DETAILED ACTION
The RCE filed 21 November 2025 and the claims filed 22 October have been entered. Claims 1-20 remain 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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 21 November 2025 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Germany on 16 December 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 102022133727.8 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons in view of the previously cited references – Toth (US 3,737,140) and Rowe (US 910,587).
The applicant argues with respect to independent claims 1, 19, and 20 on pgs. 7-8 of the Response that Toth does not teach the actuating position of the at least one lever being an end position of the at least one lever, with the actuating position being a position in which the at least one lever exerts a force on the valve spindle that counteracts the force of the elastic restoring element, and the actuating position being the final position of the at least one lever. However, the applicant’s recitation of “an end position of the at least one lever” isn’t seen as necessitating said end position as an end position defined as a limited position of the at least one lever, beyond which the at least one lever cannot be moved, such as by abutting a limit stop. Instead, the “end position” is broadly interpreted as the last position of an arbitrary operation of the valve, such as the end position of operating the valve to partially open the valve, as discloses in col. 5, lines 28-33. Therefore, the claim language isn’t seen as defining over Toth.
The applicant argues with respect to independent claims 1, 19, and 20 on pg. 8 of the Response that “Toth does not teach that the at least one lever when in a non-actuated state remains in the initial position and is moved from an intermediate position or the actuating position back to the initial position by the restoring element” because “[i]nstead, Toth explicitly states that ‘the valve is retained in the open position until manually closed.’” However, first, besides the claim language regarding the at least one lever remaining in the initial position in a non-actuated state, and the 112 issue regarding the language as discussed in the 112 rejections below, the claim language is broadly interpreted as alternatively reciting the restoring element moving the at least one lever from the intermediate position or the actuating position back to the initial position when the at least one lever is in a non-actuated state. In other words, the claim language isn’t seen as positively reciting two conditions in which the restoring element moves the at least one lever when it is in a non-actuated state: the restoring element moves the at least one lever to the initial position when the at least one lever is in the intermediate position and in a non-actuated state; and the restoring element moves the at least one lever to the initial position when the at least one lever is in the actuating position and in a non-actuated state. Second, as previously discussed, the “end position” is broadly interpreted as the last position of an arbitrary operation of the valve, such as the end position of operating the valve to partially open the valve, as discloses in col. 5, lines 28-33. Therefore, Toth is seen as disclosing the positively claimed limitation, including the two alternative conditions in which the restoring element moves the at least one lever when it is in a non-actuated state.
The applicant argues with respect to claim 19 on pg. 9 of the Response that Toth lacks a first extension part that both protrudes from the housing and receives a second extension part that is attached to it outside the housing. However, Toth discloses in Figs. 1-2 that the spindle extension 94 includes a first extension part that both protrudes from the housing (comprising upper cap member 50 and cylinder 57) and receives a second extension part (of the spindle extension 94 to which the lever 110, 108, 106, 104, 102 is attached) that is attached to it outside the housing. The claim language doesn’t necessitate the first and second extension parts being two separately formed structures that are selectively attached together, like the recitation of the “fist extension part which is screwed onto the spindle,” for example.
The applicant argues with respect to claim 20 on pgs. 10-11 of the Response that “neither Toth nor Rowe discloses, teaches, or suggests a configuration where two levers are arranged outside the housing along the direction of the valve drive, located on the face side of the housing, and extending laterally of the housing along opposite sides of the housing of the valve drive,” and “oriented in the direction of the swivel axis on the face side of the housing.” However, the levers (D) taught by Rowe are arranged outside the housing (A, C1) and in the direction along the swivel axis (because the levers D have yokes aligned with hinge pins d and on opposite sides of the pins d, similar to the applicant’s levers), and the swivel axis is located on a face side (seen as being another name for the side facing outside) of the housing (A, C1), the levers (D) extending laterally of the housing (A, C1) with respect to the longitudinal axis of the valve drive (extending along the longitudinal axis of the valve stem B) and along opposite sides (along the left and right halves/sides of the housing relative to the page in Fig. 2) of the housing (A, C1, especially the housing cap C1) of the valve drive.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a stop…by means of which the at least one lever [or levers for claim 17] is directly or indirectly mechanically coupled to the valve spindle to displace the latter by swiveling the lever” in claims 2, 17, and 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-20 are rejected (wherein claims 2-13 and 15-18 inherit their rejections due to their dependencies) 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 the last three lines of claim 1, lines 11-12 in claim 19, and lines 11-12 of claim 20, it is unclear how “when [the at least one lever] in a non-actuated state remains in the initial position and is moved from an intermediate position or the actuating position back to the initial position by the restoring element.” In other words, it is unclear how the at least one lever, in a single state, remains in the initial position and also moves from another position to the initial position. As understood, including from the fourth paragraph starting on pg. 2 of the applicant’s specification, the recitation is meant to recite that the at least one lever, in a non-actuated state, remains in the initial position or is moved from the intermediate position or the actuating position back to the initial position by the restoring element.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the swivel axis" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As understood, the recitation refers an axis about which the levers pivot.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the direction along the swivel axis" in lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As understood, the recitation refers an axis about which the levers pivot and a direction along said axis, so the recitation should at least be changed to --a direction along a swivel axis--.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the longitudinal axis of the valve drive" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As understood, this is the first recitation, so “the longitudinal axis” should be changed to --a longitudinal axis--.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the housing of the valve drive" in the last two lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As understood, the housing of the valve unit.
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.
Claims 1-6, 10, and 18-19 (as understood: all) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Toth (US 3,737,140).
Regarding claim 1, in a first interpretation of Toth, Toth discloses in Figs. 1-2 a valve unit comprising a housing (comprising upper cap member 50 and cylinder 57), a fluidic valve drive which includes a fluid chamber (comprising the portion of the actuation chamber 30 below piston 84) and a piston 84 which delimits the fluid chamber (comprising the portion of the actuation chamber 30 below piston 84) on one side and is adjustable by fluid in the fluid chamber and a valve spindle 36, 94 coupled to the piston 84, a closing body 38, 42 arranged at the end of the valve spindle 36, 94 opposite the valve drive, an elastic restoring element 100 which exerts a force on the valve spindle 36, 94 (by acting on the stop piston member 88 fastened to the valve spindle 36, 94, similar to the applicant’s elastic restoring element acting on the piston to exert a force onto the valve spindle) along a spindle axis, and at least one manually actuatable lever 110, 108, 106, 104, 102 which is provided on an outside of the valve drive for manually adjusting the valve spindle 36, 94 and which is adapted to be adjusted from an initial position (Fig. 2) to an actuating position (comprising a position in which a first portion of the curved portions 106a of the legs 106 contact the cap 54) via an intermediate position (comprising a position in which a second portion of the curved portions 106a of the legs 106 contact the cap 54 in between the initial position shown in Fig. 2 and the actuating position in which a first portion of the curved portions 106a of the legs 106 contact the cap 54), wherein the actuating position is an end position of the at least one lever 110, 108, 106, 104, 102 (of an arbitrary operation in which the valve is meant to be partially open, as disclosed in col. 5, lines 28-33), wherein the at least one lever 110, 108, 106, 104, 102 when in the actuating position exerts a force on the valve spindle 36, 94 along the spindle axis which counteracts the force of the elastic restoring element 100, and wherein the at least one lever 110, 108, 106, 104, 102 when in a non-actuated state remains in the initial position and is moved from an intermediate position (with a second portion of the curved portions 106a of the legs 106 in contact the cap 54) or the actuating position (with a first portion of the curved portions 106a of the legs 106 in contact the cap 54) back to the initial position by the restoring element 100 (because of the instability of the curved portions 106a of the legs 106 contacting the cap 54, and unlike the stable positions provided by the flat portions 106b, as disclosed in col. 5, lines 21-28).
Alternatively regarding claim 1, in a second interpretation of Toth, the valve spindle comprises the valve stem 36, and excludes the actuating spindle 94 threaded to the valve stem 36, wherein the actuating spindle 94 instead comprises a spindle extension 94.
Regarding claim 2, Toth discloses in Figs. 1-2 that a stop 112 is provided which is associated with the valve spindle (comprising stem 36, or alternatively stem 36 and spindle 94) and by means of which the at least one lever 110, 108, 106, 104, 102 is directly or indirectly mechanically coupled to the valve spindle to displace the latter by swiveling the lever 110, 108, 106, 104, 102 (col. 4, line 50 – col. 5, line 2).
Regarding claim 3, in the second interpretation of Toth, Toth discloses in Figs. 1-2 that the stop 112 is provided on a spindle extension 94 that is coupled to the valve spindle 36.
Regarding claim 4, in the first interpretation of Toth, Toth discloses in Figs. 1-2 that the stop 112 is provided on the valve spindle 36, 94 itself.
Regarding claim 5, in the second interpretation of Toth, Toth discloses in Figs. 1-2 that the spindle extension 94 is screwed to the valve spindle 36 on a face side (of the housing, specifically of the housing portion 50 facing the closing body 38, 42).
Regarding claim 6, in the second interpretation of Toth, Toth discloses in Figs. 1-2 that the spindle extension 94 includes a first extension part which is screwed onto the spindle 36 and extends through the fluid chamber (because the first extension part extends past the side of the piston 84 delimiting the fluid chamber), and a second extension part (to which the lever 110, 108, 106, 104, 102 is attached), wherein the at least one lever 110, 108, 106, 104, 102, when actuated, presses axially on an underside (of the stop 112, or of the spindle extension 94, which may be seen as alternatively including the stop 112 rigidly attached thereto) in the direction against the stop 112 on the second extension part.
Regarding claim 10, Toth discloses in Figs. 1-2 that the at least one lever 110, 108, 106, 104, 102 is adapted to be swiveled about a swivel axis (like the applicant’s swivel axis S) extending in a plane radial to the spindle axis.
Regarding claim 18, Toth discloses in Figs. 1-2 that the at least one lever 110, 108, 106, 104, 102 is rotatable about the spindle axis relative to the housing (because the block 102 is rotatable around the spindle/extension 94 as suggested by the disclosure of the assembly and actuation in col. 4, line 50 – col. 5, line 2).
Regarding claim 19, in the second interpretation of Toth, Toth discloses in Figs. 1-2 the valve unit claimed, as discussed with regard to claims 1, 2-3, and 5-6 above, of which claim 19 is a combination. The first extension part, comprising a bottom portion of extension 94, also comprises a portion that protrudes from the housing cap 50, and the second extension part comprises a top portion of the extension 94, which is attached to the first extension part outside of the housing 50, 52.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7-8 (as understood: both) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toth in view of Hirose et al. (US 9,115,813).
Regarding claim 7, Toth discloses a valve unit, as previously discussed, but lacks a duct is provided which extends through the spindle extension and which connects a fluid port located outside the fluid chamber to the fluid chamber.
Hirose teaches in Figs. 1-2 a duct 42, 44, 8a is provided which extends through the spindle extension 8, 25a and which connects a fluid port 41 located outside the fluid chamber 27 to the fluid chamber 27.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spindle extension disclosed by Toth to include a duct that extends therethrough and connects the fluid chamber to a fluid port located outside the fluid chamber as an alternative to the fluid port in the housing and so that the housing can be formed easily, as Hirose teaches (col. 6, lines 42-46). The housing could be more easily formed without the fluid port formed therethrough as Toth discloses, because the screws 24, 78 disclosed by Toth through the housing portions aren’t limited to specific locations to avoid the fluid port, and complicated seals such as the unique sealing washer 70 disclosed by Toth aren’t necessary.
Regarding claim 8, Toth discloses a valve unit, as previously discussed, but lacks teaching a duct is provided which extends through the valve and which connects a fluid port located outside the fluid chamber to the fluid chamber.
Hirose teaches in Figs. 1-2 a duct 42, 44, 8a that is provided which extends through the valve spindle 8, 25a and which connects a fluid port 41 located outside the fluid chamber 27 to the fluid chamber 27.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve spindle disclosed by Toth to include a duct that extends therethrough and connects the fluid chamber to a fluid port located outside the fluid chamber as an alternative to the fluid port in the housing and so that the housing can be formed easily, as Hirose teaches (col. 6, lines 42-46). The housing could be more easily formed without the fluid port formed therethrough as Toth discloses, because the screws 24, 78 disclosed by Toth through the housing portions aren’t limited to specific locations to avoid the fluid port, and complicated seals such as the unique sealing washer 70 disclosed by Toth aren’t necessary.
Claim 9 (as understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toth in view of Sorensen (US 1,984,770).
Regarding claim 9, Toth discloses that the at least one lever 110, 108, 106, 104, 102 is configured to directly or indirectly act on the stop 112, but lacks teaching that the at least one lever includes an eccentric surface which is configured to directly or indirectly act on the stop.
Sorensen teaches in Figs. 8-10 at least one lever 61 includes an eccentric surface 63 which is configured to directly or indirectly act on the stop 66. The lever 61 is attachable to a hinge 59 at different locations so that the non-actuated state/initial position of the lever 61 is adjustable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lever actuation disclosed by Toth to comprise a lever with an eccentric surface that is configured to directly or indirectly act on the stop and attachable to a hinge at different locations so that the non-actuated state/initial position of the lever 61 is adjustable, as Sorensen teaches (pg. 2, col. 2, lines 18-38), which gives the user different options for optimal leverage and actuation.
Claims 11-17 and 20 (as understood: all) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toth in view of Rowe (US 910,587).
Regarding claim 11, Toth discloses a lever, as previously discussed, but lacks teaching that two levers are provided which are movable in opposite directions and which jointly move the valve spindle and are jointly moved by the restoring element.
Rowe teaches in Figs. 1-3 that two levers (D) are provided which are movable in opposite directions and which jointly move the valve spindle (B) and are jointly moved by the restoring element (C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lever disclosed by Toth to comprise two, as Rowe teaches, as an obvious duplication of parts (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(D)). Furthermore, the two levers can be used to increase the actuation force on the valve, because the multiple levers can be simultaneously used, such as by multiple hands/users.
Regarding claim 12, Rowe teaches in Figs. 1-3 that the two levers (D) are coupled to each other with an interlocking fit (because one fits inside the other, and/or because a hinge pin(s) (d) links them together).
Regarding claim 13, Rowe teaches in Figs. 1-3 that the two levers (D) have complementary coupling structures (comprising the holes that receive the hinge pin(s) (d)) which define a swivel axis.
Regarding claim 14, Rowe teaches in Figs. 1-3 that the levers (D) are arranged outside the housing (A, C1) and the swivel axis is located on a face side of the housing (A, C1), the levers (D) extending laterally of the housing (A, C1) along opposite sides of the housing (A, C1).
Regarding claim 15, in modifying Toth in view of Rowe by duplicating the lever 110, 108, 106, 104, 102 disclosed by Toth, so that there are two levers, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have both levers in the combination swivel toward a vertical position when swiveling from the initial position to the actuating position, because the lever 110, 108, 106, 104, 102 disclosed by Toth swivels toward a vertical position when swiveling from the initial position to the actuating position. In which case, the levers would swivel toward each other toward a vertical position when swiveling from the initial position to the actuating position.
Regarding claim 16, Rowe teaches in Figs. 1-3 that the complementary coupling structures (comprising the hinge pin(s) (d), and/or the recess of one of the levers (D) to receives the other lever (D)) connect the levers (D) to each other with an interlocking fit only in the radial direction of a swivel axis.
Regarding claim 17, in the second interpretation of Toth, Toth discloses in Figs. 1-2 a stop 112 is provided which is associated with the valve spindle 36 and by means of which the lever 110, 108, 106, 104, 102 is directly or indirectly mechanically coupled to the valve spindle 36, 94 to displace the latter by swiveling the lever 110, 108, 106, 104, 102, wherein the stop 112 is provided on a spindle extension 94 that is coupled to the valve spindle 36, and wherein the lever 110, 108, 106, 104, 102 surrounds the spindle axis and is clamped between the housing (comprising cap portion 52) and the stop 110 in the direction of the spindle axis in the actuating position.
In modifying Toth in view of Rowe to have two levers as Rowe teaches, the levers would both be directly or indirectly mechanically couple to the valve spindle as Toth discloses with one lever, and the levers would jointly surround the spindle axis and be clamped between the housing and the stop as Toth discloses with one lever.
Regarding claim 20, the modification of Toth and Rowe, teach the valve unit claimed, as discussed with regard to claims 1, 11, and 14 above, of which claim 20 is a combination. The levers (D) taught by Rowe are arranged outside the housing (A, C1) and in the direction along the swivel axis (because the levers D have yokes aligned with hinge pins d and on opposite sides of the pins d, similar to the applicant’s levers), and the levers (D) extend laterally of the housing (A, C1) with respect to the longitudinal axis of the valve drive (extending along the longitudinal axis of the valve stem B) and along opposite sides (along the left and right halves/sides of the housing relative to the page in Fig. 2) of the housing (A, C1, especially the housing cap C1) of the valve drive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Day (US 881,848) discloses in Figs. 1-2 a lever (p) that extends along opposite lateral sides of the housing (a, b) and parallel with the longitudinal axis of the valve drive.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Jonathan Waddy, whose telephone number is 571-270-3146. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (10:00AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881 or Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/J. W./
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753