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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 5/30/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search . This is not found persuasive because the tool does not have to be examined with the remover and tool and remover would be system that require a tool and remover.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The mass spectrometry instrument is not part of the invented device and does not modifiy the structure device by combine a device separate device. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4,6, 10-12, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Anderson et al 11,759,919.
Anderson et al discloses the claimed invention as recited in the claims below:
1. (Original) A multi-device removal and installation tool comprising: a device removal tool 100 comprising:
a first side having a first receiver with a first dimension that removably receives a first device 98; and
a second side having a second receiver 80 with a second dimension that removably receives a second device, wherein the first dimension is different from the second dimension; and
a torque limit tool 50 to:
apply, in a first rotation direction of the torque limit tool and the device removal tool, a tightening torque 86 to the first device; and
apply, in a second rotation direction of the torque limit tool and the device removal tool, a loosening torque to the first device, wherein the second rotation direction is generally opposite to the first rotation direction.
3. (Original) The multi-device removal and installation tool according to claim 1, wherein the device removal tool further comprises: at least one torque beam 62 that deflects upon application of the tightening torque that exceeds a torque threshold to limit the tightening torque that is applied to the first device.
4. (Original) The multi-device removal and installation tool according to claim 3, wherein the at least one torque beam engages at least one protrusion 64 of the torque limit tool.
6. (Original) The multi-device removal and installation tool according to claim 1, wherein the first receiver and the second receiver are dimensioned to retain the first device and the second device at a specified height. This is just the natural configuration
10. (Orginal) The multi-device removal and installation tool according to claim 1, wherein the device removal tool further comprises at least one catch member 14 engageable with a channel of a retainer of the torque limit tool to couple the device removal tool to the torque limit tool.
11. (Orginal) The multi-device removal and installation tool according to claim 1, wherein the device removal tool further comprises at least one catch member 14 engageable with a disc 84 of the torque limit tool to couple the device removal tool to the torque limit tool.
12. (Onginal) A multi-device removal and installation tool comprising:
a device removal tool including a plurality of catch members 14 engageable with an engagement face of a device to attach, upon engagement of the plurality of catch members with the engagement face, the device removal tool to the device,
wherein the plurality of catch members engages the engagement face with a removal force that is sufficient to remove, upon engagement of the plurality of catch members with the engagement face, the device from an instrument; and
a torque limit tool 50 including at least one protrusion and removably engageable with the device removal tool.
16. (Orginal) The multi-device removal and installation tool according to claim 12, wherein the device removal tool further comprises at least one catch member 14 engageable with a channel of a retainer of the torque limit tool to couple the device removal tool to the torque limit tool.
17. (Original) The multi-device removal and installation tool according to claim 12, wherein the device removal tool further comprises at least one catch member engageable with a disc 84 of the torque limit tool to couple the device removal tool to the torque limit tool.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7-9, and 13-15 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.
Claim 2 has to be reviewed in light of the 112 rejection aforementioned.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The 892 form discloses prior art being made of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEE D WILSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4499. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6;30-4;30.
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 supervisor, BRIAN KELLER can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
LEE D. WILSON
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
Ldw
/LEE D WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 December 5, 2025