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 filed 09/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicants argument with respect to claims 1 and 6. Applicant argues that the dimensional requirements of the nut and collar are essential to the claimed function as the nut, not the collar, is what pushed the bushing out of the block. Examiner respectfully disagrees, Applicants disclosure provides no evidence of criticality to the claimed dimensional relationship between the nut and the collar. While the relationship seems to be shown in the figures such as Fig. 3 of the instant application, there is no discussion of the diameter of the nut in the specification of the application. The only discussion of the sizing of the collar or the nut is 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 Para [0027] “the use of differing sized collars 20 may also allow bushings 12 of varying size to be removed from blocks 16.” Both of which seem to suggest the dimensional relationship between the collar and the nut is not critical, as there are two mentions of the collar being of varying size, and neither mention any kind of limitation to the varying size with respect to the size of the nut. Additionally, Lundgreen as cited discloses that the sizing of the pushing piece 22 is relative to the other dimensions of the piece and other components of the apparatus, See Col 2 Line 59-64 “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)” As such Examiner does not find this argument persuasive.
Applicant further argues that the dimensional requirements are essential to the claimed function as the nut, not the collar, is what pushes the bushing out of the block. However, this function is not claimed, the claim requires “wherein the nut forces the bushing from the block and the collar is disposed within the bushing to protect the threaded shaft and assist in aligning the threaded shaft”. This is an intended use limitation, and there is no tying of this functional limitation to the sizing of the nut and collar in the claim. And as Lundgreen discusses rotating the nut to push the collar to force the bushing, See Col 3 Lines 8-22 “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. Pusher piece 22 and traveling nut 20 are placed on forcing screw 18 over receiver end 48. The operator then screws traveling nut 20 onto threaded portion 46. With the forcing screw 18 resting in the cylindrical section 24, the mechanic positions U-shaped frame 12 to wrap around the spindle housing 30 with inner face 36 abutting spindle housing front surface 38. He then places receiver end 48 in receiver recess 44 and rotates traveling nut 20 away from receiver end 48, moving pushing piece 22 to engage cylindrical section 24. The mechanic completes this simplified setup by ensuring pushing piece 22 firmly engages cylindrical section 24 and clears wheel bearing 28.” As such, Examiner does not find this argument persuasive.
Regarding Applicants argument with respect to claim 11 and the functional movement of the nut and the collar, Applicant argues that the dimensional relationship between the nut, collar and bushing is critical to the limitations “the nut forces the bushing out of the aperture” and “the collar to move relative to the threaded shat in a direction parallel to the rotation axis of the bolt within the opening of the bushing” Examiner respectfully disagrees, the claim does not require that the nut directly force the bushing out of the aperture, nor does it require any dimensional relationship between the nut collar or bushing. As such examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Applicant additionally argues that Examiner provides no evidence that this rearrangement of diameters and resulting motion would be obvious, to this Examiner agrees, because, as noted, the claim does not require the specific dimensional relationship between these pieces, as such Examiner further does not find this argument persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, Lundgreen discusses the fact that the collar size is chosen with respect to the workpiece, See Para [0015] “Differing sized collars 20 may be used to remove varying sized bushings 12 from varying sized apertures 14 of the block 16.” One of ordinary skill in the art understanding this would understand that the sizing of the Collar of Lundgreen is not fixed and can and should be adapted to the given situation and workpiece. As such Examiner does not find Applicants argument with respect to hindsight persuasive.
Regarding Applicants argument with respect to claim 11 and the Cavity preventing Nut rotation, 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Lundgreen is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both the instant application and Lundgreen are puller devices that utilize torque and threaded bolts to separate one piece from another, making Lundgreen at the very least, reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is concerned.
Applicant the argues with respect to claim 1 that neither Lundgreen nor Rydin nor the combination thereof discloses “the collar outer diameter is less than the internal diameter of the bushing let alone that the nut outer diameter is larger than the collar outer diameter, wherein the nut forces the bushing from the block and that the collar is disposed within the bushing. Examiner respectfully does not find this persuasive, regarding the argued limitation, Examiner only relies on Lundgreen to disclose that there is variability in the size of nut in relation to the collar. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A) states that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimension would not preform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” And MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B) (change in shape) states the configuration of the claimed device is a matter of choice a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. Lundgreens disclosure indicates that the size of the collar 22 is a relative dimension in relation to the nut/bushing. And there is no persuasive evidence presented that the particular configuration of the diameters of the collar bushing nut are significant. Applicants’ arguments regarding Claims 2-4 are not found persuasive for the above reasons.
Further regarding this argument, Applicant argues the limitation “wherein the first diameter [that of the collar] is less than an internal diameter of the bushing”. This limitation was added in the claim set filed 06/30/2025, and was not marked as a new limitation. And as such examiner further does not find this argument persuasive as this limitation was not included in the claim set the office action to which the arguments filed 06/30/2025 is arguing.
Regarding applicants’ argument pointed toward claim 6 and neither Lundgreen suggesting the nut forces the bushing from the block and that the collar is disposed within the bushing to protect the threaded shaft and assist in aligning the threaded bushing as claimed. Examiner respectfully disagrees, As noted in the rejection of claim 6 wherein the nut (20 of Lundgreen) forces the bushing (28 of Lundgreen) from the block (26 of Lundgreen) and the collar (22 of Lundgreen) is disposed within the bushing (See figure 8 showing collar 22 inside bushing 24) 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).
Examiner notes that “to protect the threaded shaft and assist in aligning the threaded shaft within the bushing”, is interpreted as function language modifying the collar, requiring that the collar be capable of performing said function, which the collar 22 of Lundgreen is capable of doing. As such examiner does not find this argument persuasive.
Applicant then argues regarding claim 11 that neither Lundgreen nor Wang teach or suggest that the wing of the nut is within the cavity to stabilize the nut within the cavity of the block and that the collar is disposed around the threaded shaft between the first and second ends in the opening of the bushing and that the nut forces the bushing out of the aperture. Examiner respectfully disagrees, Wang is relied on to disclose a wing of a nut that acts to stabilize and prevent further motion of said nut after a certain point. (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.”).
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.
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).
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.”)
a nut (20) threadedly attached to the first end of the threaded shaft (See figure 3) shaft,
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 is 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 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 wherein the second diameter is larger than the first diameter.
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].
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lundgreen (US 6357097 B1) and in view of Rydin (US 5887328 A) 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).
Claims 6-9, 11-14, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lundgreen (US 6357097 B1) and in view of Wang (US 20090241330 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 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 wherein the second diameter is larger than the first diameter.
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].
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 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 and 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.
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) 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.
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).
Conclusion
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