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 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,” and is/are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“at least one protective means” in claim 6, line 2, the corresponding structure for which can be found in the specification page 10, lines 25-31.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-5, 7 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 9-10, the recitation “the at least one lateral through-hole” should read --the at least one laterally arranged through-hole--.
In claim 1, lines 13-14, the recitation “the second securing element” should read –the at least one second securing element--.
In claim 1, lines 15-16, the recitation “the at least one through-hole” should read --the at least one laterally arranged through-hole--.
In claim 1, line 16, the recitation “the second securing element” should read –the at least one second securing element--.
In claim 1, line 17, the recitation “the first securing element” should read –the at least one first securing element--.
In claim 1, line 20, the recitation “the second securing element” should read –the at least one second securing element--.
In claim 3, line 2, “the at least one through-hole” should read --the at least one laterally arranged through-hole--.
In claims 4 and 7, all recitations of “the first securing element” should read –the at least one first securing element--.
In claims 4, 5, 7 and 11, all recitations of “the second securing element” should read –the at least one second securing element--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US2015/0053875 (“Fohn”).
Regarding claim 1, Fohn discloses a diaphragm valve or a diaphragm seat valve comprising:
a drive (“42”);
a drive rod (mainly defined by “48”, “49”, “50” and “60”) connected to the drive and comprising a connection device (mainly defined by “48”, “50” and “60”); the connection device comprising:
a receptacle (“48”) having a distal opening (bottom opening, relative to the orientation of fig. 6 defined mainly by region “82”) which provides access to a receiving space (“80”) for receiving a portion (portion of pin “6” exterior to diaphragm “4”) of a diaphragm pin (“6”) of a valve diaphragm (“4”), wherein at least one laterally arranged through-hole (“90”) of the receptacle leads into the receiving space (see fig. 5);
at least one first securing element (“60”), which is movably arranged in the at least one lateral through-hole at least perpendicular to a longitudinal axis (“10”; see fig. 1) of the connection device;
at least one second securing element (“50”), which is mounted on the receptacle so as to be movable along the longitudinal axis (between positions of figs. 6-8), wherein the second securing element, in a first position (position where securing sleeve “50” presses securing lock “60” against bias of spring “74”; see figs. 4 and 6) relative to the receptacle, presses the at least one first securing element into the receiving space (see fig. 4) through an inner opening (“92”) of the at least one through-hole, and wherein the second securing element, in a second position (position where securing sleeve “50” allows release of securing lock “60”; see fig. 8) relative to the receptacle, releases the first securing element for movement out of the receiving space (via bias of spring “74”); and
at least one spring element (“54”), which is supported on (by means of abutment with securing sleeve “50”, and biasing the securing sleeve “50” against the receptacle “48”) the receptacle (“48”) and biasing the second securing element toward the first position (spring “54” biases securing sleeve “50” into locked position to secure locking pin “60”);
wherein the drive transfers the drive rod from at least one operating position (see position of fig. 7) into a mounting position (see position of fig. 8) in which the second securing element is in the second position.
Regarding claim 3, Fohn discloses the at least one through-hole (“90”) tapers (see graduated taper of through-hole “90” in fig. 5) at least in portions in a direction toward the inner opening (“92”).
Regarding claim 4, Fohn discloses the second securing element (“50”) comprises a limiting space (space formed by cylindrical inner surface of securing sleeve “50”) which has a first diameter in a first portion (portion distal from diaphragm “4”) in order to press, in the first position (position of fig. 6), the first securing element (“60”) into the receiving space (“80”) through the inner opening (“92”) of the at least one through-hole (“90”), and wherein a second portion (chamfered inner portion of securing sleeve “50” proximal to the diaphragm “4”) of the limiting space has a second diameter (diameter of conical surface “72”; see fig. 4) which is larger than the first diameter in order to release, in the second position (position illustrated in fig. 8), the first securing element (“60”) for movement from the receiving space (“80”).
Regarding claim 5, Fohn discloses the second securing element (“50”) comprises a retaining geometry (annular groove “114” engaged by pin “56” maintains spring element “54” compressed and diaphragm pin “60” is disengaged from groove “8”) for reaching the second position (position where securing sleeve “50” allows release of securing lock “60”; see fig. 8).
Regarding claim 6, Fohn discloses wherein in the receiving space (“80”) there is at least one protective means (mainly defined by annular groove “8” and/or locking pin “60”) against a falling out of the diaphragm pin (“6”).
Regarding claim 7, Fohn discloses the drive (“42”);
the drive rod (mainly defined by “48” and “49”) connected to the drive, which drive rod comprises the connection device (mainly defined by “48”, “50” and “60”);
a drive-side body (“110”);
a valve body (“112”);
the valve diaphragm, wherein a lateral portion (outer periphery of diaphragm “4”) of the valve diaphragm (“4”) is clamped between the valve body and the drive-side body (see fig. 8), wherein the second securing element (securing sleeve “50”), in its first position (see position of fig. 6) relative to the receptacle (“48”), presses the first securing element (“60”) through the inner opening (“92”) of the at least one through-hole (“90”) into a taper (beveled surfaces “12” and/or “14”, which define the annular groove “8”) of the diaphragm pin (“6”) which is located at least in portions in the receiving space (“80”; see fig. 6).
Regarding claim 10, Fohn discloses the diaphragm pin (“6”) is mounted inside the receiving space (“80”) so as to be movable (clearance between conical surfaces “12” and “14” allow relative play between diaphragm pin “6” and receptacle “48”; see fig. 4) along the longitudinal axis (“10”).
Regarding claim 11, Fohn discloses the retaining geometry (annular groove “114” engaged by pin “56” maintains spring element “54” compressed and diaphragm pin “60” is disengaged from groove “8”) of the second securing element (“50”) meets a stop (“56”) stationary (stop “56” remains engaged with annular groove “114” when driving rod, mainly defined by “48” and “49”, moves between positions of figs. 7 and 8) relative to the drive rod (at least parts “48” and “49”) during the transition of the drive rod into the mounting position (position of fig. 8).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fohn, as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, in view of CN113646562 (“Obara”).
Regarding claim 8, Fohn discloses the invention as claimed except for a compressor which is arranged between a distal end of the receptacle and the valve diaphragm.
However, Obara teaches (see fig. 10) a compressor (“23”) which is arranged between a distal end (bottom end, relative to the orientation of fig. 9) of a receptacle (“8”) and a valve diaphragm (“22”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the invention of Fohn by employing a compressor between a distal end of the receptacle and the valve diaphragm, as taught by Obara, to be able protect the diaphragm from mechanical forces.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Fohn and Obara discloses a free distance (Fohn and Obara discloses a free distance equating to a dimension of zero unit) between the compressor (Obara, “23”), the valve diaphragm (Obara, “22”), and the distal end (Fohn, bottom end, relative to the orientation of fig. 6) of the receptacle (Fohn, “48”) is smaller than a distance between a bottom (Fohn, surface of shaft “49”, which closes opening “78”) of the receiving space (Fohn, “80”) and a distal end (Fohn, end of pin “6” distal from diaphragm “4”) of the diaphragm pin (Fohn, “6”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed February 19, 2026, have been fully considered.
With regards to the objection(s) of claims 3, 8 and 9, as set forth in the Office action dated November 24, 2025, Applicant’s amendments have overcome these objections.
With regards to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection(s) of claims 1-11, Applicant’s current amendments have overcome this/these rejection(s).
With regards to the rejection of claim 1 over Fohn, Applicant argues that
“the spring element (54) in Fohn is supported on the intermediate piece (44), not on the pressing part (48), which the Office Action identifies as corresponding to the claimed receptacle”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The intermediate piece (Fohn, “44”) merely describes one region of the valve device (Fohn, “40”) within which the pressing part/receptacle (Fohn, “48”) is disposed (Fohn, see specification paragraph [0039]). The spring element (Fohn, “54”) engages the coupling socket/second securing element (Fohn, “50”) to fix the coupling socket/second securing element (Fohn, “50”) to the pressing part/receptacle (Fohn, “48”; see specification paragraph [0048]), which anticipates the amended claim.
With regards to the rejection of claim 1 over Fohn, Applicant further argues that
“Fohn does not disclose that the spring biases the second securing element toward a defined locking position in which radial securing elements are pressed into engagement with the diaphragm pin as a default state relative to the receptacle. The function and orientation of the spring in Fohn are directed to operational fixation in the feed direction toward the valve seat, not to biasing a locking sleeve toward a defined first position relative to the receptacle as required by claim 1.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 of the present applicant describes (see claim 1, lines 13-14 and lines 16-17) the first position and the second position as positions of the second securing element (112) as positions “relative to the receptacle” (102a-b). In Fohn, spring element (Fohn, “54”), in a similar manner, biases the coupling socket/second securing element (Fohn, “50”) to lock the locking slide/first securing element (Fohn, “60”) from withdrawal (Fohn, see specification paragraph [0050]). Without a rod/stop (Fohn, “56”) the coupling socket/second securing element (Fohn, “50”) would be biased towards the locking position (Fohn, see fig. 7), wherein the coupling socket/second securing element (Fohn, “50”) is in fixed abutment with the pressing part/receptacle (Fohn, “48”). When the rod/stop (Fohn, “56”) is engaged to prevent movement of the coupling socket/second securing element (Fohn, “50”; see fig. 8), the coupling socket/second securing element (Fohn, “50”; see fig. 8) is at a different position, relative to the pressing part/receptacle (Fohn, “48”), which allows separation of the coupling socket/second securing element (Fohn, “50”) from the locking slide/first securing element (Fohn, “60”), which allows for withdrawal of the locking slide/first securing element (Fohn, “60”) from annular groove (Fohn, “8”) and receiving space (Fohn, “80”).
With regards to the rejection of claim 8 and 9 over Fohn in view of Obara, since Applicant’s arguments only concern the limitations of independent claim 1, Applicant’s arguments are addressed in the response to claim 1, above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hailey K. Do whose direct telephone number is (571)270-3458 and direct fax number is (571)270-4458. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00AM-5:00PM ET) and Friday (8:00AM-12:00PM ET).
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 supervisors, Kenneth Rinehart at 571-272-4881, or Craig M. Schneider 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAILEY K. DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights