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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 19 November 2025 has been entered.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 1-6 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 2012/0151735) in view of McCaffrey et al. (US 7,779,540).
As to claim 1, Thomas teaches a device for mounting and dismantling components of an aircraft engine (module removal tool 14 as shown in Figs 2, 4, and 5a-c), the device comprising: a crossbar configured to connect to a lifting apparatus (horizontal support member 27 is capable of being connected to a lift as discussed at [0062]); a main strut extending from the crossbar (vertical support 26); and a cross-member adjoining a free end of the main strut at an angle (shaft 20 is a cross-member which is joined to the bottom end of the vertical support 26. The angle is approximately 90 degrees as shown in the Figures.), the cross-member being formed at the free end thereof and configured for connecting adapters, retaining members, or components of the aircraft engine (the shaft 20 is illustrated as being attached to attachment member flange 28, which is an adapter for components of an
PNG
media_image1.png
471
529
media_image1.png
Greyscale
aircraft engine), wherein the main strut is formed in two parts (see Figs 5a-c. The vertical support member is formed of members 52 and 54. This is discussed at [0062].), with an articulation arranged between the two parts (members 52 and 54 are capable of rotating relative to one another along around the axis of the support pin 56 as shown in Fig 5C).
Thomas does not teach the articulation is arranged in such a way that the cross-member is moveable toward the crossbar in a condition where the articulation is actuated starting from a completely extended state thereof which is a state configured for mounting and dismounting the components to or from the aircraft engine.
Rather, as pointed out by Applicant in interview of 14 November 2025, Thomas teaches a stop on member 52 which blocks the rotation of member 52 “inward” toward 54 in a clockwise direction (according to the orientation of Fig 5C). Thus Thomas can not meet the claimed limitations1.
However, in the field of assembly and disassembly of turbine components, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for a hoist device capable of performing both the clockwise and counter-clockwise rotation of a turbine component.
See McCaffrey which teaches a carriage for turbine components at Fig 3. The carriage 24 is similarly configured to the claimed device. Carriage 24 includes a crossbar (80), main strut (88), and cross member having and adapter (unlabeled, see the component below identifier 92). Notably, McCaffrey (Col 4 lines 58-64) teaches: “adjustable arm 88 may be disposed in connection with body 80 such that a pivot mount, swivel mount, rotatable mount, ball-joint socket mount or any mount permitting the three hundred sixty degree rotation of adjustable arm 88 within body 80 in a clockwise direction and a counter-clockwise direction as indicated by an arrow 46.” As described at McCaffrey Col 2 lines 50-52, “The carriages possess multiple degrees of freedom of motion in order to maintain, manipulate and orient the part making up the product.”
PNG
media_image2.png
328
270
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
426
308
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Thomas to provide for the articulation arranged in such a way that the cross-member is moveable toward the crossbar as claimed which would allow for both counter-clockwise and clockwise rotation of the member 52 relative to member 54. Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve the benefits of McCaffrey to “maintain, manipulate and orient the part” by permitting greater rotation of the cross member.
Such a modification would have been within the purview of a person having ordinary skill as it amounts to the mechanical removal of the “stop” feature shown in Thomas Fig 5C.
Thomas in view of McCaffrey teaches: wherein the crossbar, the main strut, and the cross-member lie in a common plane (as illustrated for example in annotated Fig 5C of Thomas, above, the horizontal support member 27, the vertical support 26, and the shaft 20 are symmetrical about, and centered on the X-Z plane.) and the device is configured such that movement of the cross-member toward the crossbar leads to reduced packing dimensions (this is functional language / intended use. See MPEP § 2114: “[the] manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art.” In this case, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Thomas to achieve the range of motion of rotation of McCaffrey. The resulting device is capable of movement of the cross-member toward the crossbar, and the resulting movement would reduce packing dimensions. While previously this movement would have been prevented by the “stop” on member 52, McCaffrey provides motivation for the removal of the stop in order to achieve greater range of rotational motion.).
As to claim 2, Thomas in view of McCaffrey teaches the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the articulation comprises a stop configured for the completely extended state (pin 56 is a stop useful in this manner).
As to claim 3, Thomas in view of McCaffrey teaches the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein an axis of the articulation extends perpendicularly to at least two of a plurality of longitudinal axes of the crossbar, the main strut, or the cross-member (as illustrated in Thomas Figs 5A-C).
As to claim 4, Thomas in view of McCaffrey teaches the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the articulation is formed so as to be secured in the completely extended state and a completely folded-up state (the pin 56 is capable of securing the articulation in both states. McCaffrey teaches the strut rotates both clockwise and counter-clockwise (see identifier 46).).
As to claim 5, Thomas in view of McCaffrey teaches the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the crossbar (27), the main strut (26 including 52 and 54), and the cross-member (20) are dimensioned in such a way that, when using the device, the cross-member or an adapter connected thereto (20 or 28) is configured to be connected to components arranged on an engine axis or retaining members fixed to the components without a casing of the aircraft engine or parts thereof having to be removed (as shown for example in Thomas Fig 1).
As to claim 6, Thomas in view of McCaffrey teaches the device as claimed in claim 1, the device further comprising a carriage, which is displaceable along the crossbar and comprises a connection point configured to connect to the lifting apparatus (the chain illustrated at Thomas Fig 4, for example, is a carriage. The chain is displaceable along the crossbar into the individual holes in horizontal support member 27. The chain is configured to connect to the lift described in Thomas [0062].).
As to claim 9, Thomas in view of McCaffrey teaches a method for mounting and dismantling the components of the aircraft engine (as discussed at Thomas [0057]: “the low-pressure turbine module(12) may be removed.” See Fig 1.), the method comprising: in order to mount and dismantle at least one component, the device as claimed in claim 1 is used in the completely extended state of the articulation of the main strut (as illustrated in Thomas Fig 1 or 5A), and the aircraft engine is located on a wing of an aircraft (Thomas [0070 discusses “on-wing disassembly”).
As to claim 10, Thomas in view of McCaffrey teaches a method for mounting and dismantling the components of the aircraft engine (as discussed at Thomas [0057]: “the low-pressure turbine module(12) may be removed.” See Fig 1.), the method comprising: mounting or dismantling a component of a transmission system for a first airfoil stage of the aircraft engine, using the device of claim 1 (as illustrated in Thomas Fig 1), the component being the airfoil hub, a bearing housing, or a bearing (Thomas Abstract: “An extended bearing pulling tool may be used to pull a bearing while the low pressure turbine shaft remains in place.”).
As to claim 11, Thomas in view of McCaffrey teaches the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the common plane (plane X-Z as indicated in annotated Thomas Fig 5C) comprises a first direction (X) )and a second direction (Z) perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the crossbar comprises a crossbar main body (horizontal support member 27) having a main extent along the first direction (X direction as illustrated), wherein a first part of the two parts of the main strut comprises a first part main body (vertical support is made up of members 52, 54), the first part main body having a main extent along the second direction (Z direction), a first connecting end (top end of member 54), and a second connecting end opposite the first connecting end (bottom end of member 54), the first connecting end being coupled to the crossbar at an end of the crossbar (as illustrated), wherein a second part of the two parts of the main strut comprises a second part main body (member 52), the second part main body having a main extent (the bulk of member 52), a connecting end (the top end of member 52 connected to member 54), and the free end opposite the connecting end (the bottom end of member 54 in the configuration illustrated at 5A), wherein the articulation is arranged to moveably couple the second connecting end of the first part main body to the connecting end of the second part main body (the pivot 50 connects the bottom of member 54 to the top of member 52) such that the second part is moveable between the completely extended state and a folded-up state (this is functional language / intended use. See MPEP § 2114. The device of Thomas in view of McCaffrey is capable of being moved between an extended state (Fig 5A) to a folded up state (when the member 52 is rotated toward member 54 according to McCaffrey identifier 46). Explanation is given in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein in the completely extended state, end faces of the second connecting end and the connecting end lie edge-to-edge with one another (as shown in Fig 5A), and the main extent of the second main part extends in the second direction (the Z direction), and wherein in the folded-up state, the end faces lie at an angle to one other and the main extent of the second main part extends in the first direction (Thomas is capable of being folded this way in view of the modification motivated by McCaffrey’s teachings to improved manipulation.).
As to claim 12, Thomas in view of McCaffrey teaches the device as claimed in claim 11, wherein the cross-member (20) comprises a main body that extends away from the second part of the main strut (as illustrated in Fig 5A for example, the shaft 20 extends in the X direction while the support member 52 extends in the Z direction), wherein the crossmember (20) has a connector at a distal end of the main body(receiver 46, see Fig 2), the connector being for connecting the adapters (the receivers connect to the attachment member 16, which is the adapter), retaining members of components of the aircraft engine (this is the intended use of the member 16, of which it is capable. See Fig 1), and wherein in the folded-up state, the distal end of the main body of the crossmember faces a bottom side of the main body of the crossbar (as shown in amended Fig 5B, above).
As to claim 13, Thomas in view of McCaffrey teaches the device as claimed in claim 11, the device further comprising a carriage, wherein the carriage comprises an aperture configured to receive the main body of the cross-member, wherein the carriage is displaceable along the crossbar, and wherein the carriage comprises a connection point configured to connect to the lifting apparatus (the chain illustrated at Thomas Fig 4, for example, is a carriage. The chain is displaceable along the crossbar into the individual holes in horizontal support member 27. The chain is configured to connect to the lift described in [0062].).
As to claim 13, Thomas in view of McCaffrey teaches the device as claimed in claim 1 wherein the articulation (the rotation of the members 52 and 54 relative to each other is considered the articulation) is configured to be actuated starting from the completely extended state (illustrated in Thomas Fig 5A) to a folded-up state (a state (unillustrated) in which the member 52 is rotated toward member 54 in the counter-clockwise fashion taken from the vantage of Fig 5A. This rotation (see identifier 46 of McCaffrey Fig 3 for example) is motivated by McCaffrey which teaches the strut should have many degrees of freedom for improved manipulation of the turbine device.), wherein the main strut extends away from the crossbar in a longitudinal direction, wherein in the crossbar has a main extent extending in a horizontal direction, which is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, wherein in the completely extended state, the device has a first packing dimension with a first height corresponding to a largest height of the device in the completely extended state and a first width corresponding to a largest width of the device in the completely extended state, wherein in the folded-up state, the device has a second packing dimension having a second height corresponding to the largest height of the device in the folded-up state and a second width corresponding to the largest width of the device in the folded-up state, and wherein the second height is smaller than the first height, and the second width is not greater than the first width leading to the reduced packing dimensions (by folding Thomas in the direction motivated by McCaffrey, Thomas meets all these limitations).
As to claim 15, Thomas in view of McCaffrey teaches the device as claimed in claim 2, wherein the stop is configured to prevent articulation beyond the completely extended state (as shown in Fig 5A, Thomas is locked into position by stop 56) when moving from a folded-up and is configured to directly dissipate a load occurring in the main strut during a use of the device for the for mounting and dismantling of the components (the load of the turbine is dissipated through pin 56 in the orientation shown in Thomas Fig 5A).
As to claim 16, Thomas in view of McCaffrey teaches the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the articulation is arranged such that the axis of the articulation extends perpendicularly to at least two of the longitudinal axes of the crossbar, the main strut, or the cross-member such that a pivoting of the articulation takes place in or parallel to a plane in which at least two from among the main strut, the crossbar, and the cross-member lie, so that the extend of the device perpendicular to this plane remains unchanged as a result of the articulation (as shown by the identifier 46 of McCaffrey, the members 52, 54 are motivated to be hinged in the plane of the cross-member and the crossbar.).
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 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 2012/0151735) in view of McCaffrey et al. (US 7,779,540) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Long et al. (CN 109648288 B).
As to claim 7, Thomas teaches the device as claimed in claim 6, but does not teach the device further comprising a self-locking mechanism for displacing the carriage along the crossbar. The term “self-locking mechanism” invokes 112F. The specification teaches a “threaded spindle” or “angle gear.” Thomas does not teach a threaded spindle, and instead relies on discrete holes in the horizontal member 27 to connect a chain in order to find the device’s center of gravity. See Thomas [0012].
However, in the field of lifted devices useful for removing components from turbine casings, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided a threaded spindle to connect the device to a lift. See Long [Abstract] which teaches “the top pulling device comprises a rotating section axially fixed with the guide shaft and a moving section matched with the screw thread of the centring device.2” This is also illustrated in Fig 2 with a crank.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have swapped the discrete holes for the screw thread of the “centring device” in order to more accurately maintain the device’s center of gravity.
As to claim 8, Thomas in view of Long teaches the device as claimed in claim 7, wherein the self-locking mechanism comprises a threaded spindle or an angle gear (Long teaches a threaded spindle, see above.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 November 2025 are convincing.
A new rejection of Thomas in view of McCaffrey is made.
In summary, Thomas does not teach that the member 52 rotates toward member 54 in the counter-clockwise direction in the orientation shown in Fig 5A. Instead, as shown in the exploded view of Fig 5C, there is a “stop” which would prevent such rotation.
However, McCaffrey teaches a similar device in which the free rotation of the crossbar in both the clockwise and counter-clockwise directions is described as being useful for the manipulation and orientation of the turbine parts. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Thomas to have allowed for the clockwise and counter-clockwise rotation of members 52, 54 relative to one another to achieve the benefits of McCaffrey.
Examiner notes the modification does not destroy Thomas’s purpose or usefulness as the “stop” is never discussed by Thomas to be of any particular use or importance. Rather, such a person would have recognized that Thomas is improved by removing the stop to allow for a greater range of motion.
Such improved range of motion unlocks the ability of a skilled artisan to put Thomas into Applicant’s claimed “packed” state, including all of the claimed packed dimensions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB JAMES CIGNA whose telephone number is (571)270-5262. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/JACOB J CIGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 19 December 2025
1 Thomas is silent as to the function of the illustrated “stop” and the above interpretation relies entirely on what a person having ordinary skill would understand from Thomas’ drawings. For example, Thomas does not teach the “stop” is used for a particular purpose or has any particular benefit.
2 “centring device” is used in context. Examiner interprets this as a “centering device” useful for maintaining the device’s center of gravity.