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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
All applicant submitted Foreign References and Non Patent Literatures should be listed in an IDS.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 5-6, “the removal tool to an engage at least a portion of the insertable engine component” should read --the removal tool to engage at least a portion of the insertable engine component--.
Claim 20, “the engine component removal tool” should read --the removal tool of the insertable engine component--.Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 and 11-20 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 limitations “an insertable engine component” and “an engine frame” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim (see “an insertable engine component” and “an engine frame” in lines 1-2 of the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the removal tool” in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitations in the claim. Because “removal tool” is not earlier recited. For the purpose of this examination this limitation is interpreted to be --a removal tool--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a rotational force” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitations in the claim. Because “rotational force” is earlier recited in the claim. For the purpose of this examination this limitation is interpreted to be --the rotational force --.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “mounting a coupling device at least partially around a retaining component to couple an insertable engine component to an engine frame” which is indefinite. Because it is not clear if applicant intended to claim coupling device to couple the insertable engine component to the engine frame, or --mounting a coupling device at least partially around a retaining component; wherein the retaining component is configured to couple an insertable engine component to an engine frame--. Examination is conducted under the second one.
Claims 2-10 are rejected due to dependency on rejected claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a longitudinal axis of the main shaft”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitations in the claim. Because “a longitudinal axis of the main shaft” is earlier recited in claim 4. For the purpose of this examination this limitation is interpreted to be -- the longitudinal axis of the main shaft--.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “lifting member” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitations in the claim. Because “a lifting member” is earlier recited in claim 1. For the purpose of this examination this limitation is interpreted to be --the lifting member--.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the transfer a vertical movement of main shaft as a vertical force onto the insertable engine component” which is ambiguous. There is also insufficient antecedent basis for limitations “a vertical movement” and “a vertical force”; because both limitations are recited in claim 7.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the vertical force” in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitations in the claim. Because “vertical force” is not earlier recited in the claim. For the purpose of this examination this limitation is interpreted to be --a vertical force--.
Claim 11 recites “the intermediate region” in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is not clear if applicant intended to claim --the intermediate--.
Claims 12-20 are rejected due to dependency on rejected claim 11.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the distal end” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. This limitation is earlier recited in claim 11. Therefore claim 13 is interpreted to be dependent on claim 11.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a longitudinal axis of the main shaft”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitations in the claim. Because “a longitudinal axis of the main shaft” is earlier recited in claim 11. For the purpose of this examination this limitation is interpreted to be -- the longitudinal axis of the main shaft--.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “a removal tool”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitations in the claim. Because “a removal tool” is not earlier recited in claim 11 to which claim 18 depends on. For the purpose of this examination this limitation is interpreted to be --the removal tool--.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “an intermediate region of a main shaft”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitations in the claim. Because “an intermediate region of the main shaft” is earlier recited in claim 11 to which claim 18 depends on. For the purpose of this examination this limitation is interpreted to be --the intermediate region of the main shaft --.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “a longitudinal axis of the main shaft”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitations in the claim. Because “a longitudinal axis of the main shaft” is earlier recited in claim 11. For the purpose of this examination this limitation is interpreted to be -- the longitudinal axis of the main shaft--.
Double Patenting
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 12090610 B2, hereinafter 610. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1 of the instant invention recites: A method of removing an insertable engine component from a slot of an engine frame (610: A method of removing an insertable engine component from a slot of an engine frame), comprising: mounting a coupling device at least partially around a retaining component to couple an insertable engine component to an engine frame (610: mounting a coupling device attached to a distal end of a main shaft of a removal tool around a retaining component securing the insertable engine component to the engine frame); positioning a lifting member coupled to an intermediate section of a main shaft of the removal tool to an engage at least a portion of the insertable engine component; and applying a rotational force against a drive member attached to a proximate end of the main shaft of the removal tool (610: positioning a lifting member attached to an intermediate section of the main shaft of the removal tool, wherein the lifting member is positioned against at least a portion of an underside of the insertable engine component; and applying a rotational force against a drive member attached to a proximate end of the main shaft of the removal tool); and translating a rotational force applied against the main shaft into a lifting force that is applied against the insertable engine component, causing the insertable engine component to be extracted from the engine frame (610: the rotational force is transferred from the drive member to the coupling device through the main shaft causing the coupling device to rotate about a longitudinal axis of the main shaft; the rotation of the coupling device causes the retaining component to separate from a bore into which the retaining component is installed away from the bore in a vertical direction away from the distal end of the main shaft; the vertical force is transferred by the lifting member as a lifting force onto the at least a portion of an underside of the insertable engine component, causing the insertable engine component to be lifted out of the slot of the engine frame).
Claims 2-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 2-10 of prior U.S. Patent No. U.S. Patent No. US 12090610 B2. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 11-20 of prior U.S. Patent No. U.S. Patent No. US 12090610 B2. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Rausfeisen (US 4894900 A).
Regarding claim 1, Rausfeisen teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) a method of removing an insertable engine component (fuel injection nozzle 10) from a slot (nozzle socket 84) of (cylinder mounting socket 8) an engine frame (cylinder head 80), comprising: mounting a coupling device (bolt 252) at least partially around a retaining component (locating plate 106) to couple an insertable engine component to an engine frame (locating plate 106 is part of the clamp subassembly 78 which holds the fuel injection nozzle in place);(position of the bolt 252 is around locating plate 106 which is removed before installing the bolt 252 of the removal tool 250)
PNG
media_image1.png
48
900
media_image1.png
Greyscale
positioning a lifting member (yoke 262) coupled to an intermediate section of a main shaft (jack screw 254) of the removal tool (250) to engage at least a portion of the insertable engine component;
PNG
media_image2.png
66
906
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and applying a rotational force against a drive member (hexagonal head portion 272) attached to a proximate end of the main shaft of the removal tool;
PNG
media_image3.png
80
912
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and translating a rotational force applied against the main shaft into a lifting force that is applied against the insertable engine component, causing the insertable engine component to be extracted from the engine frame.
PNG
media_image3.png
80
912
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Rausfeisen teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the insertable engine component includes a fuel injector installed in a cylinder head of a locomotive engine (col. 1, lines 10-11: nozzle of cylinder head of an internal combustion engine.
Regarding claim 3, Rausfeisen teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) positioning the lifting member around the insertable engine component includes positioning the lifting member (yoke 262) against an underside of a flange (shoulder 268) of the insertable engine component.
PNG
media_image4.png
80
910
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Rausfeisen teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the intermediate section allows the lifting member (yoke 262) to slide under a portion (shoulder 268) of the insertable engine component to be removed, while positioning the lifting member in place.
PNG
media_image4.png
80
910
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Rausfeisen teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the intermediate section allows the lifting member (yoke 262) to transfer a vertical movement of main shaft as a vertical force onto the insertable engine component to be removed.
PNG
media_image5.png
80
910
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Rausfeisen teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the transfer a vertical movement of main shaft as a vertical force onto the insertable engine component to be removed pushes lifting member against the insertable engine component to push the insertable engine component in the direction of the lifting force to extract the insertable engine component from the slot.
PNG
media_image5.png
80
910
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Rausfeisen teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the main shaft is configured to route various forces (because of threaded engagement with the lifting member and engagement with the coupling device) during operation of the removal tool to facilitate removal of the insertable engine component.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 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.
Claim 11 would be allowable for disclosing “rotation of the coupling device causes the retaining component to be separate from a bore into which the retaining component is installed away from the bore in a vertical direction away from the distal end of the main shaft”.
These limitations with other claimed limitations in a whole, make the instant invention neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by the best prior art in record.
The closest prior art to the claimed invention of claim 11 is Rausfeisen. However in device of Rausfeisen the retaining component is removed before installing the removal tool.
Claims 4 and 10 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.
Claim 5 would be allowable dur to dependency on allowable claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHDI H NEJAD whose telephone number is (571)270-0464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-4pm EST.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
MAHDI H. NEJAD
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/MAHDI H NEJAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights