's body. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 10, the closed front tab; the closed rear tab; and the pouch are configured such that they curve in the same direction. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Slinkard discloses the claimed invention except for the claimed material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the closed front tab and the closed rear tab be comprised of leather in order to have strong yet flexible tabs, since 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. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claims 13 and 20, Slinkard discloses the claimed invention except for the claimed material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the claimed elements be comprised of natural/synthetic/polished leather in order to have strong yet flexible holster, since 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. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claims 14-17 discloses the claimed invention except for the claimed dimensions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the claimed dimensions, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 19, an interior of the pouch comprises a surface to facilitate rapid removal of a laser-sighted handgun. See col. 3, ll. 20-62.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slinkard and Keepers as applied above in further view of Doukas (US 2006/0026886).
Regarding claim 18, Doukas, which is drawn to a holster specifically discloses the common usage of laser-sighted handgun in a holster. See Figs. 1-3. Thus, it 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 to use a laser-sighted handgun, as disclosed by Doukas, in the holster of Slinkard in order to transport and conceal said handgun. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the claimed dimensions, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEREK J BATTISTI whose telephone number is (571)270-5709. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm M-F.
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.
/DEREK J BATTISTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734