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 .
Specification
The use of the term Safariland, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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, 5, 8-9, and 11-12 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.
With Respect to Claims 3, 9, and 12
The scope of the term “QLS” is unclear, noting that QLS is short for “Quick Locking System”, and it is unclear whether the term should encompass any type of quick locking system, if it should be limited to the type of QLS that the Safariland brand puts out (which is also unclear in scope as this does not specify the actual scope which could change depending upon what items this company puts out using that term).
It is also unclear whether the phrase “QLS receiver” is limited to the female receiver structure of a “QLS” system (i.e. the receiver portion of a QLS system) or if it encompasses a receiver for attaching the female structure of a QLS system (i.e. a receiver for attaching/receiving a QLS system).
The remainder of this office action is based on the invention as best understood by Examiner.
With Respect to Claims 5
As the holster support assembly refers to the track member, holster support assembly and lock bar, which three parts are disclosed in the specification as separately molded as single pieces rather than all molded as one piece from a plastic material (molding them all as a single piece would seem to be impossible as they must move relative to each other). For the purposes of examination on the merits, Examiner takes the claim language to require that each of these three parts of the holster support assembly are separately molded as one piece from plastic material, as that appears to be the intent based upon the disclosure.
With Respect to Claims 8 and 11
The scope of this claim is unclear, noting that most of the lock bar is inside of the track in either the locked or unlocked positions, and in the lock position it is located within the detent of the track member and so even that portion is not laterally outward of the track member within all reasonable interpretations of the scope of that phrase.
The remainder of this office action is based on the invention as best understood by Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #10,883,795 to Rogers (Rogers) in view of U.S. Patent #10,578,397 to Tedder (Tedder).
With Respect to Claim 1
Rogers discloses a holster support assembly for use by a user of a handgun, comprising: a track member (20, noting track/rails 32 and related structure) having a track and having detents (noting openings for 120) defining a plurality of locking positions spaced apart in a first direction along the track (at least two such are shown); a holster mount device (70 alone or in combination with 90) supported on the track member for sliding movement along the track member in the first direction between the plurality of locking positions; a lock bar (120) supported on the holster mount device for sliding movement with the holster mount device along the track member in the first direction, the lock bar being configured for selectively locking the holster mount device in a selected one of the locking positions along the track (see, e.g. FIG. 8 and description); the lock bar being manually movable on the holster mount device in a second direction transverse to the first direction between (i) a locking position engaging a detent and thereby blocking movement of the holster mount device along the track member in the first direction (FIG. 8), and (ii) a release position enabling movement of the holster mount device along the track member in the first direction (FIG. 7); but does not disclose a spring that biases the lock bar into the first position.
However, Tedder discloses forming a similar holster support device including a similar lock bar configured to engage detents to lock a holster mount device at one of multiple desired positions along a track, and the use of a spring (2518) that biases the lock bar into the locked position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Tedder, to add a spring to bias the lock bar of Rogers into the first position, in order to make it easier to move the lock bar back into the lock position and/or to better secure it in the locked position and prevent inadvertent release.
With Respect to Claim 2
A holster support assembly as set forth in claim 1 wherein the track member is a belt loop (noting openings for a belt to pass through).
With Respect to Claim 3
A holster support assembly as set forth in claim 2 wherein the holster mount device is a QLS receiver (inasmuch as it can receive/attach a structure for attaching a QLS) that is configured to directly support a QLS fork that is fixable to a holster (to the extent claimed, as shown, it is capable of attaching and supporting an appropriate QLS fork that is fixable to a holster noting two upper and one lower attachment similar to the common attachment used to attach a QLS receiver structure).
Alternately, per Applicant’s admission on the record that a QLS receiver and QLS fork are standard known fastening/attachment structures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to modify the holster mount (specifically portion 90 thereof) to attach a QLS receiver (which will then be taken to be part of the holster mount) or alternately to form it as a QLS receiver for attaching to and supporting a QLS fork (as a mere substitution of one art known holster mounting structure for another and/or as forming the QLS receiver as part of the slider instead of a separate attachment constitutes at most merely making integral which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04)), in order to obtain the benefits of a QLS receiver and fork (e.g. quick attachment and detachment of the holster) and/or as a mere selection of an art appropriate holster mounting structure or at most a mere substitution of one art known holster mounting structure for another.
With Respect to Claim 4
A holster support assembly as set forth in claim 1 wherein the holster mount device has rails (sides of groove 80, shorter ribs 92) supporting the device for sliding movement directly along the track, and the holster mount device has portions for fixedly but removably supporting an element (90; alternately QLS fork per obvious modification, see the rejection of claim 3 above for details) that is fixable to a holster.
Alternately, Tedder discloses forming a similar holster mount device/slider with rails that mate with rails on a similar track member, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to replace the Rogers structure with similar rails or to add such rails to better guide the sliding movement of the slider.
With Respect to Claim 5
A holster support assembly as set forth in claim 4 but does not disclose a particular material and so does not disclose that is molded as one piece from a plastic material.
However, Tedder discloses forming the parts of its similar holster support assembly out of molded plastic, and so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Tedder, to form the holster support assembly molded as one piece from a plastic material, for the art known benefit of such construction and/or as a mere selection of an art appropriate material to use.
With Respect to Claim 6
A holster support assembly as set forth in claim 1 wherein the lock bar has an elongate slot (126) extending in a direction between opposite end portions of the spring, the slot receiving the spring (it is Examiner’s position that the slot is an appropriate location for the spring and obvious to use, as it will push against the screw to bias the lock bar into position as claimed/as taught by Tedder), and the holster mount device includes portions for supporting the lock bar movement (noting openings for the lock bar to lock in position) and is molded as one piece from a plastic material (see the rejection of claim 5 above for obviousness of molding parts as one piece from a plastic material per Tedder).
With Respect to Claim 7
A holster support assembly as set forth in claim 1 that consists essentially of the track member, the holster mount device, the lock bar, and the spring.
With Respect to Claim 8
A holster support assembly as set forth in claim 1 wherein the lock bar in the locking position is laterally outward of the track member (it is located in a detent on the outer side of the track member, which appears to be the intent of this limitation), but does not disclose that it is manually pushed in by the user to move it to the release position.
However, Tedder discloses forming a similar lock bar in which the lock bar is manually pushed in by the user to move it to the release position; it is noted that Tedder’s lock bar includes similar projections (2512) that go into detents (2508) to lock the two parts in position together, similar to the Rogers structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Tedder, to modify the Tedder structure to have the user manually push the lock bar to move it to the release position, in order to make the structure easier to operate (i.e. pushing to unlock and releasing allows the spring to automatically lock, which is easier than both being manual), and/or as a mere substitution of one art known locking structure for another, and/or as doing so constitutes at most a mere rearrangement of parts (i.e. it merely moves the locking projection from the end adjacent the button/handle part of the lock bar to the end opposite the button/handle to modify the type of action/direction of motion used to lock/unlock) which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
With Respect to Claim 9
A holster support assembly as set forth in claim 8 wherein the receiver is a QLS receiver that is configured to directly support a QLS fork that is fixable to a holster (see the rejection of claim 3 above for details).
With Respect to Claim 10
A holster support assembly for use by a user of a handgun, comprising: a belt loop (20) having a track (noting track/rails 32 and related structure) with detents (noting openings for 120) defining a plurality of locking positions spaced apart in a first direction along the track (at least two such are shown); a receiver (70 alone or in combination with 90) supported on the track for sliding movement along the track in the first direction between the plurality of locking positions; a lock bar (120) supported on the receiver for sliding movement with the receiver along the track member in the first direction (see, e.g. FIGS. 7-8 and description); the lock bar being configured for locking the receiver in a selected one of the locking positions along the track (capable of this use which is also the intended use; the lock bar being manually movable on the receiver in a second direction transverse to the first direction between (i) a locking position engaging a detent and thereby blocking movement of the receiver along the track member in the first direction (FIG. 8), and (ii) a release position enabling movement of the receiver in the first direction (FIG. 7); and a spring (per Tedder) that biases the lock bar into the locking position.
With Respect to Claim 11
A holster support assembly as set forth in claim 10 wherein the lock bar in the locking position is laterally outward of the track member, and is manually pushed in by the user to move it to the release position (see the rejection of claim 8 above for details of the obviousness of this construction).
With Respect to Claim 12
A holster support assembly as set forth in claim 11 wherein the receiver is a QLS receiver that is configured to directly support a QLS fork that is fixable to a holster (see the rejection of claim 3 above for details).
Claims 3, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #10,883,795 to Rogers (Rogers) in view of U.S. Patent #10,578,397 to Tedder (Tedder) as applied to claim 2, 9, or 12 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent #8,458,867 to Rogers (Rogers2).
With Respect to Claims 3, 9, and 12
As an alternative to the rejection of these claims above using Rogers in view of Tedder alone, Rogers 2 discloses a QLS system including a fastening structure (53-54) comprising two upper horizontally spaced holes and one lower hole similar to the fastening structure of Rogers and which is disclosed as a standard fastening hole pattern common in the art, and that this fastening structure is used to attach the QLS female receiver (see, e.g. FIGS. 3-4) to a support to allow for quick attachment and detachment of a QLS fork (see, e.g. FIGS. 1-2, and description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Rogers2, to attach the QLS female receiver to the holster attachment and sliding structure (specifically 90), in order to allow for rapid attachment and detachment of the holster as taught by Rogers2), or alternately to replace the holster attachment/fastening structure (i.e. the three openings) with a QLS receiver as taught by Rogers2 for the same benefits, as a mere substitution of one art known fastening structure for another, and/or as doing so constitutes at most merely making integral which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J WAGGENSPACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7418. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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.
/ADAM J WAGGENSPACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights