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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is responsive to the communication filed 4/13/2026. No claim amendments were presented, claims 13 – 27 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that “the specification of the present invention is here clear that a direct fastening between the tolerance compensation element (i.e., lock nut 29) and the flap shaft (i.e., shaft 20) occurs”, applicant misinterprets the principle that claims are interpreted in light of the specification. Although element “direct fastening” is found as embodiments in the specification, they were not claimed explicitly. Nor were the words that are used in the claims defined in the specification to require these limitations. A reading of the specification provides no evidence to indicate that these limitations must be imported into the claims to give meaning to disputed terms. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1064.
Applicant argues elements 28 and 32 do not “bridge a gap” because “a gap” is still visible. Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant. The reference discloses a flap that is biased by biasing member 42 to hold the element 28 against the shaft 20. As Applicant notes, a cursory review of figure 1 of the reference clearly shows the biasing element that biases the flap against element 28 thereby reading on the limitation “bridging a gap”.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that flap body does not directly contact the compensation element, examiner is interpreting element 24 of the reference to be part of the flap body, thereby reading on the claimed subject matter.
Regarding Applicant’s argument “it would be quite impossible for the tolerance compensation element identified by the Office (i.e., lock nut 29) to bridge a gap to the flattening 32 on shaft 20 if nut 28 is disposed between shaft 20 and lock nut 29”. Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant. Examiner notes the office action clearly states “the gap between 32 and 28”, any reasonable person would agree that the interpreted compensation element 29 closes the gap between element 28 and 32. As also noted in the previous action, “gap” as claimed is interpreted as “any gap”, if Applicant meant “a gap” to be a particular gap, Applicant is invited to amend the claims to particularly point out and distinctly claim what Applicant regards as the invention.
Based on the foregoing the rejection of claims 13 – 14, 22 - 26 of the previous action is maintained and THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
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.
Claims 13 – 14, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WIPO Publication to Bronischewski (WO 2021/144183).
Regarding claim 1, Bronischewski discloses a flow housing (10, Fig. 1) which defines at least one flow channel (12, Fig. 1); a flap shaft (20, Fig. 1) which projects into the at least one flow channel, the flap shaft being configured to be rotated by an actuator between a plurality of positions about a longitudinal axis (38, Fig. 1); a flap body (34, Fig. 1) which is arranged in the at least one flow channel (12, Fig. 1) and which is attached to the flap shaft (20, Fig 1), the flap body being configured to be adjusted together with the flap shaft at least between a closed position (Fig. 2) and an open position (Fig. 1); and a tolerance compensation element (29, Fig. 1), wherein, during an assembly of the flap device, the tolerance compensation element (29, Fig. 1) is configured so that it can be fastened to the flap shaft (20, Fig. 1) in different positions transversely to the longitudinal axis (38, Fig. 1) of the flap shaft (20, Fig. 1) so as to bridge a gap – any gap will meet this limitation, examiner is interpreting the gap between 32 and 28 to meet this limitation - between the flap shaft (20, Fig. 1) and the flap body (34, Fig.1), the flap body (34, Fig. 1) contacting the tolerance compensation element transversely to the longitudinal axis (38, Fig ) of the flap shaft (20, Fig. 1), or the tolerance compensation element (29, Fig. 1) is configured so that it can be fastened to the flap body (34, Fig. 1) in different positions transversely to the longitudinal axis (38, Fig. 1) of the flap shaft (20, Fig. 1) so as to bridge a gap – any gap will meet this limitation, examiner is interpreting the gap between 32 and 28 to meet this limitation - between the flap shaft (20, Fig. 1) and the flap body (34, Fig. 1), the flap shaft (20, Fig. 1) contacting – by means of element 28 - the tolerance compensation element (29, Fig. 1) transversely to the longitudinal axis of the flap shaft.
Regarding claim 14, Bronischewski discloses the tolerance compensation element (29, Fig. 1) comprises a thread (internal), and the flap body (34, Fig. 1) further comprises a counter-thread (external) which is complementary to the thread of the tolerance compensation element (29, Fig. 1) so that the tolerance compensation element (29, Fig. 1) is adjustable via a rotary movement around a longitudinal axis of the tolerance compensation element.
Regarding claim 25, Bronischewski discloses the flap body has a center plane (centerline of element 34), and the center plane of the flap body is arranged at a distance from the longitudinal axis (38, Fig. 1) of the flap shaft (20, Fig. 1).
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.
Claims 22 – 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WIPO Publication to Bronischewski (WO 2021/144183) in view of US Patent to Geiser (6,494,434).
Regarding claims 22 – 24, Bronischewski does not disclose a sealing element.
However, having sealing element in flapper valve is well known in the art as taught by Geiser. Geiser teaches a Viton sealing element (6, Fig. 3) on a flapper (10, Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date of the application to have modified the valve disclosed by Bronischewski with the Viton O-ring taught by Geiser to have a valve that seals against any surface imperfections of the valve seat.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 – 21, and 26 - 27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 UMASHANKAR VENKATESAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisors Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607 or Ken 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.
/UMASHANKAR VENKATESAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights