DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-8 are pending.
This is in response to the amendment filed 7/21/2026.
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 filed 7/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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., that, the insert is separate from the flange, square adapter couples directly to the shaft, and screws are located between flange ring and insert) 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).
Since applicant’s arguments and amendments are not persuasive, this action has been made Final.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 7/21/2026. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
The amendment to the abstract has been entered.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: in claim 1, “circumferential opening”.
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 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) 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):
(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), 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), 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), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: screw means in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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 intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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 Objections
Applicant’s argument overcomes the claim objections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s argument overcomes the claim rejections.
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Ferrero (US 20100163773).
Regarding claim 1, Ferrero discloses an adapter (3) for connecting an actuator (1) to a manually operable shut-off valve (2), see Fig. 1, and 28 Fig. 4,5
- with a flange (36),
- with a fastening section (the section at 30’,32,32’) formed on the flange for fastening the actuator and
- with a square adapter (502) for transmitting a torque from the actuator to a switching shaft of the shut-off valve, wherein
- the flange has a flange ring (30’) and an insert (32’) arranged in the flange ring (16)
- the insert (32’,380’) has an internal opening (at 35 para.0036) with an internal cross-section adapted to an external dimension (at outer diameter of 26 or 20) of the shut-off valve,
- the insert is designed as a ring (the insert is round para.0036,and therefore considered as a ring) having a circumferential opening (the cuts 38 extend down to 380’) and can be compressed radially (at 302),
- the flange ring and the insert have corresponding conical contact surfaces (at the bottom of 38’ where 304 contacts 302) and
- screw means (34’/300’) are provided for bracing the flange ring and the insert in an axial direction relative to one another in order to reduce the internal diameter of the internal opening (para.0042,0043).
PNG
media_image1.png
1537
810
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Ferrero discloses the internal cross-section of the internal opening of the insert has radially outward-facing directed recesses (380’, para.0042 which are similar in Fig. 1-3, para.0021) for receiving stop cams (238, see Fig. 1) arranged on the outside of the shut-off valve.
Regarding claim 8, Ferrero discloses a system - with the adapter according to claim 1 and - with a manually operable shut-off valve (2), - wherein the shut-off valve has an outer contour (at 20) corresponding to the inner contour (the inner surface of 380’ surrounding 20, see Fig. 4) of the insert (32’,380’) of the flange (36).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrero ‘773 in view of Firth (US 2402743).
Regarding claims 2-5, Ferrero discloses all of the features of the claimed invention, although is silent that; the screw means have at least two internal threads in the flange ring, at least two blind holes, each having a shoulder, in the insert and at least two grub screws, and the internal threads are designed as laterally open partial threads and the blind holes are designed as laterally open partial openings in a region of the conical contact surfaces, and the insert has an internal thread for receiving a grub screw and - the flange ring has a blind hole corresponding to the internal thread, and the internal thread and the blind hole are laterally open in the region of the conical contact surfaces.
Firth teaches the use of the screw means (7-10,16-19, see Fig. 1-2) have at least two internal threads (8) in the flange ring (2), at least two blind holes (9), each having a shoulder (11), in the insert (3) and at least two grub screws (10), and
the internal threads (8) are designed as laterally open partial threads and the blind holes (9) are designed as laterally open partial openings in a region of the conical contact surfaces (the mating conical surfaces of 2 and 3 shown in figures 1,2), and
the insert (3) has an internal thread (16) for receiving a grub screw (10) and - the flange ring (2) has a blind hole (17) corresponding to the internal thread (16, see Fig. 2), and
the internal thread and the blind hole are laterally open in the region of the conical contact surfaces (see Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
1216
758
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ internal threads, blind holes and screws as taught by Firth into Ferrero to have; the screw means have at least two internal threads in the flange ring, at least two blind holes, each having a shoulder, in the insert and at least two grub screws, and the internal threads are designed as laterally open partial threads and the blind holes are designed as laterally open partial openings in a region of the conical contact surfaces, and the insert has an internal thread for receiving a grub screw and - the flange ring has a blind hole corresponding to the internal thread, and the internal thread and the blind hole are laterally open in the region of the conical contact surfaces, in order to provide a secondary wedging/de-wedging means which reduces weight and savings of metal required for mountings and provides for easy installment and quickly demounting (Firth, col. 1, lns. 10-42).
The following rejections are given should the above not be persuasive.
Claim(s) 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrero ‘773 in view of Firth (US 2402743), and further in view of Kellenberger et al. (US 6309136).
Regarding claims 2-5, Ferrero discloses all of the features of the claimed invention, although is silent that; the screw means have at least two internal threads in the flange ring, at least two blind holes, each having a shoulder, in the insert and at least two grub screws, and the internal threads are designed as laterally open partial threads and the blind holes are designed as laterally open partial openings in a region of the conical contact surfaces, and the insert has an internal thread for receiving a grub screw and - the flange ring has a blind hole corresponding to the internal thread, and the internal thread and the blind hole are laterally open in the region of the conical contact surfaces.
Firstly, Firth teaches the use of the screw means (7-10,16-19, see Fig. 1-2) have at least two internal threads (8) in the flange ring (2), at least two blind holes (9), each having a shoulder (11), in the insert (3) and at least two screws (10), and
the internal threads (8) are designed as laterally open partial threads and the blind holes (9) are designed as laterally open partial openings in a region of the conical contact surfaces (the mating conical surfaces of 2 and 3 shown in figures 1,2), and the insert (3) has an internal thread (16) for receiving a screw (10) and - the flange ring (2) has a blind hole (17) corresponding to the internal thread (16, see Fig. 2), and
the internal thread and the blind hole are laterally open in the region of the conical contact surfaces (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ internal threads, blind holes and screws as taught by Firth into Ferrero to have; the screw means have at least two internal threads in the flange ring, at least two blind holes, each having a shoulder, in the insert and at least two screws, and the internal threads are designed as laterally open partial threads and the blind holes are designed as laterally open partial openings in a region of the conical contact surfaces, and the insert has an internal thread for receiving a screw and - the flange ring has a blind hole corresponding to the internal thread, and the internal thread and the blind hole are laterally open in the region of the conical contact surfaces, in order to provide a secondary wedging/de-wedging means which reduces weight and savings of metal required for mountings and provides for easy installment and quickly demounting (Firth, col. 1, lns. 10-42).
Secondly, Ferrero and Firth are silent that the screw is a grub screw.
Kellenberger et al. teach the use of a grub screw (8,col.4,ln.34-35) as shown in Fig.9.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute grub screws as taught by Kellenberger et al. for screws, in the combined device of Ferrero and Firth to have ; the screw means have at least two internal threads in the flange ring, at least two blind holes, each having a shoulder, in the insert and at least two grub screws, and the internal threads are designed as laterally open partial threads and the blind holes are designed as laterally open partial openings in a region of the conical contact surfaces, and the insert has an internal thread for receiving a grub screw and - the flange ring has a blind hole corresponding to the internal thread, and the internal thread and the blind hole are laterally open in the region of the conical contact surfaces, since it has been held, that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component (one screw for another) or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. Additionally, the well-known expected outcome of holding the tapered pieces together, would result from the combination.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
None of the prior art of record discloses or renders as obvious “the square adapter has a quarter-circular radially protruding flange”, in combination with the rest of the limitations in claim 7.
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 Craig Price, whose telephone number is (571)272-2712 or via facsimile (571)273-2712. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:00AM-4:30PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3607, 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 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.
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 Form at;
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/CRAIG J PRICE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights