Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/837,784

ROTOR TUBE ASSEMBLY FOR A FLUID VALVE ACTUATOR AND METHOD FOR ASSEMBLING A ROTOR TUBE ASSEMBLY

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Aug 12, 2024
Examiner
KEASEL, ERIC S
Art Unit
3753
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Danfoss A/S
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
456 granted / 574 resolved
+9.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +15% lift
Without
With
+14.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
11 currently pending
Career history
585
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
33.4%
-6.6% vs TC avg
§102
27.2%
-12.8% vs TC avg
§112
32.1%
-7.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 574 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . 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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on January 26, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 10 and 11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 26, 2026. Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i). 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 2-5 and 12-17 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 2 recites “wherein preferably a central shoulder is provided between the bottom coupling portion and the guiding portion and/or an upper shoulder is provided between the guiding portion and the central coupling portion.” The phrase "preferably…" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Claim 3 recites “wherein the lead screw is in contact with the rotor tube preferably only via the bushing and the bearing housing assembly and/or that the bearing housing assembly is fixed to the lead screw by means of an inner stopper preferably press fit to the lead screw.” The phrases "preferably…" render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Claim 4 recites “wherein the non-block assembly is preferably oriented away from the bearing housing assembly and towards the bushing”. The phrase "preferably…" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Claim 5 recites “wherein non-block assembly”. It is unclear if “the” should precede “non-block assembly” to refer back to the previously recited “non-block assembly”. Claim 12 recites “wherein the lead screw is in contact with the rotor tube preferably only via the bushing and the bearing housing assembly and/or that the bearing housing assembly is fixed to the lead screw by means of an inner stopper preferably press fit to the lead screw.” The phrases "preferably…" render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Claim 13 recites “wherein the non-block assembly is preferably oriented away from the bearing housing assembly and towards the bushing.” The phrase "preferably…" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Claim 14 recites “wherein the non-block assembly is preferably oriented away from the bearing housing assembly and towards the bushing.” The phrase "preferably…" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. 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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “non-block assembly” in claim 1. 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. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1 and 6-9 allowed. Claims 2-5 and 12-17 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: While various fluid valve actuator rotor tube assemblies are known with a bearing housing assembly, a rotor sleeve assembly, lead screws, and bushings, claim 1 requires a non-block assembly (see paragraphs [0015], [0051], and [0052]) as well as the various size and spatial relations (“wherein the lead screw comprises a bottom threaded portion on one side of the bottom shoulder and on the other side of the bottom shoulder and in this given order a bottom coupling portion for coupling the bearing housing assembly to the lead screw, a central coupling portion for coupling the rotor sleeve assembly to the lead screw, and an upper coupling portion for coupling the bushing to the lead screw, wherein the bottom shoulder has a larger outer diameter than the coupling portions, the bottom coupling portion has a larger outer diameter than or the same diameter as the central coupling portion and the upper coupling portion has a smaller diameter than or the same diameter as the bottom coupling portion and the central coupling portion”). While Yonezawa and Aria discloses similar rotor tubes with lost motion assemblies to unblock when the valve gets stuck, and Ohuchi, Boch, and Lv disclose some of the size and spatial features, the prior art of record does not disclose, or reasonably suggest in combination, a rotor tube assembly for a fluid valve actuator, comprising a bearing housing assembly, a lead screw with a bottom shoulder, a rotor sleeve assembly with a non-block assembly, a bushing and a rotor tube, wherein the lead screw is provided at least partially inside the bearing housing assembly, the rotor sleeve assembly, the bushing and the rotor tube, wherein the bottom shoulder abuts the bearing housing assembly, wherein the lead screw comprises a bottom threaded portion on one side of the bottom shoulder and on the other side of the bottom shoulder and in this given order a bottom coupling portion for coupling the bearing housing assembly to the lead screw, a central coupling portion for coupling the rotor sleeve assembly to the lead screw, and an upper coupling portion for coupling the bushing to the lead screw, wherein the bottom shoulder has a larger outer diameter than the coupling portions, the bottom coupling portion has a larger outer diameter than or the same diameter as the central coupling portion and the upper coupling portion has a smaller diameter than or the same diameter as the bottom coupling portion and the central coupling portion. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric Keasel whose telephone number is (571) 272-4929. The examiner works a part-time schedule and can normally be reached on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday. 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 and Craig Schneider can be reached on 571-272-4881 and 571-272-3607, respectively. 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. /ERIC KEASEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 12, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12560251
VALVE SPRING HOLDER, VALVE BOX, AND PLUNGER PUMP
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12560257
Valve
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12535144
FLUID CONTROL VALVE MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12523211
OPTIMIZED VALVE SYSTEM FOR PISTON COMPRESSORS - VALVE LAMINA AND VALVE RETAINER HAVING AERODYNAMIC DAMPING
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12510183
HYDROGEN VALVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
79%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+14.8%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 574 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month