DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/3/2025 has been entered.
This action is in response to the amendment dated 12/3/2025 that was entered with the submission of the request for continued examination dated 12/3/2025. Claims 1, 6, 10, and 18 are currently amended. Claims 8 and 9 have been canceled. No claims are newly added. Presently, claims 1-7 and 10-19 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) section on page 7 of the response dated 12/3/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 10-14 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as provided in the Office action dated 9/5/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 10-14 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as provided in the Office action dated 9/5/2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see the Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 section on page 12 of the response dated 12/3/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 6, 7 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schuster (GB 2252803) as provided in the Office action dated 9/5/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. It is considered that applicant’s arguments relating to the “arms forming a scaffolding structure cradling at least four sides of the valve shaft adapter collar” are persuasive. The rejections of claims 6, 7 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102 as provided in the Office action dated 9/5/2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the rejections of claims 1-5, 15, 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schuster (GB 2252803) on pages 8-17 of the response dated 12/3/2025.
First, applicant argues that the Schuster reference lacks a valve shaft adapter collar, collar holes, any internal actuator pocket or internal annular groove with an axially facing shelf, plier-engaging lugs and any junction-based compression and decompression of arms in response to plier engagement.
However, it is noted that claims 1-5, 15, 18 and 19 recite “A retention clip for securing a valve shaft adapter collar to a valve actuator”. Therefore, it is considered that the claims are directed to “a retention clip” with the intended use of “for securing a valve shaft adapter collar to a valve actuator”. Additionally, it is considered that the recitations of collar holes, any internal actuator pocket or internal annular groove with an axially facing shelf, plier-engaging lugs and any junction-based compression and decompression of arms in response to plier engagement are intended to be used with the retention clip.
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of preforming the intended use, then it meets the claim. Therefore, it is considered that the retention clip of the Schuster reference provides the structure that would be able (or capable) to interact with a valve shaft adapter collar and a valve actuator in as much as claimed.
Although the recitations to the valve shaft adapter collar and the valve actuator are present in both the preamble and the body of the claim, it is noted that claims 1-5, 15, 18 and 19 are directed to “A retention clip”. Applicant may amend the claims to direct the claims to a system that includes the retention clip and the valve shaft adapter collar and/or the valve actuator if the applicant would like the specifics features of either the valve actuator or the valve adapter collar or both to be more than the intended use of the retention clip.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that the Schuster reference does not disclose “a lug coupled to the resilient spring clip junction and defining opposed plier-engaging surfaces” on page 9 of the response.
Applicant argues that the Schuster reference does not disclose any structure between the spring junction and the ends that would function as a “lug”, nor do they describe any surfaces intended to be engaged by plier jaws.
However, it is considered that the Schuster reference discloses “a retention clip” having a central bar (see “central bar” in the annotated figure 3 below) with resilient spring clip junctions (see “resilient spring clip junction” in the annotated figure 3 below) and lugs (see “lug” in the annotated figure 3 below) coupled to the resilient spring clip junction wherein the lugs are located between the resilient spring clip junction and the ends (see “end” in the annotated figure 3 below).
Although the Schuster reference does not expressly disclose the term “lug” nor do they describe any surfaces intended to be engaged by plier jaws, it is considered that the Schuster reference discloses and depicts an element extending between the “resilient spring clip junction” and the end (30) (see annotated figure 3 below).
It is unclear as to what claimed structure would prevent one of ordinary skill in the art from using pliers on the outside surfaces of the arms (29) or the lug (see “lug” in the annotated figure 3 below) of the Schuster reference. Further, it is unclear as to what specific structure, such as shape, that the “plier-engaging surfaces” in the claims is meant to define. It is considered that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “plier-engaging surfaces”, as provided in the claim, is met by any surfaces that are able to be engaged by pliers. Are the pliers part of the device? Therefore, with regards to the limitation of “defining opposed plier-engaging surfaces”, it is considered that Schuster reference discloses the structure wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of using pliers on the surfaces of each of the lugs in order to compress the arms of the retention clip relative to the central bar.
PNG
media_image1.png
606
893
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further regarding claim 1, applicant argues that the Schuster reference fails to disclose “an end extending from the lug and configured, when the retention clip is installed, for insertion radially outward through a hole in the valve shaft adapter collar and into an internal annular groove formed in a pocket of the valve actuator, the internal annular groove including an axially facing shelf engaged by the end to retain the valve shaft adapter collar in the pocket” on page 10 of the response.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “an internal annular groove formed in a pocket of the valve actuator”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
It is considered that the retention clip of the Schuster reference discloses the structure of a retention clip that is capable of performing the function of having an end (30) that is inserted radially outward through a hole (31). Therefore, it is considered that the end (30) would be capable of interacting and engaging with an annular groove and an axially facing shelf if present.
Further regarding claim 1, applicant argues that the Schuster reference fails to disclose that “each are is configured to compress relative to a degree of bend of the resilient spring clip junction, toward the central bar, in response to plier engagement with the opposed plier-engaging surfaces of the lug, to retract the end at least partially from the hole of the valve shaft adapter collar and disassociate the valve shaft adapter collar from the valve actuator; and decompress relative to the degree of bend of the resilient spring clip junction, away from the central bar, upon removal of the plier engagement, to extend the end at least partially into the hole of the valve shaft adapter collar and into the internal annular groove of the pocket of the valve actuator to insert and retain the valve shaft adapter collar in the valve actuator” on pages 10-11 of the response.
It is considered that the opposing arms (29) are able to be flexed relative to the central bar (28) at the respective resilient spring clip junction. See figure 3 for the arms (29) flexing relative to the central bar in order to permit the ends (30) of the lugs to be inserted into the holes (31).
Therefore, it is considered that the structure of the retention clip provides the structure that is capable to perform the function of compressing each arm relative to a degree of bend of the resilient spring clip junction, toward the central bar, in response to plier engagement with the opposed plier-engaging surfaces of the lug, to retract the end at least partially from the hole (it is considered that further compression of the lugs 30 inward would permit the ends 30 to be removed from the holes 31) and the function of decompressing each arm relative to the degree of bend of the resilient spring clip junction, away from the central bar, upon removal of the plier engagement, to extend the end at least radially outward (see figure 3 for the lugs being flexed radially outward) partially into the hole. Further, it is considered that the support of the ends (30) within the respective holes (31) of the element (32) would retain the combination of elements (3, 2, 32) together.
Regarding claim 18, applicant argues that the Schuster reference fails to disclose “a resilient spring clip junction attached to the central bar and defining a localized bend region about which the arm is elastically deflectable toward and away from the central bar” on pages 14-15 of the response.
However, it is considered that the Schuster reference discloses a resilient spring clip junction (see “resilient spring clip junction” in the annotated figure 3 below) attached to the central bar and defining a localized bend region about which the arm is elastically deflectable toward and away from the central bar (see figure 3 for the arms bending about the resilient spring clip junction).
Therefore, it is considered that the opposing arms (29) are able to be resiliently biased relative to the central bar (28) at the respective resilient spring clip junction. See figure 3 for the arms (29) biasing / flexing relative to the central bar in order to permit the ends (30) of the lugs to be inserted into and through the holes (31).
Further regarding claim 18, applicant argues that the Schuster reference fails to disclose “a lug coupled to the resilient spring clip junction and defining opposed plier-engaging surfaces” on page 15 of the response.
Applicant argues that the Schuster reference does not disclose any structure between the spring junction and the ends that would function as a “lug”, nor do they describe any surfaces intended to be engaged by plier jaws.
However, it is considered that the Schuster reference discloses “a retention clip” having a central bar (see “central bar” in the annotated figure 3 above) with resilient spring clip junctions (see “resilient spring clip junction” in the annotated figure 3 below) and lugs (see “lug” in the annotated figure 3 above) coupled to the resilient spring clip junction wherein the lugs are located between the resilient spring clip junction and the ends (see “end” in the annotated figure 3 above).
Although the Schuster reference does not expressly disclose the term “lug” nor do they describe any surfaces intended to be engaged by plier jaws, it is considered that the Schuster reference discloses and depicts an element extending between the “resilient spring clip junction” and the end (30) (see annotated figure 3 above).
It is unclear as to what claimed structure would prevent one of ordinary skill in the art from using pliers on the outside surfaces of the arms (29) or the lug (see “lug” in the annotated figure 3 above) of the Schuster reference. Further, it is unclear as to what specific structure, such as shape, that the “plier-engaging surfaces” in the claims is meant to define. It is considered that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “plier-engaging surfaces”, as provided in the claim, is met by any surfaces that are able to be engaged by pliers. Are the pliers part of the device? Therefore, with regards to the limitation of “defining opposed plier-engaging surfaces”, it is considered that Schuster reference discloses the structure wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of using pliers on the surfaces of each of the lugs in order to compress the arms of the retention clip relative to the central bar.
Further regarding claim 18, applicant argues that the Schuster reference fails to disclose “an end portion extending from the lug and configured, when the retention clip is installed, for insertion radially outward through a hole in the valve shaft adapter collar and into an internal annular groove of a pocket of the valve actuator, the end portion being resiliently biased by the resilient spring clip junction into engagement with an axially facing shelf of the internal annular groove for retaining the valve shaft adapter collar in the pocket of the valve actuator and being selectively retracted from the internal annular groove by compressing the arms toward the central bar with pliers engaged with the opposed plier-engaging surfaces of the lugs" on pages 15-16 of the response.
It is considered that the opposing arms (29) are able to be resiliently biased relative to the central bar (28) at the respective resilient spring clip junction. See figure 3 for the arms (29) biasing / flexing relative to the central bar in order to permit the ends (30) of the lugs to be inserted into and through the holes (31).
Additionally, it is considered that the retention clip of the Schuster reference discloses the structure of a retention clip that is capable of performing the function of having an end (30) that is inserted radially outward through a hole (31). Therefore, it is considered that the end (30) would be capable of interacting and engaging with an axially facing shelf of an annular groove if present. Further, it is considered that the structure of the retention clip permits the ends (30) from being removed from the holes (31) by compressing the arms (29) toward the central bar wherein the compression could be provided by pliers.
Since new grounds of rejection were necessitated with the amendment entered with the submission of the request for continued examination, the instant Office action is made non-final.
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 1-7, 15, 16, 18 and 19 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 1 recites the limitation “A retention clip for securing a valve shaft adapter collar to a valve actuator, the retention clip comprising:” in lines 1-2. Claim 1 further recites several limitations directed to the retention clip being “configured for” interacting with features of either the valve shaft adapter collar or the valve actuator or being “configured to” operate in a manner with respect to the use of plier engagement or operate with features of the valve actuator or the valve shaft adapter collar.
Are the valve shaft adapter collar and the valve actuator part of the retention clip? Is the claim directed to the retention clip or is the direct directed to the combination of the retention clip, the valve shaft adapter collar and the valve actuator?
It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claim and, therefore, the claim is indefinite.
The claim will be treated as if claim 1 is directed to “the retention clip” and the features of “the retention clip” and that the features of the valve shaft adapter collar and the valve actuator are the intended use of the retention clip.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the pocket" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the pocket” in line 10 in combination with the limitation “an internal annular groove including an axially facing shelf engaged by the end to retain the valve shaft adapter collar in the pocket” in lines 8-10. It is unclear as to where “the pocket” is located or which element contains or defines the pocket. Is “the pocket” in the “valve actuator”, the “valve shaft adapter collar”, within the “retention clip”, or in another element? It is unclear from the claim language as to the necessary structural connections between the components within the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “an annular groove” in lines 1-2. Claim 4 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 recites the limitation “an internal annular groove” in lines 8-9. Does the recitation of “an annular groove” of claim 4 refer to the same structural element as the recitation of “an internal annular groove” of claim 1? Does the recitation of “an annular groove” of claim 4 refer to a different structural element than the recitation of “an internal annular groove” of claim 1? It appears that the recitation of “an annular groove” in claim 4 refers to the same structural recitation as the recitation of “an internal annular groove” of claim 1 and that the recitation of “an annular groove” of claim 4 should be “the internal annular groove”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “A retention clip for securing a valve shaft adapter collar to a valve actuator, the retention clip comprising:” in lines 1-2. Claim 6 further recites several limitations directed to the retention clip being “configured for” interacting with features of either the valve shaft adapter collar or the valve actuator or being “configured to” operate in a manner with respect to the use of plier engagement or operate with features of the valve actuator or the valve shaft adapter collar.
Are the valve shaft adapter collar and the valve actuator part of the retention clip? Is the claim directed to the retention clip or is the direct directed to the combination of the retention clip, the valve shaft adapter collar and the valve actuator?
It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claim and, therefore, the claim is indefinite.
The claim will be treated as if claim 6 is directed to “the retention clip” and the features of “the retention clip” and that the features of the valve shaft adapter collar and the valve actuator are the intended use of the retention clip.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “A retention clip for securing a valve shaft adapter collar to a valve actuator, the retention clip comprising:” in lines 1-2. Claim 18 further recites several limitations directed to the retention clip being “configured for” interacting with features of either the valve shaft adapter collar or the valve actuator or being “configured to” operate in a manner with respect to the use of plier engagement or operate with features of the valve actuator or the valve shaft adapter collar.
Are the valve shaft adapter collar and the valve actuator part of the retention clip? Is the claim directed to the retention clip or is the direct directed to the combination of the retention clip, the valve shaft adapter collar and the valve actuator?
It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claim and, therefore, the claim is indefinite.
The claim will be treated as if claim 18 is directed to “the retention clip” and the features of “the retention clip” and that the features of the valve shaft adapter collar and the valve actuator are the intended use of the retention clip.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 15, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schuster (GB 2252803).
Claim(s) 1-5, 15, 18 and 19 will be treated as best understood in view of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above.
Regarding claim 1, the Schuster reference discloses a retention clip (27), the retention clip comprising:
a central bar (28) having opposing arms (29) extending therefrom, each arm including:
a resilient spring clip junction (see “resilient spring clip junction” in the annotated figure 3 below) attached to the central bar;
a lug (see “lug” in the annotated figure 3 below) coupled to the resilient spring clip; and
an end (30) extending from the lug and configured for insertion radially outward through a hole (31).
PNG
media_image1.png
606
893
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is considered that the claim is directed to a retention clip with the intended use of securing a valve shaft adapter collar to a valve actuator. It is considered that the recitations of “for securing a valve shaft adapter collar to a valve actuator” is a recitation of the intended use of the retention clip.
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of preforming the intended use, then it meets the claim. Therefore, it is considered that the retention clip of the Schuster reference would be able to interact with a valve shaft adapter collar and a valve actuator in as much as claimed.
With regards to the limitation of “defining opposed plier-engaging surfaces”, it is considered that Schuster reference discloses the structure wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of using pliers on the surfaces of each of the lugs in order to compress the arms of the retention clip relative to the central bar.
It is considered that the retention clip of the Schuster reference discloses the structure of a retention clip that is capable of performing the function of having an end (30) that is inserted radially outward through a hole (31). Therefore, it is considered that the end (30) would be capable of interacting and engaging with an annular groove and an axially facing shelf if present.
Further, it is considered that the opposing arms (29) are able to be flexed relative to the central bar (28) at the respective resilient spring clip junction. See figure 3 for the arms (29) flexing relative to the central bar in order to permit the ends (30) of the lugs to be inserted into the holes (31).
Therefore, it is considered that the structure of the retention clip provides the structure that is capable to perform the function of compressing each arm relative to a degree of bend of the resilient spring clip junction, toward the central bar, in response to plier engagement with the opposed plier-engaging surfaces of the lug, to retract the end at least partially from the hole (it is considered that further compression of the lugs 30 inward would permit the ends 30 to be removed from the holes 31) and the function of decompressing each arm relative to the degree of bend of the resilient spring clip junction, away from the central bar, upon removal of the plier engagement, to extend the end at least radially outward (see figure 3 for the lugs being flexed radially outward) partially into the hole. Further, it is considered that the support of the ends (30) within the respective holes (31) of the element (32) would retain the combination of elements (3, 2, 32) together.
In regards to claim 2, the Schuster reference discloses the structure wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to use pliers to compress or decompress the retention clip to move the ends (30) into and out of the holes (31). It is considered that the movement of the ends (30) relative to the holes (31) would permit the attachment and/or removal of various elements relative to each other. Therefore, it is considered that the structure of the retention clip of the Schuster reference provides structure is as much as claimed capable of performing the claimed function.
In regards to claim 3, the Schuster reference discloses wherein the resilient spring clip junction has the structure that includes corners or bends. It is considered that the resilient spring clip junction has the structure that would be capable of contacting an interior sidewall of an element that surrounds the retention clip.
In regards to claim 4, the Schuster reference discloses wherein the ends (30) of the retention clip (27) extend radially outward (see figure 3). It is considered that the outward extension of the ends (30) of the retention clip (27) would permit the retention clip (27) to be able to contact a desired surface or annular groove formed in another element.
In regards to claim 5, the Schuster reference discloses wherein the retention clip (27) forms a resilient, flexible, tubular scaffold (see figure 1 and figure 3 for the retention clip 27 being flexible by being able to flex as depicted in at least figure 3 and having a tubular shape as depicted in figure 1).
In regards to claim 15, the Schuster reference discloses wherein the ends (30) of the retention clip (27) extend radially outward (see figure 3). It is considered that the outward extension of the ends (30) of the retention clip (27) would permit the retention clip (27) to be able to contact a desired surface or annular groove formed in another element to act as a stop.
Regarding claim 18, the Schuster reference discloses a retention clip (27) comprising:
a central bar (28) extending along an axis having arms (29) extending therefrom in a plane (see figure 1), each arm extending on an opposing side of the axis (see “axis” in the annotated figure 3 below wherein the first arm extends from the left-hand side of the “axis” and the second arm extends from the right-hand side of the “axis), each arm including:
a resilient spring clip junction (see “resilient spring clip junction” in the annotated figure 3 below) attached to the central bar and defining a localized bend region about which the arm is elastically deflectable toward and away from the central bar (see figure 3 for the arms bending about the resilient spring clip junction);
a lug (see “lug” in the annotated figure 3 below) coupled to the resilient spring clip junction; and
an end portion (30) extending from the lug and configured for insertion radially outward through a hole (31).
PNG
media_image2.png
606
893
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It is considered that the claim is directed to a retention clip with the intended use of securing a valve shaft adapter collar to a valve actuator. It is considered that the recitations of “for securing a valve shaft adapter collar to a valve actuator” is a recitation of the intended use of the retention clip.
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of preforming the intended use, then it meets the claim. Therefore, it is considered that the retention clip of the Schuster reference would be able to interact with a valve shaft adapter collar and a valve actuator in as much as claimed.
With regards to the limitation of “defining opposed plier-engaging surfaces”, it is considered that Schuster reference discloses the structure wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of using pliers on the surfaces of each of the lugs in order to compress the arms of the retention clip relative to the central bar.
Further, it is considered that the opposing arms (29) are able to be resiliently biased relative to the central bar (28) at the respective resilient spring clip junction. See figure 3 for the arms (29) biasing / flexing relative to the central bar in order to permit the ends (30) of the lugs to be inserted into and through the holes (31).
It is considered that the retention clip of the Schuster reference discloses the structure of a retention clip that is capable of performing the function of having an end (30) that is inserted radially outward through a hole (31). Therefore, it is considered that the end (30) would be capable of interacting and engaging with an axially facing shelf of an annular groove if present. Further, it is considered that the structure of the retention clip permits the ends (30) from being removed from the holes (31) by compressing the arms (29) toward the central bar wherein the compression could be provided by pliers.
In regards to claim 19, the Schuster reference discloses wherein the end portions (30) of the retention clip (27) extend radially outward (see figure 3). It is considered that the outward extension of the end portions (30) of the retention clip (27) would permit the retention clip (27) to be able to contact a desired surface or annular groove formed in another element to act as a stop.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-14 and 17 are allowed.
Claims 6, 7 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to claim 6, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest “a retention clip” comprising:
“a central bar”; and
“opposing arms extending from the central bar, the arms forming a scaffolding support structure cradling at least four sides of the valve shaft adapter, each arm being configured to lie along a respective side of the valve shaft adapter collar and to cooperate with the central bar to define a generally tubular cage around the valve shaft adapter collar”, with each arm defining:
“an ear” being “configured for extension through a hole in the valve shaft adapter collar and into an internal groove of the valve actuator”; and
in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Claims 7 and 16 depend from claim 6, and, therefore, claims 7 and 16 are allowable for containing the indicated allowable subject matter of claim 6.
In regards to claim 10, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest “a valve shaft adapter” comprising:
“a collar having opposing corners”;
“a retention clip having a central bar with opposing arms” with “each arm defining”:
“wherein the central bar extends between the opposing corners so that the resilient spring clip junctions contact an inner surface of the opposing corners to lodge the retention clip in the collar”;
“an end portion configured to extend from the collar for coupling the collar to the valve actuator” and
in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Claims 11-14 and 17 depend from claim 10, either directly or indirectly, and, therefore, claims 11-14 and 17 are allowable for containing the indicated allowable subject matter of claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew J. Rost whose telephone number is (571) 272-2711. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00 am to 5:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/ANDREW J ROST/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753