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 .
This action is in response to the application filed on 02/13/24.
Claims 1-23 are pending and have been examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show a hydromechanical key (2) as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-23 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 1 recites the limitation "the rear cover" and “the equipment” in lines 10 and 19, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 6, “the center fitting” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 7, the limitation of “to prevent the chain from coming loose” renders the claim indefinite because it is functional and predicated on a future act. Furthermore, the functional language is no supported by sufficient structure to perform the attachment of the chain. In order to be given patentable weight, a functional recitation must be expressed as a “means” for performing the specified function, as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph, and must be supported by recitation in the claim of sufficient structure to warrant the presence of the functional language.
In claim 10, the limitation of “the final dimensions” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 11, the limitations of “the state” and “the power relays” lack antecedent basis.
In claim 12, the limitation of “the external power supply” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 13, the limitations of “the equipment”, “the handle”, “the other side”, “the opposite side”, “the locknut”, “the threaded cap”, “the adapter disc”, and “the maneuver” lack antecedent basis. Also, the limitation of “correctly aligned” renders the claim indefinite in that it has no boundaries and/or limits. It is unclear with respect to which other component is it aligned?
In claim 14, the limitations of “the IPU chassis”, “the “Operation Selector” valve”, “the power source’s control panel”, “the entire hydraulic cylinder rod”, “the free end of the chain”, “the “Hydraulic Power Plant” key”, “the protective cover”, “the other side”, and “the hoses” lack antecedent basis.
Also in claim 14, line 6, the limitation of “ensuring that the interchangeable center of the cable wheel is correct” renders the claim indefinite in that “correct” has no boundaries and/or limits. Thereby, it is unclear with respect to which other claimed component is said center related to. In line 10, it is unclear what is encompassed by “poition”?
In claim 15, the limitations of “the appropriate center and/or tube”, “the nut size”, “the corresponding socket”, “the core of the cable wheel”, “the specific size of each brand and/or model” lack antecedent basis.
In claim 16, “the anchoring adapter” and “the brand and/or model” lack antecedent basis.
In claim 19, the limitations of “extraction of the bolts”, “the final adjustment”, “the correct position”, “the quick release trigger valve”, “the vehicle”, “the driving force”, “electrical connections”, “the compression process”, “the system”, “the work area”, “the operator”, “the air pressure gauge”, “the pneumatic line”, and “the other bolt” lack antecedent basis.
In claim 20, “the cover” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 20, the limitation of “if it is necessary to align the pneumatic striker, turn it by loosening the cover, adjusting the striker, and then tightening it again” is indefinite in it is functional and predicated on a future act. Furthermore, the functional language is no supported by sufficient structure to perform the alignment, adjustment and tightening of the striker. In order to be given patentable weight, a functional recitation must be expressed as a “means” for performing the specified function, as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph, and must be supported by recitation in the claim of sufficient structure to warrant the presence of the functional language.
In claims 19, 21 and 23, it looks like the use of kg/cm2 as a measure for pneumatic pressure is not correct, since kg is not a measure of force but of mass.
In claim 23, the limitations of “the middle of a bolt unfastening operation”, “the first shot”, “the lowering the pneumatic pressure” lacks antecedent basis. Also, the limitations of “to lower the pressure enough” and “very slowly” render the claim indefinite in that they do not have boundaries and/or limits.
Also, the number references used in the claims should be deleted.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the apparatus for changing the stroke of an individual pumping unit comprising:
a hydromechanical wrench;
a pneumatic striker;
and a power source;
the hydromechanical wrench comprising a fixing anchor attached to a double acting hydraulic cylinder, a toothed wheel with a central socket for a wrench, and a pull chain;
the pneumatic striker comprising a body, a striking piston movably mounted inside with a spring, a normally open check valve, and a trigger valve integrated into the body;
and the power source comprising an air compressor and a hydraulic pump connected to an accumulator tank inside which a piston separates a pneumatic circuit from a hydraulic circuit,
and an electrical/electronic circuit comprising a programmable logic controller.
The combinations of the claimed limitations are novel and found to be allowable over prior art. The cited references taken singly or in combination do not anticipate or make obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8:30 am to 4:30 pm.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571) 270 - 1926. 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.
/MICHELLE LOPEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731