Worth it to 'check' IMS bearing during clutch? Clutch recommendations?

[piper6909]

Originally Posted by JFP in PA

The IMS Soluion was developed by and installed in engines he built by Jake Raby prior to 2008, he developed it before he and Charles Navarro developed the ceramic hybrid. Jake also filed a “clean” patent application, meaning it does not reference any previous versions or prior patents. A search for a patent application for this other design produces no identifiable filings, so I have not idea if there was a patent, or who it was sold to. Do you have a patent number for this other design?

I have no way of knowing the patent numbers.

From what I've read, the LN "solution" was not available until 2013. But, if it was available in 2008, as you say, why didn't some of those who posted in 2012, including Charles Navarro himself (yes, he posted in that thread) tell him that it's already been done? And you posted there too.

Also, according to LN's site, they were granted the patent on March 31, 2015. So Feelyx may never have received his actual patent, he may have sold it while it was still pending.

EDIT: the Events listed for Patent #US8992089B2 shows Priority to US201261677511P on 7/31/2012 (I have not yet been able find out what that refers to ) Then on March 13, 2013 IMS Solution, LLC filed application for the patent. So the timeline falls in line with what I've been reading. But of course that's not the whole story, and since Feelyx can not talk about it we may never know for sure.

And Charles Navarro didn't develop ceramic hybrid bearings, they were designed by SKF and have been around for decades. He pulled one off the shelf.

[JFP in PA]

Originally Posted by piper6909

I have no way of knowing the patent numbers.

From what I've read, the LN "solution" was not available until 2013. But, if it was available in 2008, as you say, why didn't some of those who posted in 2012, including Charles Navarro himself (yes, he posted in that thread) tell him that it's already been done? And you posted there too.

Also, according to LN's site, they were granted the patent on March 31, 2015, so Feelyx may never have received his actual patent, he may have sold it while it was still pending.

It was not generally available to the public until 2013, but was in use earlier at Raby’s shop only, and only in complete engines and not as a retrofit. Jake held this design rather “close to the vest”, and did not let the dual row out of his shop until even later (all the first IMS Solutions were single row design only, the dual row came out later).

THe reason that no one talked about it was entirely commercial, the patent had been filed for, but both Charles and Jake had learned a serious lesson from the development of their entire retrofit development: Say nothing, patent everything, which takes time, years in fact.. Jake and Charles spent a lot of time and cash prior to 2008 figuring out how to extract the OEM bearings and retrofit their products, developing both procedures and tooling, all of which was valuable intellectual property that they failed to protect with copyright or patents. Everyone seems to forget Porsche said that doing this was impossible without disassembling the engine. This allowed others to simply copy their tool designs and retrofit methods with a cheaper “me too” product offerings; some good, others not so much.

So having been substantially burned on the tooling and procedures used with the ceramic hybrids, the Solution was kept pretty much under wraps. As for this other design in the earlier posts, if there was either a patent filing or issued, it would be cross referenced in Raby’s patent in the Patent Office records if Jake had either acquired the rights to it, or if it had been issued to someone else (the patent office does this when technologies are similar, but sufficiently different enough to be patentable); but Jake’s patent is “clean”, no cross references to someone else’s work. What may have transpired is that this other individual did file an application, but found out Jake was there first, but there is no way to confirm that.

US201261677511P refers to another Raby filing on the same development, he actually holds multiple individual patents for the IMS Solution.

[piper6909]

Originally Posted by JFP in PA

It was not generally available to the public until 2013, but was in use earlier at Raby’s shop only, and only in complete engines and not as a retrofit. Jake held this design rather “close to the vest”, and did not let the dual row out of his shop until even later (all the first IMS Solutions were single row design only, the dual row came out later).

THe reason that no one talked about it was entirely commercial, the patent had been filed for, but both Charles and Jake had learned a serious lesson from the development of their entire retrofit development: Say nothing, patent everything, which takes time, years in fact.. Jake and Charles spent a lot of time and cash prior to 2008 figuring out how to extract the OEM bearings and retrofit their products, developing both procedures and tooling, all of which was valuable intellectual property that they failed to protect with copyright or patents. Everyone seems to forget Porsche said that doing this was impossible without disassembling the engine. This allowed others to simply copy their tool designs and retrofit methods with a cheaper “me too” product offerings; some good, others not so much.

So having been substantially burned on the tooling and procedures used with the ceramic hybrids, the Solution was kept pretty much under wraps. As for this other design in the earlier posts, if there was either a patent filing or issued, it would be cross referenced in Raby’s patent in the Patent Office records if Jake had either acquired the rights to it, or if it had been issued to someone else (the patent office does this when technologies are similar, but sufficiently different enough to be patentable); but Jake’s patent is “clean”, no cross references to someone else’s work. What may have transpired is that this other individual did file an application, but found out Jake was there first, but there is no way to confirm that.

US201261677511P refers to another Raby filing on the same development, he actually holds multiple individual patents for the IMS Solution.

I have a patent. My attorney told me that once the application is filed, I could market it. So I don't know why they had to keep it "close to their vest".

And Feelyx did say that he sold his patent and he can no longer talk about it. I believe it was on page 19 of that thread.

EDIT: It was on page 17.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/boxster-cayman-forum/649905-who-has-done-ims-change-new-oil-fed-design-idea-17.html

[JFP in PA]

Originally Posted by piper6909

I have a patent. My attorney told me that once the application is filed, I could market it. So I don't know why they had to keep it "close to their vest".

And Feelyx did say that he sold his patent and he can no longer talk about it. I believe it was on page 19 of that thread.

EDIT: It was on page 17.
Who has done an IMS change (New Oil Fed Design Idea) - Page 17 - Pelican Parts Forums

Going back to my days in corporate life, I also hold multiple patents, a couple as co author. Our legal staff always advise us to not release any public information about the developments until the patent was granted, solely because of how the process typically runs. Often, a filing is returned (not rejected) for clarification or expansion on one or more of the initial claims, and which basically restarts the filing clock all over again. While your filing remains basically protected, returned filings opens the doors for “squatters” to try and cross file on your ideas. The filing then becomes a legal burden you have to protect, and while you will typically win out in the long term, it delays your patent grant and cost big bucks. So if no one knows about what you have filed for, they cannot create problems for you.

[piper6909]

Originally Posted by JFP in PA

...The filing then becomes a legal burden you have to protect, and while you will typically win out in the long term, it delays your patent grant and cost big bucks. So if no one knows about what you have filed for, they cannot create problems for you.

I was actually surprised how quickly theirs was granted. Mine took about 7 years from application to approval with a lot of back and forth.

[JFP in PA]

Originally Posted by piper6909

I was actually surprised how quickly theirs was granted. Mine took about 7 years from application to approval with a lot of back and forth.

Speed in being granted is a sign of uniqueness, nothing similar has been filed, and the design claims have been substantiated.

[piper6909]

Originally Posted by JFP in PA

Speed in being granted is a sign of uniqueness, nothing similar has been filed, and the design claims have been substantiated.

What's unique about a bushing? I get it, it's how they applied it.

In my case they came back with other patents that had no relation to my idea whatsoever. It didn't help that my case was pushed from one officer to another 3 times and each time I had to explain to them what it was about. As if they couldn't read the abstract. But in the end I finally got it.

[Homeoboxter]

Originally Posted by JFP in PA

Jake and Charles spent a lot of time and cash prior to 2008 figuring out how to extract the OEM bearings and retrofit their products, developing both procedures and tooling, all of which was valuable intellectual property that they failed to protect with copyright or patents.

Sounds like rocket science. It`s literally pulling out a bearing from a bore and pressing another one in.

[JFP in PA]

Originally Posted by Homeoboxter

Sounds like rocket science. It`s literally pulling out a bearing from a bore and pressing another one in.

Again, at the time, Porsche denied it was even possible. Jake and Charles developed how the engine has to be configured (locked at TDC, tensioners removed, cams locked) and the actual tools to do it. While I’ll may not seem like “rocket science” to you, without the procedure and tooling, Porsche was correct.

[Homeoboxter]

Originally Posted by JFP in PA

Again, at the time, Porsche denied it was even possible. Jake and Charles developed how the engine has to be configured (locked at TDC, tensioners removed, cams locked) and the actual tools to do it. While I’ll may not seem like “rocket science” to you, without the procedure and tooling, Porsche was correct.

Of course Porsche would say it`s impossible, they want you to buy a new engine or a new IMS and rebuild it using genuine parts from Porsche. Also, Porsche would never admit that a working IMSB has to be replaced to a new one in a preventive manner. And if it fails, the engine has to be disassembled anyway, pulling it out is not an option.

The need for locking the cams and the crank when messing with timing is obvious. When I need a tool like that, I make some measurements, make a drawing, walk to a machinist with a lathe and have it done. But the IMSB can be extracted using simple bearing pullers off the shelf. So this developing the right tools and right procedure taking a lot of time seems a little bit exaggarated to me.