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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7, filed 04/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 6-9,11-14 and 16-18 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lundgreen (US 6357097 B1) and in view of Rydin (US 5887328 A) and Jonsrud (US 20150128395 A1) with respect to claim 1.
Lundgreen (US 6357097 B1) and in view of Rydin (US 5887328 A), Wang (US 20090241330 A1), and Jonsrud (US 20150128395 A1) with respect to claims 2-4, 23, and 24.
Lundgreen (US 6357097 B1) and in view of Wang (US 20090241330 A1) and Jonsrud (US 20150128395 A1) with respect to claims 6-9, 11-14, 16-18, 25 and 26.
Regarding Applicants remaining arguments, starting with applicants arguments with respect to the idea the modifying Lundgreen so that the nut (20) abuts against the bushing and is configured to directly force the bushing from the block, including modifying the relative sizes so that the nut directly engages the bushing while the collar is disposed within the bushing would require the removal of pushing piece 22 and a reconfiguration of the force transmission path, Examiner respectfully disagrees, as Jonsrud discloses a similar apparatus where the nut (60) directly contacts the tool holder (30, analogous to the bushing) and is configured to directly force the tool holder out. When making such a modification, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the collar is not required for the act of pushing out the bushing and can be relocated elsewhere such as inside the bushing or above it in order to ensure alignment of the components during the removal operation. As such Examiner does not find this argument persuasive.
Regarding Applicants argument pointed towards the wing of the nut of Lundgreen as modified requires a user to hold it rather than providing a structural engagement between the nut and the cavity surface, Applicant argues that the Lundgreen and Wang do not disclose any structural prevention by cavity engagement. Examiner notes that the claims are interpreted in light of the specification. Applicants Specification in Para [0017] States “At this time, the wing 22a of the nut 22, extending laterally away from the outer surface 22b of nut 22, may be disposed in a first position 22e against an inner surface 16b of the cavity 16a.” Examiner then looks at Applicants Fig. 3 showing the position 22e, where the wing 22a does not seem to be in contact with the surface 16b. As such it is examiner understanding that the intention is that as the bolt is turned, the nut turns along with it until the wing contacts the edge of the block 16b, where it is then prevented from further rotating as the bolt continues to turn. Examiner has interpreted the claim limitation “an inner surface of the cavity preventing the nut, threadably attached to the threaded shaft, from rotating in a direction as the threaded shaft is rotated in the direction;” in light of this understanding.
While Examiner concedes that Wang does not explicitly disclose that the edge of a block prevents further rotation of the wing (30 of wang). However, Wang and Lundgreen both disclose the concept of holding a nut to prevent it from rotating. See Wang Para [0027] “As the user holds the handle 30 of the contacting member 10 by his hand, the contacting member 10 can be prevented from rotation with the screw 20.” And Lundgreen Col 3 Line 22-27 “To operate the device 10, the mechanic rotates forcing screw 18 while holding traveling nut 20 to prevent rotation. Typically, the operator would use a pneumatic tool to turn forcing screw 18 while holding traveling nut 20 with a wench”. Examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention would understand that utilizing a wrench or a user’s hand would not be the only way to prevent the rotation of the nut and would understand that allowing it to contact the inside of the block would prevent rotation and would not require the manual input of a user to hold the nut via hand or wrench, automating the activity, which has been held to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art see MPEP 2144.04 III. Examiner further maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art, when viewing Wang or Lundgreen as modified by Wang, would understand that based on the length of the wing, it would contact the cavity and become engaged to prevent rotation, Wang even goes so far as to teach that wing 30 is meant for preventing the rotation, citing having a user hold the handle to prevent rotation (See Wang Para [0027] “As the user holds the handle 30 of the contacting member 10 by his hand, the contacting member 10 can be prevented from rotation with the screw 20”) One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date would understand that the critical element Wang discloses here is that the handle is to prevent the rotation of the contact member with the screw to provide a pushing force, and would understand that allowing the wing to rotate until it contacts an edge of the apparatus, preventing it from rotating further would accomplish the same function as holding the handle. As such Examiner does not find this argument persuasive.
Regarding Applicants argument starting on page 13 with respect to Lundgreen not disclosing disposing a collar around the threaded shaft within the opening of the bushing such that the collar moves relative to the threaded shaft during rotation to assist with alignment. Examiner first notes that Claim 11 as currently presented does not require the above limitation but instead only requires disposing a collar around the threaded shaft between the first ends and the second ends, and in the opening of the bushing. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Additionally, Lundgreen does disclose language in claim 11, disposing a collar (22) around the threaded shaft (46) between the first ends (48) and the second ends (54), and in the opening of the bushing (28), See Fig. 8 of Lundgreen showing the collar (22) positioned between the first and second ends of the bolt and positioned at the opening of the bushing 24. As such Examiner does not find this argument persuasive.
Examiner does not find applicants remaining arguments persuasive for the reasons above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lundgreen (US 6357097 B1) and in view of Rydin (US 5887328 A) and Jonsrud (US 20150128395 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Lundgreen teaches A bushing puller assembly for removing a bushing disposed in a block, the bushing puller assembly comprising:
a bolt (18) comprising a threaded shaft (46) a ball bearing (50), and a head (54), the threaded shaft comprising first and second ends (at 48 and at 54), the ball bearing (50) disposed at the first end (48) and the head (54) disposed at the second end; and
a collar (22) disposed around the threaded shaft between the first and second ends (See figure 3), the collar configured to move relative to the threaded shaft in directions parallel to a rotation axis of the bolt (Col 2 Line 59-64 “Pushing piece 22 has an outside dimension smaller than wheel bearing 28 and larger than the internal diameter of cylindrical section 24. Pushing piece 22 is hollow and in operation, is concentrically mounted on forcing screw 18 such that pushing piece 22 moves freely along forcing screw 18.”) and;
a nut (20) threadedly attached to the first end of the threaded shaft (See figure 3);
wherein the collar comprises a first outer surface having a first diameter (See 22 in Figure 8), and the nut comprises a second outer surface having a second diameter (See 20 in Figure 8), the first diameter being less than an internal diameter of the bushing (22 is smaller in diameter than 28);
wherein the nut (20) forces the bushing (28) from the block (26); and
wherein the collar (22) is disposed within the bushing (See figure 8 showing collar 22 inside bushing 28) to protect the threaded shaft and assist in aligning the threaded shaft within the bushing (See Figure 8 of Collar 22, capable of protecting the threaded shaft (from external forces) and aligning the threaded shaft within the bushing).
But does not specifically teach the ball bearing attached at the first end and
the second diameter being larger than the first diameter
wherein the nut directly abuts against the bushing and is configured to directly force the bushing from the block.
However, Rydin does teach a similar puller device that does have a ball bearing (8) attached to the first end (see Fig. 3). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the puller device of Lundgreen to attach the ball bearing to the first end of the shaft as doing so would ensure that the ball bearing would always be in the correct position.
Additionally, Lundgreen teaches that the Collars external dimensions as based on the work piece intended for the puller tool, (See Col 2 line 59-64 “Pushing piece 22 has an outside dimension smaller than wheel bearing 28 and larger than the internal diameter of cylindrical section 24. Pushing piece 22 is hollow and in operation, is concentrically mounted on forcing screw 18 such that pushing piece 22 moves freely along forcing screw 18.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the size of the collar to have a smaller outer diameter than that of the nut as doing so would be a part of modifying the collar to fit the specific workpiece being worked on. Further it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify size of the collar or the nut in such a way that the outer diameter of the nut is larger than that of the collar as doing so would be a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious considering there is no present evidence that such a change would significantly impact the operation of the device other than allowing a larger variety of workpieces it could work on. And MPEP 2144.04 IV A. Additionally, Examiner notes that Applicant assigns no criticality to the “the collar comprises a first outer surface having a first diameter, and the nut comprises a second outer surface having a second diameter, wherein the second diameter is larger than the first diameter and the first diameter is less than an internal diameter of the bushing. Stating only in Para [0015] “Differing sized collars 20 may be used to remove varying sized bushings 12 from varying sized apertures 14 of the block 16.” and “The use of differing sized collars 20 may also allow bushings 12 of varying size to be removed from blocks 16.” in Para [0027].
And Finally, Jonsrud discloses a similar puller device wherein a nut (60) directly abuts against a tool holder (30, analogous to a bushing) and is configured to directly force the tool holder from the block (See Para [0026] describing the operation of the device including “Nut 60 attached to bolt 50 applies pressure on the rear face 34 of tool holder 30 in the direction of the jack 40 along the axis of bolt 50.”) and a collar (16).
While Lundgreen additionally discloses that the collar (22) and the nut (20) may be physically attached or integrated into a single unit (Col 3 Line 4-8 “It will be recognized that nut 20 and piece 22 collectively comprise what can be termed a hub mover. In the preferred embodiment they are separate elements, but in an alternative embodiment nut 20 and piece 22 may be physically attached to one another or integrated into a single unit.”)
Lundgreen further states that, on occasion, the hub must be removed to perform maintenance of the wheel or brake assembles, that hub pullers may be heavy and awkward to use, requiring multiple workers to setup and/or operate, and in some cases they damage otherwise reusable wheel components (Lundgreen [col. 1, lines 10-24]). Additionally, Jonsrud teaches that arrangement allows for carefully removing a tool holder from a base to prevent damage from occurring to the base when removing worn or damaged holders, thus avoiding damage to the base which in turn avoids replacement of the base as well as the tool holder. (Jonsrud [0002] and [0003]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the modify the collar and nut of Lundgreen such that the nut directly abuts against the bushing and is configured to directly force the bushing from the block, as taught by Jonsrud, in order to safely remove the bushing from the base without damaging either piece, thus avoiding unnecessary replacement of the components (Lundgreen [col. 1, lines 10-24] and Jonsrud [0002] and [0003]).
Claims 2-4 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lundgreen (US 6357097 B1) and in view of Rydin (US 5887328 A) and Jonsrud (US 20150128395 A1) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Wang (US 20090241330 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Lundgreen teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the nut comprises a wing extending laterally away from an outer surface of the nut.
However, Wang does teach However Wang teaches a similar puller device the utilizes a connecting part (10) which include a wing extending laterally away from the outer surface (30).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the nut to be a wing nut in order to allow the operator to more easily screw in and attach the nut to the threaded bolt and to allows stabilization of the bolt so that rotation of the bolt causes the nut to push against the piece to be removed (Para [0027] “As the user holds the handle 30 of the contacting member 10 by his hand, the contacting member 10 can be prevented from rotation with the screw 20. Besides, the extended length of the handle 30 can be used in an elongated narrow space. As the end surface of the push post 11 is biased against the bearing C and the screw 20 is further screwed into the first screw hole 12, the push post 11 slowly pushes the bearing C to move from the workpiece A into the receiving groove 54 of the engaging member 50. As the bearing C is pushed to move into the receiving groove 54 completely, the screw 20 is rotated to move away from the first screw hole 12 in opposite direction, thus removing the bearing C from the workpiece A.”).
Regarding Claim 3, Lundgreen as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 2 and in addition teaches wherein a longitudinal axis (extending perpendicularly from the center of the wing nut) of the wing is perpendicular to a rotation axis of the nut about which the nut rotates (See figure 1 of Wang).
Regarding Claim 4, Lundgreen as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 2 and in addition teaches wherein the wing is only disposed around a portion of the outer surface of the nut (See figure 1 of Wang).
Regarding Claim 23, Lundgreen as modified discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and in addition discloses wherein the nut (20 of Lundgreen and 60 of Jonsrud) is disposed within a cavity of the block (30 of Lundgreen 25 of Jonsrud), but does not explicitly disclose
and wherein an outer surface of the nut is configured to engage with an inner surface of the cavity to prevent rotation of the nut as the bolt is rotated.
However, Wang discloses a puller device with a nut (10 and 11) with an outer surface (wing/handle 30) that is configured to engage with an inner surface of the cavity to prevent rotation of the nut as the bolt is rotated (Para [0027] “As the user holds the handle 30 of the contacting member 10 by his hand, the contacting member 10 can be prevented from rotation with the screw 20. Besides, the extended length of the handle 30 can be used in an elongated narrow space. As the end surface of the push post 11 is biased against the bearing C and the screw 20 is further screwed into the first screw hole 12, the push post 11 slowly pushes the bearing C to move from the workpiece A into the receiving groove 54 of the engaging member 50. As the bearing C is pushed to move into the receiving groove 54 completely, the screw 20 is rotated to move away from the first screw hole 12 in opposite direction, thus removing the bearing C from the workpiece A.”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the nut to be a wing nut in order to allow the operator to more easily screw in and attach the nut to the threaded bolt and to allows stabilization of the bolt so that rotation of the bolt causes the nut to push against the piece to be removed (See Para [0027] of Wang cited above.
Regarding Claim 24, Lundgreen as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 23 and in addition discloses wherein the outer surface of the nut comprises a wing (30 of Wang) configured to engage the inner surface of the cavity to prevent rotation of the nut (See Para [0027] of Wang cited in the rejection of claim 23).
Claims 6-9, 11-14, 16-18, 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lundgreen (US 6357097 B1) and in view of Wang (US 20090241330 A1) and Jonsrud (US 20150128395 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Lundgreen teaches A bushing puller assembly comprising:
a bolt (18) comprising a threaded shaft (46) having first and second ends (at 48 and at 54), a head (54) disposed at the second end;
a collar (22 of Lundgreen) disposed around the threaded shaft between the first and second ends (See figure 3 of Lundgreen), the collar configured to move relative to the threaded shaft in directions parallel to a rotation axis of the bolt (Col 2 Line 59-64 of Lundgreen “Pushing piece 22 has an outside dimension smaller than wheel bearing 28 and larger than the internal diameter of cylindrical section 24. Pushing piece 22 is hollow and in operation, is concentrically mounted on forcing screw 18 such that pushing piece 22 moves freely along forcing screw 18.”)
a nut (20) threadedly attached to the first end of the threaded shaft (See figure 3)
wherein the collar comprises a first outer surface having a first diameter (See 22 in Figure 8), and the nut comprises a second outer surface having a second diameter (See 20 in Figure 8)
wherein the nut (20) forces the bushing (28) from the block (26); and
wherein the collar (22) is disposed within the bushing (See figure 8 showing collar 22 inside bushing 28) to protect the threaded shaft and assist in aligning the threaded shaft within the bushing (See Figure 8 of Collar 22, capable of protecting the threaded shaft (from external forces) and aligning the threaded shaft within the bushing).
but does not explicitly teach, nut comprising a wing extending laterally away from an outer surface of the nut;
the second diameter being larger than the first diameter;
Wherein the nut directly abuts against the bushing and is configured to directly force the bushing from the block.
Wang teaches a similar puller device the utilizes a connecting part (10) which include a wing extending laterally away from the outer surface (30).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the nut to be a wing nut in order to allow the operator to more easily screw in and attach the nut to the threaded bolt and to allows stabilization of the bolt so that rotation of the bolt causes the nut to push against the piece to be removed(Para [0027] “As the user holds the handle 30 of the contacting member 10 by his hand, the contacting member 10 can be prevented from rotation with the screw 20. Besides, the extended length of the handle 30 can be used in an elongated narrow space. As the end surface of the push post 11 is biased against the bearing C and the screw 20 is further screwed into the first screw hole 12, the push post 11 slowly pushes the bearing C to move from the workpiece A into the receiving groove 54 of the engaging member 50. As the bearing C is pushed to move into the receiving groove 54 completely, the screw 20 is rotated to move away from the first screw hole 12 in opposite direction, thus removing the bearing C from the workpiece A.”).
Additionally, Lundgreen teaches that the Collars external dimensions as based on the work piece intended for the puller tool, (See Col 2 line 59-64 “Pushing piece 22 has an outside dimension smaller than wheel bearing 28 and larger than the internal diameter of cylindrical section 24. Pushing piece 22 is hollow and in operation, is concentrically mounted on forcing screw 18 such that pushing piece 22 moves freely along forcing screw 18.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the size of the collar to have a smaller outer diameter than that of the nut as doing so would be a part of modifying the collar to fit the specific workpiece being worked on. Further it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify size of the collar or the nut in such a way that the outer diameter of the nut is larger than that of the collar as doing so would be a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious considering there is no present evidence that such a change would significantly impact the operation of the device other than allowing a larger variety of workpieces it could work on. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B). And MPEP 2144.04 IV A. Additionally, Examiner notes that Applicant assigns no criticality to the “the collar comprises a first outer surface having a first diameter, and the nut comprises a second outer surface having a second diameter, wherein the second diameter is larger than the first diameter and the first diameter is less than and the first diameter is less than an internal diameter of the bushing. Stating only in Para [0015] “Differing sized collars 20 may be used to remove varying sized bushings 12 from varying sized apertures 14 of the block 16.” and “The use of differing sized collars 20 may also allow bushings 12 of varying size to be removed from blocks 16.” in Para [0027].
And Finally, Jonsrud discloses a similar puller device wherein a nut (60) directly abuts against a tool holder (30, analogous to a bushing) and is configured to directly force the tool holder from the block (See Para [0026] describing the operation of the device including “Nut 60 attached to bolt 50 applies pressure on the rear face 34 of tool holder 30 in the direction of the jack 40 along the axis of bolt 50.”) and a collar (16).
While Lundgreen additionally discloses that the collar (22) and the nut (20) may be physically attached or integrated into a single unit (Col 3 Line 4-8 “It will be recognized that nut 20 and piece 22 collectively comprise what can be termed a hub mover. In the preferred embodiment they are separate elements, but in an alternative embodiment nut 20 and piece 22 may be physically attached to one another or integrated into a single unit.”)
Lundgreen further states that, on occasion, the hub must be removed to perform maintenance of the wheel or brake assembles, that hub pullers may be heavy and awkward to use, requiring multiple workers to setup and/or operate, and in some cases they damage otherwise reusable wheel components (Lundgreen [col. 1, lines 10-24]). Additionally, Jonsrud teaches that arrangement allows for carefully removing a tool holder from a base to prevent damage from occurring to the base when removing worn or damaged holders, thus avoiding damage to the base which in turn avoids replacement of the base as well as the tool holder. (Jonsrud [0002] and [0003]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the modify the collar and nut of Lundgreen such that the nut directly abuts against the bushing and is configured to directly force the bushing from the block, as taught by Jonsrud, in order to safely remove the bushing from the base without damaging either piece, thus avoiding unnecessary replacement of the components (Lundgreen [col. 1, lines 10-24] and Jonsrud [0002] and [0003]).
Regarding Claim 7, Lundgreen as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 6 and in addition teaches wherein a longitudinal axis (extending perpendicularly from the center of the wing nut) of the wing is perpendicular to a rotation axis of the nut about which the nut rotates (See figure 1 of Wang).
Regarding Claim 8, Lundgreen as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 6 and in addition teaches wherein the wing is only disposed around a portion of the outer surface of the nut (See figure 1 of Wang).
Regarding Claim 9, Lundgreen as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 6 and in addition teaches wherein the first end (48 of Lundgreen) comprises a ball bearing (50).
Regarding Claim 11, Lundgreen teaches a method of removing a bushing from an aperture of a block comprising:
moving a first end (48) of a threaded shaft (46) of a bolt (18) through an opening in the bushing (bushing 28 opening where 28 and 24 are), through the aperture of the block (28), and into a cavity of the block (32) (Col 3 Line 9-12 “In operation, the mechanic inserts receiver end 48 of forcing screw 18 through cylindrical section 24, with head 54 extending out from hub 26 sufficiently to allow continued access.” And Line 29-38 “Therefore, the rotational motion of forcing screw 18 is converted to linear movement of the non-rotating traveling nut 20. Traveling nut 20 pushes against pushing piece 22, to force cylindrical section 24 out of wheel bearing 28, freeing hub 26. While cylindrical section 24 is pushed out, forcing screw 18 is subject to compressive forces between traveling nut 20 and receiver end 48. U-shaped frame 12 wraps around spindle housing 30 to transfer that force from receiving member 16 to spindle housing front surface 38.”);
threadedly attaching a nut (20) to the first end of the threaded shaft within the cavity of the block (Col 3 Line 12-13 “Pusher piece 22 and traveling nut 20 are placed on forcing screw 18 over receiver end 48.”);
rotating a second end of the threaded shaft of the bolt causing the nut to force the bushing to move out of the aperture of the block (Col 3 line 23-33 “To operate the device 10, the mechanic rotates forcing screw 18 while holding traveling nut 20 to prevent rotation. Typically, the operator would use a pneumatic tool to turn forcing screw 18 while holding traveling nut 20 with a wench. While receiver end 48 spins freely against ball 50 in receiver recess 44, forcing screw receiving member 16 prevents axial movement of forcing screw 18. Therefore, the rotational motion of forcing screw 18 is converted to linear movement of the non-rotating traveling nut 20. Traveling nut 20 pushes against pushing piece 22, to force cylindrical section 24 out of wheel bearing 28, freeing hub 26.”)
disposing a collar (22) around the threaded shaft (46) between the first ends (48) and the second ends (54), and in the opening of the bushing (28); and
wherein during the rotating the second end of the threaded shaft of the bolt causing the nut to force the bushing to move out of the aperture of the block, the collar moves relative to the threaded shaft in a direction parallel to a rotation axis of the bolt within the opening of the bushing (See Col 3 Line 23- 38 “To operate the device 10, the mechanic rotates forcing screw 18 while holding traveling nut 20 to prevent rotation. Typically, the operator would use a pneumatic tool to turn forcing screw 18 while holding traveling nut 20 with a wench. While receiver end 48 spins freely against ball 50 in receiver recess 44, forcing screw receiving member 16 prevents axial movement of forcing screw 18. Therefore, the rotational motion of forcing screw 18 is converted to linear movement of the non-rotating traveling nut 20. Traveling nut 20 pushes against pushing piece 22, to force cylindrical section 24 out of wheel bearing 28, freeing hub 26. While cylindrical section 24 is pushed out, forcing screw 18 is subject to compressive forces between traveling nut 20 and receiver end 48. U-shaped frame 12 wraps around spindle housing 30 to transfer that force from receiving member 16 to spindle housing front surface 38.”).
and suggests but does not explicitly disclose preventing the nut, threadedly attached to the threaded shaft, from rotating in a direction as the threaded shaft is rotated in the direction (See Lundgreen Col 3 Line 23-33 “To operate the device 10, the mechanic rotates forcing screw 18 while holding traveling nut 20 to prevent rotation. Typically, the operator would use a pneumatic tool to turn forcing screw 18 while holding traveling nut 20 with a wench. While receiver end 48 spins freely against ball 50 in receiver recess 44, forcing screw receiving member 16 prevents axial movement of forcing screw 18. Therefore, the rotational motion of forcing screw 18 is converted to linear movement of the non-rotating traveling nut 20. Traveling nut 20 pushes against pushing piece 22, to force cylindrical section 24 out of wheel bearing 28, freeing hub 26.”).;
but does not teach, disposing a wing of the nut, extending laterally away from an outer surface of the nut, within the cavity to stabilize the nut within the cavity of the block, the inner surface of the cavity prevents the nut from rotating
Wherein the nut is directly abutted against the bushing such that rotating a second end of the threaded shaft of the bolt causing the nut, directly abutted against the bushing to directly force the bushing out of the aperture block
wherein during the rotating second end of the threaded shaft of the bolt causing the nut, directly abutted against the bushing, to directly force the bushing to move out of the aperture of the block.
However, Wang teaches a similar puller device the utilizes a connecting part (10) which include a wing extending laterally away from the outer surface (30) preventing the nut, threadedly attached to the threaded shaft, from rotating in a direction as the threaded shaft is rotated in the direction (See Wang Para [0027] “As the user holds the handle 30 of the contacting member 10 by his hand, the contacting member 10 can be prevented from rotation with the screw 20.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the nut to be a wing nut in order to allow the operator to more easily screw in and attach the nut to the threaded bolt and to allows stabilization of the bolt so that rotation of the bolt causes the nut to push against the piece to be removed(Para [0027] “As the user holds the handle 30 of the contacting member 10 by his hand, the contacting member 10 can be prevented from rotation with the screw 20. Besides, the extended length of the handle 30 can be used in an elongated narrow space. As the end surface of the push post 11 is biased against the bearing C and the screw 20 is further screwed into the first screw hole 12, the push post 11 slowly pushes the bearing C to move from the workpiece A into the receiving groove 54 of the engaging member 50. As the bearing C is pushed to move into the receiving groove 54 completely, the screw 20 is rotated to move away from the first screw hole 12 in opposite direction, thus removing the bearing C from the workpiece A.”.
However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lundgreen as modified to have the wing of the nut contact an inner surface in such a way as to prevent further rotation, as Lundgreen suggest holding a screw in place to prevent rotation in order and Wang teaches that wing 30 is meant for preventing the rotation, citing having a user hold the handle to prevent rotation (See Wang Para [0027] “As the user holds the handle 30 of the contacting member 10 by his hand, the contacting member 10 can be prevented from rotation with the screw 20”). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date would understand that the critical element Wang discloses here is that the handle is to prevent the rotation of the contact member with the screw to provide a pushing force, and would understand that allowing the wing to rotate until it contacts an edge of the apparatus, preventing it from rotating further would accomplish the same function as holding the handle.
Modifying the Nut 20 of Lundgreen to have a wing such as the wing 30 of wang, then Allowing the wing to abut against an inner surface (such as 30 of Lundgreen) would accomplish the same effect and save the user the effort of holding the wing in place, and making such modification would be a matter of automating a manual activity, as it would replacing the manual activity of manually preventing rotation, which has been held to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art See MPEP 2144.04 III.
And Finally, Jonsrud discloses a similar puller device wherein a nut (60) directly abuts against a tool holder (30, analogous to a bushing) and is configured to directly force the tool holder from the block (See Para [0026] describing the operation of the device including “Nut 60 attached to bolt 50 applies pressure on the rear face 34 of tool holder 30 in the direction of the jack 40 along the axis of bolt 50.”) and a collar (16).
While Lundgreen additionally discloses that the collar (22) and the nut (20) may be physically attached or integrated into a single unit (Col 3 Line 4-8 “It will be recognized that nut 20 and piece 22 collectively comprise what can be termed a hub mover. In the preferred embodiment they are separate elements, but in an alternative embodiment nut 20 and piece 22 may be physically attached to one another or integrated into a single unit.”)
Lundgreen further states that, on occasion, the hub must be removed to perform maintenance of the wheel or brake assembles, that hub pullers may be heavy and awkward to use, requiring multiple workers to setup and/or operate, and in some cases they damage otherwise reusable wheel components (Lundgreen [col. 1, lines 10-24]). Additionally, Jonsrud teaches that arrangement allows for carefully removing a tool holder from a base to prevent damage from occurring to the base when removing worn or damaged holders, thus avoiding damage to the base which in turn avoids replacement of the base as well as the tool holder. (Jonsrud [0002] and [0003]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the modify the collar and nut of Lundgreen such that the nut is directly abutted against the bushing such that rotating a second end of the threaded shaft of the bolt causing the nut, directly abutted against the bushing to directly force the bushing out of the aperture block wherein during the rotating second end of the threaded shaft of the bolt causing the nut, directly abutted against the bushing, to directly force the bushing to move out of the aperture of the block, in order to safely remove the bushing from the base without damaging either piece, thus avoiding unnecessary replacement of the components (Lundgreen [col. 1, lines 10-24] and Jonsrud [0002] and [0003]).
Regarding Claim 12, Lundgreen as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 11 and in addition teaches wherein the rotating the second end of the threaded shaft of the bolt comprises rotating the second end with a tool (Col 3 Line 25-27 “Typically, the operator would use a pneumatic tool to turn forcing screw 18 while holding traveling nut 20 with a wench.”).
Regarding Claim 13, Lundgreen as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 11 and in addition teaches wherein the rotating the second end of the threaded shaft of the bolt causing the nut to force the bushing to move out of the aperture of the block comprises the nut moving from within the cavity to within the aperture of the block (Col 3 Lin 29-38 “And Line 29-38 “Therefore, the rotational motion of forcing screw 18 is converted to linear movement of the non-rotating traveling nut 20. Traveling nut 20 pushes against pushing piece 22, to force cylindrical section 24 out of wheel bearing 28, freeing hub 26. While cylindrical section 24 is pushed out, forcing screw 18 is subject to compressive forces between traveling nut 20 and receiver end 48. U-shaped frame 12 wraps around spindle housing 30 to transfer that force from receiving member 16 to spindle housing front surface 38.””).
Regarding Claim 14, Lundgreen as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 11 and in addition teaches disposing a ball bearing of the first end of the threaded shaft against a surface of the cavity of the block (Col 3 Lin 28-30 “While receiver end 48 spins freely against ball 50 in receiver recess 44, forcing screw receiving member 16 prevents axial movement of forcing screw 18.”)
Regarding Claim 16, Lundgreen as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 11 and in addition teaches further comprising disposing the wing in a first position against an inner surface of the cavity (See figure 4 of Wang showing the wing disposed in the first position where it abuts against the inner surface of the cavity), and suggested but does not explicitly teach moving the wing to a second position against the inner surface of the cavity or against a second inner surface of the cavity (Figure 1 of Wang shows a work piece with two bearings, on the inner surface, and shows the wing disposed against one of the surfaces while working on one of the bearings, suggesting that it would be on the opposite portion in a second position when working on the other bearing).
However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the wing disposed in a second position against the inner surface of the cavity, as doing so would allow for the same wingnut tool to be able to remove multiple bearings of the same workpiece, (See figure 1 of Wang).
Regarding Claim 17, Lundgreen as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 16 and in addition teaches wherein the threadedly attaching the nut to the first end of the threaded shaft within the cavity of the block comprises disposing the wing in the first position against the inner surface of the cavity, preventing the nut, threadedly attached to the threaded shaft, from rotating in a direction as the threaded shaft is rotated in the direction (See Wang Para [0027] “As the user holds the handle 30 of the contacting member 10 by his hand, the contacting member 10 can be prevented from rotation with the screw 20.”).
But does not explicitly teach that the inner surface of the cavity prevents the nut from rotating,
However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lundgreen as modified to have the wing of the nut contact an inner surface in such a way as to prevent further rotation, as Wang suggest one hold the wing to manually prevent rotation, allowing the wing to abut against an inner surface would accomplish the same effect and save the user the effort of holding the wing in place.
Regarding Claim 18, Lundgreen as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 17 and in addition teaches wherein the rotating the second end of the threaded shaft of the bolt causing the nut to force the bushing to move out of the aperture of the block (Lundgreen Col 3 line 23-33 “To operate the device 10, the mechanic rotates forcing screw 18 while holding traveling nut 20 to prevent rotation. Typically, the operator would use a pneumatic tool to turn forcing screw 18 while holding traveling nut 20 with a wench. While receiver end 48 spins freely against ball 50 in receiver recess 44, forcing screw receiving member 16 prevents axial movement of forcing screw 18. Therefore, the rotational motion of forcing screw 18 is converted to linear movement of the non-rotating traveling nut 20. Traveling nut 20 pushes against pushing piece 22, to force cylindrical section 24 out of wheel bearing 28, freeing hub 26.”) comprises moving the wing from the first position to the second position to prevent the wing from moving out of the cavity (wing contacts the side of the inner cavity and is prevented from mothing further, see the rejection of claim 17).
Regarding Claim 25, Lundgreen as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 6 and in addition discloses wherein the nut (20 of Lundgreen or 60 of Jonsrud) is disposed within a cavity of the block (interior space of 30 of Lundgreen or 25 of Jonsrud), and wherein the wing (30 of Wang) is configured to engage an inner surface of the cavity to prevent rotation of the nut as the bolt is rotated (See Citation of Wang Para [0027]).
Regarding Claim 26, Lundgreen as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 6 and in addition discloses wherein the first diameter is less than an internal diameter of the bushing (22 is smaller in diameter than 28).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler James McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-7270. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5PM (E.S.T), Flex First 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, 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.
/T.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights