DETAILED ACTION
Application for Reissue
The instant Application No. 18/415,351 seeks reissue of US Patent No. 8,931,156 B1.
Prior Reexamination
US Patent No. 8,931,156 B1 was reexamined in prior Reexamination Control No. 90/015,199.
Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate No. US 8,931,156 C1 issued on March 26, 2024 and indicated that (i) patent claims 1-11 are canceled, and (ii) new claims 12-19 are added and determined to be patentable.
As explained in MPEP 1449.01, subsection I.A.:
Generally, further prosecution will be limited to claims narrower than those claims canceled as a result of the reexamination certificate (this includes any existing patent claims and any claims added in the reexamination proceeding). Any claims added in the reissue application, which are equal in scope to claims canceled as a result of the reexamination certificate, or are broader than the scope of the canceled claims, will generally be deemed as surrendered. Such claims will be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 based on the recapture doctrine. See MPEP 1412.02. Further, a rejection of such claims based on estoppel will be made. See MPEP 2308.03. Concerning the appropriateness of such recapture and estoppel rejections, see the decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Morimoto, 18 USPQ2d 1540 (BPAI 1990). Thus, applicant is not permitted to acquire, through reissue, claimed subject matter that was surrendered via amendment or cancellation through the reexamination framework.
As an exception to the general rule explained above, claims that are broader than the scope of the claims canceled as a result of the reexamination certificate may be presented where:
(a) The broader claims in the reissue application can be patentable, despite the fact that the claims in the reexamination are not; and
(b) The broader claims in the reissue application could not have been presented in the reexamination proceeding.
Criterion (a) can occur if:
The broadened claims in the reissue application have an earlier effective filing date than those canceled by the reexamination certificate (as where the claims in the reissue application are supported by a parent application, and the reexamination claims are not).
The subject matter of the broadened claims in the reissue application can be sworn behind, and the more specific subject matter of the reexamination claims cannot be sworn behind.
Criterion (b) can occur if the claims in the reissue application are broader than all claims of the patent as it existed during reexamination (e.g., claims directed to a distinct invention).
What happened in the concluded reexamination proceeding must be taken into account by the examiner as to any new claims presented by the reissue application.
Status of Submissions
The amendment filed on August 21, 2026 has been entered.
Claims Subject to Examination
Patent claims 12-19 (of which claims 12-16 have been amended) and new reissue claims 20-34 and 36-41 are subject to examination. As explained above, patent claims 1-11 were previously canceled. Reissue claim 35 has been canceled in this application.
Objections to Amendments – Formalities
The claim amendments filed on August 21, 2026 are objected to because claims 1-11 are not presented in the proper form. As explained in Example (B) in subsection VII of MPEP 1453, claims 1-11 should be presented with the status indicator “(previously canceled)” and with their text lined through in order to indicated that these claims were previously canceled by the reexamination certificate. Note that claims 1-11 were presented properly in the prior amendment filed on February 26, 2026.
Applicant is required to place the amendments into proper form in response to this Office action.
Original Disclosure – Definition
The instant application seeks reissue of US Patent No. 8,931,156 B1, which issued from Application No. 14/251,306. The “original disclosure” is the disclosure of Application No. 14/251,306 as filed on April 11, 2014. Any subject matter added to the disclosure (including the claims) during either the examination of the instant reissue application or the earlier-concluded examination of Application No. 14/251,306 does not constitute a part of the “original disclosure”.
Objection to Amendment – New Matter
35 USC 132(a) prohibits any amendment that introduces new matter into the disclosure of the invention.
35 USC 251(a) prohibits the introduction of new matter into the application for reissue.
The amendment to the specification filed on August 21, 2026 is objected to under 35 USC 132(a) and 35 USC 251(a) because it improperly introduces new matter by virtue of a new incorporation by reference of “the entire contents of” US Patent No. 8,931,156 B1. The original disclosure did not include the entire contents of the issued patent.
The claim amendments filed on August 21, 2026 are objected to under 35 USC 132(a) and 35 USC 251(a) because they improperly introduce new matter for the reasons given below.
New claim 21 recites “a proximal side of the mount has a recess which is sized and configured to receive the wrench”. Due to its dependency, claim 21 also requires “A combination of a wrench and a puller for removing a pulley mounted to a shaft of a supercharger, the combination comprising…the wrench with an elongate handle is utilized as a breaker bar” (claim 20, ll. 1-2 and 5) and “the wrench being removably engageable to the mount, wherein the wrench and the mount prevent rotation of the proximal plate when the push rod rotates” (claim 20, ll. 29-30). This constitutes new matter because:
The patent specification discloses that the proximal side of the proximal plate 18 may have one or more mounts 62 that receive a wrench or breaker bar 64 to hold the puller 10 stationary as the user rotates the pushrod 24. See col. 4, ll. 14-23. The patent specification further discloses that the mount 62 may have a recess on its proximal side sized and configured to receive a hexagonal wrench (i.e., a different wrench than the wrench discussed at col. 4, ll. 15-23) or other type of wrenching tools (i.e., a different wrenching tool than the wrench discussed at col. 4, ll. 15-23). See col. 4, ll. 25-27.
The original disclosure fails to provide support for the wrench (utilized as a breaker bar) required by claim 20 removably engageable to the mount required by claim 20, with the recess required by claim 21 configured to receive the same wrench of claim 20.
New claim 25 recites “the three elongate frame members are longer than a thickness of the pulley so that a gap exists between the proximal plate and the pulley when the puller is pulling the pulley off of the shaft.” The patent specification discloses that the distance 48 between the proximal side 36 of the distal plate 20 and the distal side 50 of the proximal plate is greater than a height 52 of the pulley 12 and is sufficiently large so that the pulley 12 may fit between the proximal and distal plates 18, 20. See col. 3, ll. 56-65. There is no support in the original disclosure for the frame members 44 being longer than a “thickness” of the pulley 12.
New claim 28 recites “further comprising a step of engaging the recess of the mount of the proximal plate with the hexagonal wrench or wrenching tool to prevent rotation of the proximal plate when the push rod rotates”. Due to its dependency, claim 28 also requires “wherein a hexagonal wrench or wrenching tool is removably engageable to a recess of a mount of the proximal plate, and the method further comprises a step of engaging the recess of the mount of the proximal plate with the hexagonal wrench or wrenching tool to hold the proximal plate stationary as the push rod is rotated” (claim 27, ll. 12-15). This constitutes new matter because: the original disclosure fails to provide support for a method comprising both “a step of engaging…” as required by claim 27 and a further “step of engaging…” as required by claim 28.
New claim 29 recites “further comprising a step of engaging the mount or the recess of the proximal plate with the hexagonal wrench or wrenching tool to prevent rotation of the proximal plate when the push rod rotates”. Due to its dependency, claim 29 also requires “wherein a hexagonal wrench or wrenching tool is removably engageable to a recess of a mount of the proximal plate, and the method further comprises a step of engaging the recess of the mount of the proximal plate with the hexagonal wrench or wrenching tool to hold the proximal plate stationary as the push rod is rotated” (claim 27, ll. 12-15). This constitutes new matter because:
The original disclosure fails to provide support for a method comprising both “a step of engaging…” as required by claim 27 and a further “step of engaging…” as required by claim 29.
The original disclosure fails to provide support for a method in which a hexagonal wrench or wrenching tool is (i) engaged with a recess of a mount as required by claim 27, and (ii) also engaged with a mount (but not necessarily its recess) as required by claim 29.
New claim 30 recites “further comprising engaging the mount with the hexagonal wrench or wrenching tool or the recess with the hexagonal wrench or wrenching tool to prevent rotation of the proximal plate when the push rod rotates”. Due to its dependency, claim 30 also requires “wherein a hexagonal wrench or wrenching tool is removably engageable to a recess of a mount of the proximal plate, and the method further comprises a step of engaging the recess of the mount of the proximal plate with the hexagonal wrench or wrenching tool to hold the proximal plate stationary as the push rod is rotated” (claim 27, ll. 12-15). This constitutes new matter because:
The original disclosure fails to provide support for a method comprising both “a step of engaging…” as required by claim 27 and a further “step of engaging…” as required by claim 30.
The original disclosure fails to provide support for a method in which a hexagonal wrench or wrenching tool is (i) engaged with a recess of a mount as required by claim 27, and (ii) also engaged with a mount (but not necessarily its recess) as required by claim 30.
New claim 31 repeats limitations from claim 28. This constitutes new matter for the reasons given above with respect to claim 28.
New claim 34 recites “the rotating step is performed by inserting the hexagonal wrench or wrenching tool into the recess and moving the hexagonal wrench or wrenching tool.” This constitutes new matter because: the claimed “rotating step” involves rotation of the push rod. There is no support in the original disclosure for inserting a hexagonal wrench or wrenching tool into the recess of the mount of the proximal plate to produce rotation of the push rod.
New claim 39 recites “the proximal plate has a protrusion configured as a mount extending from an outer surface of the proximal plate, the protrusion sized and configured to receive the breaker bar so that the breaker bar is removably engageable to the protrusion, and the breaker bar and the protrusion hold the proximal plate stationary as the push rod is rotated” (ll. 28-32). This constitutes new matter because:
The patent specification discloses that the proximal side of the proximal plate 18 may have one or more mounts 62 that receive a wrench or breaker bar 64 to hold the puller 10 stationary as the user rotates the pushrod 24. See col. 4, ll. 14-27. The original disclosure also establishes that the mounts 62 are formed on the proximal side of the proximal plate 18. See patent claim 7. Based on this disclosure and the illustration of the mounts 62 in Figs. 2-5, the original disclosure establishes that the mounts 62 are formed on the proximal side of the proximal plate 18 such that the mounts 62 protrude/extend from an outer surface defined by the proximal side of the proximal plate 18.
The original disclosure fails to provide support for a “protrusion sized and configured to receive” the breaker bar itself. A conventional breaker bar (i.e., a bar having a projecting drive member for receiving a socket and/or for engaging a similarly-shaped drive recess) is not capable of engaging the disclosed hexagonal mount 62 of the proximal plate 18 apart from the provision of a socket (or similar attachment) that is attached to the projecting drive member of the breaker bar and that engages the external sides of the hexagonal mount 62. Thus, the breaker bar (by itself) and the protrusion are not capable of holding the proximal plate stationary as the push rod is rotated.
While the specification describes an alternative embodiment in which the mount 62 has a recess (not shown) sized and configured to receive a hexagonal wrench or other type of wrenching tool, this alternative embodiment is not disclosed as being used with the claimed breaker bar.
New claim 41 recites “engaging a breaker bar to a mount of the proximal plate and using the breaker bar to prevent the proximal plate from rotating while performing the rotating step, the engaging step and the pushing step, the mount being sized and configured to receive the breaker bar so that the breaker bar and the mount hold the proximal plate stationary as the push rod is rotated” (ll. 9-12). This constitutes new matter because:
The original disclosure fails to provide support for a method step of using the breaker bar to prevent the proximal plate from rotating “while performing the rotating step, the engaging step and the pushing step”. See the procedure described at col. 5, ll. 41-67 of the specification.
The original disclosure fails to provide support for a “mount being sized and configured to receive” the breaker bar itself. A conventional breaker bar (i.e., a bar having a projecting drive member for receiving a socket and/or for engaging a similarly-shaped drive recess) is not capable of engaging the disclosed hexagonal mount 62 of the proximal plate 18 apart from the provision of a socket (or similar attachment) that is attached to the projecting drive member of the breaker bar and that engages the external sides of the hexagonal mount 62. Thus, the breaker bar (by itself) and the mount are not capable of holding the proximal plate stationary as the push rod is rotated.
While the specification describes an alternative embodiment in which the mount 62 has a recess (not shown) sized and configured to receive a hexagonal wrench or other type of wrenching tool, this alternative embodiment is not disclosed as being used with the claimed breaker bar.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in response to this Office action.
Reissue Oath/Declaration
The reissue declaration filed on January 17, 2024 is defective because it fails to specifically identify at least one error which can be properly relied upon to support the reissue application, i.e., an error that can properly serve as the basis for reissue. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP 1414-1414.01.
As required by 37 CFR 1.175(a), the reissue oath/declaration must specifically identify at least one error pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 251 being relied upon as the basis for reissue. In identifying the error, it is sufficient that the reissue oath/declaration identify a single word, phrase, or expression in the specification or in an original claim, and how it renders the original patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid. It is not sufficient to merely state that applicant seeks to broaden or narrow the scope of a patent claim. Further, a statement in the reissue oath/declaration of “…failure to include a claim directed to…” and then reciting all the limitations of a newly added claim would not be considered a sufficient error statement because applicant has not pointed out what the other claims lacked that the newly added claim has, or vice versa.
In the present case, the reissue declaration states the following:
Applicant failed to previously present narrower claims which are being added by reissue. Claims 8 and 11 improperly recites “a proximal plate” and “a distal portion,” respectively.
The generic statement that “Applicant failed to previously present narrower claims which are being added by reissue” does not constitute the required identification of a specific error in the patent. Further, the statement that claims 8 and 11 improperly recite certain subject matter does not constitute a proper identification of an error in the patent because claims 8 and 11 are not being corrected by this reissue application. Rather, claims 8 and 11 were previously canceled by the earlier-concluded reexamination proceeding. In addition, each of the current reissue claims requires “a proximal portion” and “a distal portion”. Thus, the reissue claims do not correct the alleged errors in claims 8 and 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 251:
(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(b) MULTIPLE REISSUED PATENTS.—The Director may issue several reissued patents for distinct and separate parts of the thing patented, upon demand of the applicant, and upon payment of the required fee for a reissue for each of such reissued patents.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(c) APPLICABILITY OF THIS TITLE.—The provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall be applicable to applications for reissue of a patent, except that application for reissue may be made and sworn to by the assignee of the entire interest if the application does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the original patent or the application for the original patent was filed by the assignee of the entire interest.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(d) REISSUE PATENT ENLARGING SCOPE OF CLAIMS. No reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent.
GROUND 1: Claims 12-34 and 36-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon a defective reissue oath/declaration. See 37 CFR 1.175. The nature of the defect(s) in the reissue oath/declaration is explained above.
GROUND 2: Claims 21, 25, 28-31, 34, 39 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon new matter added to the patent for which reissue is sought. See the explanation above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
GROUND 3: Claims 21, 25, 28-31, 34, 39 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement because these claims recite new matter. See the explanation above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
GROUND 4: Claims 12-16, 20-34 and 36-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 12, the recitation “A combination of a…puller and a wrench” (l. 1) is inconsistent with and contradicted by the recitation “the combination comprising: the supercharger having the shaft and the pulley…the wrench; and the puller” (ll. 2-7). If the combination comprises the supercharger, the wrench and the puller, then it is not a combination “of a…puller and a wrench”.
In claim 12, the term “a supercharger” (ll. 8-9) is indefinite because it is unclear whether this term refers to the same supercharger introduced at line 2 and referred to at line 4, or to a different supercharger. The examiner suggests changing “a supercharger” (ll. 8-9) to “the supercharger”.
In claim 12, the recitations “the proximal plate having a threaded hole axially aligned to the central axis of the puller” (ll. 14-15) and “a push rod threadably engaged to the threaded hole of the proximal plate” (l. 20) are indefinite because they fail to conform to the description of the invention in the specification. According to the only embodiment specifically disclosed in the specification, the proximal plate 18 comprises a recess 58 formed on a distal side thereof, a nut 60 is secured in the recess 58, and the nut 60 has threads (a threaded hole) threadably engaged by the push rod 24. Thus, it is not accurate to characterize the threaded hole as being a part of the proximal plate itself.
In claim 12, the recitation “the proximal end portions of the three frame members attached to the three through holes of the proximal plate” (ll. 18-19) is indefinite because “through holes” are not structure to which the frame members can be “attached”. The examiner suggests changing “attached to” (l. 18) to “received in and extending through”.
In claim 15, the recitation “the threaded hole of the proximal plate comprises a recess formed on a distal side of the proximal plate and an insert having the threaded hole” is indefinite. The threaded hole cannot be a hole “of the proximal plate” (as required by claim 12) if it is a threaded hole of an insert. Further, the threaded hole does not comprise a recess formed on a distal side of the proximal plate. Rather, the recess is a separate structure.
Claim 16 is indefinite because it repeats limitations from claim 12. It is unclear how claim 16 further limits the subject matter of claim 12.
In claim 20, the recitation “A combination of a wrench and a puller” (l. 1) is inconsistent with and contradicted by the recitation “the combination comprising: the supercharger having the shaft and the pulley…the wrench…and the puller” (ll. 2-6). If the combination comprises the supercharger, the wrench and the puller, then it is not a combination “of a wrench and a puller”.
In claim 20, the recitations “the wrench with an elongate handle is utilized as a breaker bar” (l. 5) and “the wrench being removably engageable to the mount” (l. 29) are indefinite. The patent specification first refers to a wrench as an alternative to a breaker bar (see col. 4, ll. 15-16). This is consistent with the conventional meanings of these terms. However, the patent specification goes on to state that the mount may have a hexagonal configuration so that a wrench with an elongate handle may be utilized as the breaker bar (see col. 4, ll. 20-23). A conventional breaker bar (i.e., a bar having a projecting drive member for receiving a socket and/or for engaging a similarly-shaped drive recess) is not capable of engaging the disclosed hexagonal mount 62 of the proximal plate 18 apart from the provision of a socket (or similar attachment) that is attached to the projecting drive member of the breaker bar and that engages the external sides of the hexagonal mount 62. However, no socket (or similar device) is claimed. Further, a conventional open-end or closed-end wrench is capable of engaging the disclosed hexagonal mount, but such a wrench is not accurately defined as a “breaker bar”.
In claim 20, the recitation “a portion of the supercharger where the shaft is mounted to the portion of the supercharger” (ll. 7-8) is confusing and unclear. The phrase “a portion of the supercharger where the shaft is mounted” appears to refer to a mounting location of the shaft, but the overlapping phrase “the shaft is mounted to the portion of the supercharger” refers to the actual mounting of the shaft (not its location). The examiner suggests changing “where the shaft is mounted to the portion of the supercharger” to “to which the shaft is mounted”. Note that a similar change was made to claim 12.
In claim 20, the recitations “the proximal plate having a threaded hole axially aligned to the central axis of the puller” (ll. 13-14) and “a push rod threadably engaged to the threaded hole of the proximal plate” (l. 19) are indefinite because they fail to conform to the description of the invention in the specification. According to the only embodiment specifically disclosed in the specification, the proximal plate 18 comprises a recess 58 formed on a distal side thereof, a nut 60 is secured in the recess 58, and the nut 60 has threads (a threaded hole) threadably engaged by the push rod 24. Thus, it is not accurate to characterize the threaded hole as being a part of the proximal plate itself.
In claim 20, the recitation “the proximal end portions of the three frame members attached to the three through holes of the proximal plate” (ll. 17-18) is indefinite because “through holes” are not structure to which the frame members can be “attached”. The examiner suggests changing “attached to” (l. 17) to “received in and extending through”.
Claim 22 is indefinite for the same reasons given above with respect to claim 15.
Claim 23 is indefinite because the recitation “the mount extends from an outer surface of the proximal plate” (ll. 1-2) is an essential duplicate of a limitation recited in claim 20, and the recitation “the wrench being removably engageable to the mount” (l. 2) repeats a limitation from claim 20 verbatim. It is unclear how these recitations of claim 23 further limit the subject matter of claim 20.
In claim 23, the term “an outer surface” (ll. 1-2) is indefinite because it is unclear whether this term refers to the same outer surface introduced in claim 20, or to a different outer surface.
Claim 25 is indefinite because it fails to conform to the description of the invention in the specification. See the explanation in the Objection to Amendment – New Matter section above.
In claim 27, the recitation “a hexagonal wrench or wrenching tool” (l. 12) is indefinite because:
It is unclear whether the adjective “hexagonal” applies to only the “wrench” or to both the “wrench” and the “wrenching tool”.
The term “wrenching tool” does not have a well-understood meaning in the art and is not defined in any manner in either the claim or the specification. Thus, it is impossible to ascertain, with a reasonable degree of certainty, what subject matter is encompassed by this term, and what subject matter is excluded therefrom.
Claim 28 is indefinite because it fails to conform to the description of the invention in the specification. See the explanation in the Objection to Amendment – New Matter section above.
Claim 29 is indefinite because it fails to conform to the description of the invention in the specification. See the explanation in the Objection to Amendment – New Matter section above.
Claim 29 is indefinite because it recites “engaging the mount or the recess” (ll. 1-2) in the alternative while prior claim 27 is limited to “engaging the recess”. A dependent claim is indefinite when it broadens the scope of the claim from which it depends.
Claim 30 is indefinite because it fails to conform to the description of the invention in the specification. See the explanation in the Objection to Amendment – New Matter section above.
Claim 30 is indefinite because it recites “engaging the mount…or the recess” (ll. 1-2) in the alternative while prior claim 27 is limited to “engaging the recess”. A dependent claim is indefinite when it broadens the scope of the claim from which it depends.
Claim 31 is indefinite because it fails to conform to the description of the invention in the specification. See the explanation in the Objection to Amendment – New Matter section above.
Claim 31 is indefinite because it repeats limitations from claim 28. It is unclear how claim 31 further limits the subject matter of claim 30 (which depends from claim 28).
Claim 34 is indefinite because it fails to conform to the description of the invention in the specification. See the explanation in the Objection to Amendment – New Matter section above.
Claim 34 is indefinite because it contradicts claim 27 from which it depends. Claim 27 requires that the hexagonal wrench or wrenching tool function to hold the proximal plate stationary (which requires the hexagonal wrench or wrenching tool to be held stationary), but claim 34 requires moving of the hexagonal wrench or wrenching tool.
Claim 36 is indefinite because it introduces “a distal plate” (l. 4) but goes onto to re-introduce such a distal plate with the recitation “between proximal and distal plates” (l. 5). It is unclear how the distal plate of line 5 relates to the distal plate of line 4. The examiner suggests changing “between proximal and distal plates” (l. 5) to “between a proximal plate and the distal plate”.
In claim 36, the term “the distal plate” (l. 7) is indefinite because more than one distal plate has been previously introduced. See the amendment suggested above.
In claim 37, the recitation “the rotating steps comprises a step of” is indefinite because it either (i) defines plural method steps as comprising a single method step, or (ii) defines two steps as comprising an additional third step. Further, the recitation contains grammatical errors and is confusing. The examiner suggests changing “the rotating steps comprises a step of” to “the rotating steps comprise”.
In claim 39, the recitation “A combination of a breaker bar and a puller” (l. 1) is inconsistent with and contradicted by the recitation “the combination comprising: the supercharger having the shaft and the pulley…the breaker bar; and the puller” (ll. 2-6). If the combination comprises the supercharger, the breaker bar and the puller, then it is not a combination “of a breaker bar and a puller”.
Claim 39 is indefinite because it re-introduces “a shaft” (l. 7) but fails to define how this shaft relates to the “shaft” previously recited in line 2 and referred to in line 3. The examiner suggests changing “a shaft” (l. 7) to “the shaft”.
Claim 39 is indefinite because it re-introduces “a supercharger” (ll. 7-8) but fails to define how this supercharger relates to the “supercharger” previously recited in line 2 and referred to in line 3. The examiner suggests changing “a supercharger” (ll. 7-8) to “the supercharger”.
In claim 39, the term “the shaft” (l. 8) is indefinite because more than one shaft has been previously introduced. See the amendment suggested above.
In claim 39, the recitation “a portion of a supercharger where the shaft is mounted to the portion of a supercharger” (ll. 7-8) is confusing and unclear. The phrase “a portion of a supercharger where the shaft is mounted” appears to refer to a mounting location of the shaft, but the overlapping phrase “the shaft is mounted to the portion of a supercharger” refers to the actual mounting of the shaft (not its location). The examiner suggests changing “where the shaft is mounted to the portion of a supercharger” to “to which the shaft is mounted”. Note that a similar change was made to claim 12.
Claim 39 is indefinite because it re-introduces “a distal end” (l. 9) but fails to define how this distal end relates to the “distal end” previously recited in lines 3-4. The examiner suggests changing “a distal end” (l. 9) to “the distal end”.
In claim 39, the recitations “the proximal plate having a threaded hole axially aligned to the central axis of the puller” (ll. 13-14) and “a push rod threadably engaged to the threaded hole of the proximal plate” (l. 19) are indefinite because they fail to conform to the description of the invention in the specification. According to the only embodiment specifically disclosed in the specification, the proximal plate 18 comprises a recess 58 formed on a distal side thereof, a nut 60 is secured in the recess 58, and the nut 60 has threads (a threaded hole) threadably engaged by the push rod 24. Thus, it is not accurate to characterize the threaded hole as being a part of the proximal plate itself.
In claim 39, the recitation “the proximal end portions of the three frame members attached to the three through holes of the proximal plate” (ll. 17-18) is indefinite because “through holes” are not structure to which the frame members can be “attached”. The examiner suggests changing “attached to” (l. 17) to “received in and extending through”.
Claim 39 is indefinite because it fails to conform to the description of the invention in the specification. See the explanation in the Objection to Amendment – New Matter section above.
Claim 40 is indefinite because it re-introduces “a distal plate” (l. 5) and “a proximal plate” (l. 6) but fails to define how these distal and proximal plates relate to the “proximal and distal plates” previously recited in line 3. The examiner suggests changing “a distal plate” (l. 5) and “a proximal plate” (l. 6) to “the distal plate” and “the proximal plate”, respectively.
In claim 40, the term “the distal plate” (l. 8) is indefinite because more than one distal plate has been previously introduced. See the amendment suggested above.
Claim 41 is indefinite because it re-introduces “a distal plate” (l. 5) and “a proximal plate” (l. 6) but fails to define how these distal and proximal plates relate to the “proximal and distal plates” previously recited in line 3. The examiner suggests changing “a distal plate” (l. 5) and “a proximal plate” (l. 6) to “the distal plate” and “the proximal plate”, respectively.
In claim 41, the term “the distal plate” (l. 8) is indefinite because more than one distal plate has been previously introduced. See the amendment suggested above.
In claim 41, the term “the proximal plate” (l. 9) is indefinite because more than one proximal plate has been previously introduced. See the amendment suggested above.
Claim 41 is indefinite because it fails to conform to the description of the invention in the specification. See the explanation in the Objection to Amendment – New Matter section above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
GROUND 5: Claims 16 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d). Claim 16 repeats limitations from claim 12, and claim 31 repeats limitations from claim 28. Thus, claims 16 and 31 do not set forth a further limitation of the subject matter claimed.
Claim Interpretation
During examination, the pending claims are normally interpreted according to the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard (hereinafter, the “BRI standard”). That is, claims are given their BRI consistent with the specification, but limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. Thus, proper claim interpretation requires a determination of the scope of claims not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their BRI in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111 et seq.
In this case, the claims are interpreted under the BRI standard. No explicit claim construction is deemed to be necessary.
Listing of Prior Art
The following is a listing of the prior art cited in this Office action together with the shorthand reference used for each document (listed alphabetically):
“Brockway”
US Patent No. 1,383,382
“Calta”
US Patent No. 1,097,167
“Floyd”
US Patent No. 4,235,004
“Gaillard”
US Patent No. 1,123,513
“Grunder et al.”
US Patent No. 2,860,407
“Harder”
US Patent No. 4,502,197
“Kerr”
US Patent No. 3,986,242
“King”
US Patent No. 1,964,470
“Klann”
US Publication No. 2002/0026701 A1
“Oldershaw”
US Patent No. 1,446,102
“Pulley Boys”
Pulley Boys™ instruction manual entitled “Pulley Puller and Installation Tool”, Model M112 for 2003 Ford Mustang Cobra, © 2000-2005 by J&B Machine LLC, 2 pages (as printed), retrieved at https://www.pulleyboys.com/M112.pdf1
“Rees”
US Patent No. 1,573,572
“Smiley et al.”
US Patent No. 7,328,501 B2
“Smit”
EP Publication No. 0 842 085 B1
“Twombly”
US Patent No. 1,343,015
“Young”
US Patent No. 7,380,324 B2
“ZZ Gen 1”
ZZ Performance webpage describing 1st Generation (Gen 1) Supercharger Pulley Puller, dated October 15, 2002 by the Wayback Machine, 3 pages (as printed), retrieved at https://web.archive.org/web/20021015000457/http:// www.zzperformance.com/zzp/products/ prod_supercharger_pulley.htm2
“ZZ Gen 2”
ZZ Performance webpage describing 2nd Generation (Gen 2) Supercharger Pulley Puller, dated October 10, 2004 by the Wayback Machine, 2 pages (as printed), retrieved at https://web.archive.org/web/20041010031252/http:// www.zzperformance.com/zzp/products/ supercharger_pulley_puller.htm3
“ZZ Products”
ZZ Performance webpage listing products for Pontiac Grand Prix, dated February 12, 2005 by the Wayback Machine, 6 pages (as printed), retrieved at https://web.archive.org/ web/20050212050055/http://www.zzperformance.com/ products.php?id=1114
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art listed above is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure but is not relied upon to reject any claim.
Pulley Boys discloses a puller for removing a pulley mounted to a shaft of a supercharger, i.e., a supercharger pulley puller. See the document in its entirety. The supercharger pulley puller includes (i) a threaded pushrod having a proximal portion with a wrench-engaging head and a distal portion with a shaft-engaging stud, (ii) a triangular proximal plate having three outer through holes and a central through hole, (iii) a nut retained adjacent to the central through hole of the proximal plate and into which the pushrod is threaded, (iv) a distal plate having a U-shaped opening and having three threaded holes that align with the through holes of the proximal plate, and (v) three bolts having respective neck portions received in respective through holes of the proximal plate and having respective threaded portions received in respective threaded holes of the distal plate.
Smit discloses a puller for removing a member (i.e., propeller) 4 mounted to a shaft 5 (driven by an engine). See Fig. 1; the title; ¶¶ 0001, 0008-0009. The puller comprises:
A distal plate 1 having circumferentially spaced through holes (see Fig. 1) and a U-shaped opening (see Fig. 1) sufficiently large to receive the shaft 5. As shown in Fig. 1, the U-shaped opening is smaller than a distal end of the member 4 and is sized to be larger than the diameter of the shaft 5. Thus, in addition to receiving the shaft 5, the opening is large enough to be able to receive a portion of an additional structure.
A proximal plate 2 having circumferentially spaced through holes (see Fig. 1) that align with the through holes of the distal plate 1, with the proximal plate 2 also having a central threaded hole (see Fig. 1) aligned to a central axis of the puller.
At least three elongate frame members (i.e., bolts) 3 defining distal and proximal end portions (see Fig. 1), the distal end portions of the bolts 3 received in the through holes of the distal plate 1 and retained therein by nuts (see Fig. 1), and the proximal end portions of the bolts 3 received in the through holes of the proximal plate 2.
A pushrod 6 threadably engaged to the central threaded hole of the proximal plate 2, the pushrod 6 having a wrench engaging portion (see Fig. 1) for rotating the pushrod and a distal portion (see Fig. 1) sized and configured to engage a proximal end of the shaft 5, wherein clockwise rotation of the pushrod 6 traverses its distal portion into engagement with the proximal end of the shaft 5 and creates an opposing force on the distal end of the member 4 with the distal plate 1 to pull the member 4 off of the shaft 5.
See Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0008-0010; claim 1.
Floyd discloses a puller for removing a pulley 19 mounted on a shaft 23, the puller comprising:
A distal plate 13 having an opening 18 sufficiently large to receive the shaft 23, the opening 18 being smaller than a distal end of the pulley 19. As shown in Figs. 4-5, the opening 18 is sized to be larger than the diameter of the shaft 23. Thus, in addition to receiving the shaft 23, the opening 18 is large enough to be able to receive a portion of an additional structure.
A proximal plate 12 having a nut 16 fixed thereto (by welding), the nut 16 having a threaded hole axially aligned to a central axis of the puller.
Three elongate frame members 10, 11, 14 defining distal and proximal end portions (see Figs. 1-4), the distal end portions of the three frame members 10, 11, 14 attached (e.g., by welding) to three attachment points (see Figs. 1-4) of the distal plate 13 disposed about the central axis of the puller, and the proximal end portions of the three frame members 10, 11, 14 attached (e.g., by welding) to three attachment points (see Figs. 1-4) of the proximal plate 12 disposed about the central axis of the puller in alignment with the three attachment points of the distal plate 13.
A pushrod 17 threadably engaged to the threaded hole of the nut 16, the pushrod 17 having a wrench engaging portion (see Figs. 1-4) for rotating the pushrod and a distal portion 17a sized and configured to engage a proximal end of the shaft 23, wherein clockwise rotation of the pushrod 17 traverses the distal portion 17a into engagement with the proximal end of the shaft 23 and creates an opposing force on the distal end of the pulley 19 with the distal plate 13 to pull the pulley 19 off of the shaft 23.
See Figs. 1-5; col. 2, ll. 1-45; col. 3, ll. 3-20.
Calta teaches a puller comprising: a proximal plate 8; a recess 10 formed on a distal side of the proximal plate 8; and an insert (i.e., nut) 16 that (i) is retained within the recess 10 so as to be rotationally fixed to the proximal plate 8, and (ii) has a threaded hole engaging a threaded portion of a pushrod 13. See Figs. 1-2 and 4; p. 1, ll. 59-63, 68-72 and 78-83.
Rees teaches a puller comprising: a proximal plate 12; a recess 14 formed on a distal side of the proximal plate 12; and an insert (i.e., nut) 17 that (i) is retained within the recess 14, and (ii) has a threaded hole engaging a threaded portion of a pushrod 16. See Figs. 1-2; p. 1, ll. 75-96. Rees explains that this construction allows the nut 17 to be replaced easily when it becomes worn. See p. 2, ll. 45-54. While Rees allows for the nut 17 to fit somewhat loosely in the recess 14 to facilitate alignment of the pushrod 16, the nut 17 is nevertheless retained against rotation by the recess 14.
Gaillard teaches a puller comprising: a proximal plate 1; a recess 6 formed on a distal side of the proximal plate 1; an insert (i.e., nut) 7 that (i) is retained within the recess 6 so as to be rotationally fixed to the proximal plate 1, and (ii) has a threaded hole engaging a threaded portion of a pushrod 8; and a spring 11 biasing the nut 7 upward while allowing limited movement of the nut 7 within the recess 6. See Figs. 1-2a; p. 1, ll. 82-88 and 91-107. Gaillard explains that this construction (i) prevents stripping of the threads of the nut 7 and the pushrod 8, and (ii) allows the pushrod 8 to be struck in order to jar loose the member to be pulled from its shaft. See p. 1, l. 107 to p. 2, l. 1; p. 2, ll. 31-37.
Oldershaw teaches a puller for removing a gear or other element 19 mounted on a shaft 18, the puller comprising:
A primary distal plate 7 having an opening 8 sufficiently large to receive the shaft 18, the opening 8 being smaller than a distal end of the element 19. As shown in Figs. 1-4, the opening 8 is sized to be significantly larger than the diameter of the shaft 18. Thus, in addition to receiving the shaft 18, the opening 8 is large enough to be able to receive a portion of an additional structure.
A proximal plate 3, 4 having a threaded hole 9 axially aligned to a central axis of the puller.
Elongate frame members defined by opposite legs of a U-shaped frame 6, with the frame members having distal end portions attached to the primary distal plate 7 and proximal end portions attached to the proximal plate 3, 4.
A pushrod having a threaded portion 10 threadably engaged to the threaded hole 9, the pushrod having a wrench engaging portion (see Figs. 1-3) for rotating the pushrod and a distal portion 17 sized and configured to engage a proximal end of the shaft 18, wherein clockwise rotation of the threaded portion 10 traverses the distal portion 17 into engagement with the proximal end of the shaft 18 and creates an opposing force on the distal end of the element 19 with the primary distal plate 7 to pull the element 19 off of the shaft 18.
See Figs. 1-4 and 7; p. 1, ll. 9-12 and 48-67; p. 1, l. 81 to p. 2, l. 3.
Oldershaw’s puller is provided with a plurality of interchangeable secondary distal plates 13 having openings 14 of different sizes to receive shafts of different diameters, with the appropriate secondary distal plate 13 being selected and placed on the primary distal plate 7. See Figs. 1-2 and 5-6; p. 1, ll. 30-36 and 68-80.
ZZ Gen 1 discloses a puller for removing a pulley mounted to a shaft of a supercharger, i.e., a supercharger pulley puller. See the document in its entirety. ZZ Gen 1 explains that the puller is a 3-point puller using grade 8 bolts and designed to remove the press fit pulley on an Eaton M90 supercharger. Thus, ZZ Gen 1 teaches that pullers, like those taught by Floyd and Oldershaw, can be used in combination with a supercharger having the shaft on which the pulley is mounted in order to pull the pulley from the supercharger shaft.
Grunder et al. teaches a puller for removing a gear 10 from a shaft 12 driven by an engine. See Figs. 1-3; col. 1, ll. 16-20; col. 2, ll. 4-18. The puller includes (i) a threaded pushrod 36 having a proximal wrench-engaging portion 38 and a distal end (see Figs. 2-3), (ii) a shaft-engaging member 40 pivotally (i.e., rotationally) coupled to the distal end of the pushrod 36 by a coupling that allows the shaft-engaging member 40 to pivot (i.e., rotate) independently with respect to the wrench-engaging portion 38, (iii) a distal plate 48 having a U-shaped opening (i.e., slot) 52 and having circumferentially spaced threaded holes 50, (iv) a proximal plate 30 having circumferentially spaced through holes 34 that align with the threaded holes 50 of the distal plate 48, and a central threaded hole 32 into which the pushrod 36 is threaded, and (v) two bolts 44 having respective neck portions received in respective through holes 34 of the proximal plate 30 and having respective threaded portions received in respective threaded holes 50 of the distal plate 48. See Figs. 1-3; col. 2, ll. 19-41.
King teaches a puller comprising a pushrod including (i) a threaded portion 19 having a wrench engaging head (see Figs. 1-3) at a first end thereof, (ii) a distal portion 21 retained in spaced relation to a second end of the threaded portion 19 by a retainer 23, and (iii) a ball bearing 27 in contact with both the second end of the threaded portion 19 and a first end of the distal portion 21 such that the distal portion 21 is independently rotatable with respect to the threaded portion 19. See Figs. 1-4; p. 1, ll. 63-87.
Klann teaches a puller for pulling a pulley 61 from a shaft, the puller comprising a plate 2 formed with at least one mount in the form of a slot or opening (such as slots 12-17), and the puller used in combination with a breaker bar (i.e., wrench) 53 that is removably attached to one of the slots or openings in the plate 2. See Figs. 1-5; ¶¶ 0055-0057, 0069, 0089.
Young teaches a puller for removing a gear 52 mounted to a shaft 56 of an engine 50. See Figs. 6-8; col. 1, ll. 12-15; col. 4, ll. 14-20. The puller includes (i) a threaded pushrod 64 having a proximal wrench-engaging portion and a distal portion, (ii) a triangular proximal plate 66 having three through holes 67a-67c and a central threaded hole 65 into which the pushrod 64 is threaded, (iii) a threaded pilot member 62 threadably coupled to the distal portion of the pushrod 64 such that the pilot member 62 is independently rotatable with respect to the wrench-engaging portion, (iv) a distal plate 24 having a central opening (see Fig. 5) and having three threaded holes 34a-34c (mislabeled using reference numbers 36a-36c in Fig. 5) that align with the through holes 67a-67c of the proximal plate 66, and (v) three studs (i.e., bolts) 38a-38c having respective neck portions received in respective ones of the through holes 67a-67c of the proximal plate 66 and having respective threaded portions received in respective ones of the threaded holes 34a-34c of the distal plate 24. See Figs. 1-8; col. 2, ll. 36-46; col. 3, ll. 17-65; col. 4, ll. 14-29. As shown in Fig. 8, a mount 68 is connected to the proximal plate 66 and is offset from a rotational axis of the pushrod 64, with the mount 68 preventing rotation of the proximal plate 66 as the pushrod 64 is rotated. See col. 4, ll. 45-48.
Twombly teaches a puller for removing either gears or pulleys from shafts. See p. 1, ll. 11-14. The puller comprises:
A distal plate 17 having a U-shaped opening 20 sufficiently large to receive a shaft 21, the opening 20 being smaller than a distal end of the gear or pulley 22. As shown in Figs. 1 and 3, the opening 20 is sized to be significantly larger than the diameter of the shaft 21. Thus, in addition to receiving the shaft 21, the opening 20 is large enough to be able to receive a portion of an additional structure.
A proximal plate 2, 4 having a threaded hole (see Figs. 1-2) axially aligned to a central axis of the puller.
Elongate frame members 7, 8 having distal end portions attached to the distal plate 17 and proximal end portions attached to the proximal plate 2, 4.
A pushrod 3 having a threaded portion (see Figs. 1-2) threadably engaged to the threaded hole, the pushrod 3 having a wrench engaging portion (see Figs. 1-2) for rotating the pushrod and a distal portion (see Fig. 1) sized and configured to engage a proximal end of the shaft 21, wherein clockwise rotation of the pushrod 3 traverses its distal portion into engagement with the proximal end of the shaft 21 and creates an opposing force on the distal end of the gear or pulley 22 with the distal plate 17 to pull the gear or pulley 22 off of the shaft 21.
See Figs. 1-3; p. 1, ll. 24-49.
Brockway teaches a puller for removing a steering wheel spider from a steering column, or for other similar uses. See p. 1, ll. 2-14. The puller can be used to remove pulleys from shafts. See p. 2, ll. 34-43. The puller comprises:
A pushrod comprising (i) a threaded portion 20 having a proximal wrench-engaging portion 21 and a distal end 22, and (ii) a distal shaft-engaging portion 24 coupled to the distal end 22 of the threaded portion 20 by a swivel coupling (see Figs. 4-5) that allows the distal shaft-engaging portion 24 to rotate independently with respect to the wrench-engaging portion 21.
A distal plate 10 having plural U-shaped openings 11-14 of different sizes and having circumferentially spaced through holes 15.
A proximal plate 19 having circumferentially spaced threaded holes 18 that align selectively with two of the through holes 15 of the distal plate 10, and a central threaded hole (see Fig. 1) into which the pushrod’s threaded portion 20 is threaded.
Bolts (i.e., posts) 16 having first threaded portions received in respective threaded holes 18 of the proximal plate 19 and having second threaded portions received in respective through holes 15 of the distal plate 10.
Nuts 17 threadably engaging the second threaded portions of the bolts 16 to secure the bolts to the distal plate 10.
See Figs. 1-5; p. 1, ll. 58-96.
ZZ Gen 2 discloses a puller for removing a pulley mounted to a shaft of a supercharger, i.e., a supercharger pulley puller. See the document in its entirety. ZZ Gen 2 explains that the puller addresses problems with prior art pullers including (a) damage to the removed pulley due to failure to support the entire back of the pulley, and (b) damage to the snout of the supercharger shaft due to the use of a threaded stud on the puller that can mung up the threads in the snout. ZZ Gen 2 describes the improved puller as including (i) a large threaded pushrod, (ii) a center plate that holds a loose nut (into which the pushrod is threaded), and (iii) a locator pin that lowers the chance of damaging the snout threads. ZZ Gen 2 also explains that the improved puller (a) fully supports the pulley to eliminate the chance of damaging it during removal, and (b) works with pulleys of any size.
ZZ Products discloses a puller for removing a pulley mounted to a shaft of a supercharger, i.e., a supercharger pulley puller. See the 2nd page and the enlarged images on the 5th page. ZZ Products does not provide any written description apart from the names of the listed products. However, from the images on the 2nd page of ZZ Products taken together with the description provided in ZZ Gen 2, the skilled artisan would appreciate that the supercharger pulley puller includes (i) a threaded pushrod, (ii) a proximal plate having four through holes and a central recess, (iii) a nut retained within the recess of the proximal plate and into which the pushrod is threaded, (iv) a pin associated with the pushrod, (v) two distal plate halves that each have a U-shaped opening and that each have two threaded holes that align with two of the through holes of the proximal plate, and (vi) four bolts having respective neck portions received in respective through holes of the proximal plate and having respective threaded portions received in respective threaded holes of the distal plate halves.
Smiley et al. discloses a puller for removing a gear 12 mounted to a shaft 14 driven by an engine (not shown). See Figs. 1-3; col. 4, ll. 63-67; col. 5, ll. 25-32. The puller includes (i) a threaded pushrod 54 having a proximal wrench-engaging portion 132 and a flat distal end 134 that engages an end 34 of the shaft 14, (ii) a proximal plate 50 having circumferentially spaced through holes 106a, 106b and a central threaded hole 110 into which the pushrod 54 is threaded, (iii) a distal plate 46 having a U-shaped opening (i.e., notch) 66 surrounded by a cutout (i.e., recess) 68 and having circumferentially spaced threaded holes 70a, 70b that align with the through holes 106a, 106b of the proximal plate 50, and (vi) two bolts 52a, 52b having respective neck portions received in respective through holes 106a, 106b of the proximal plate 50 and having respective threaded portions 126 received in respective threaded holes 70a, 70b of the distal plate 46. See Figs. 1-3; col. 5, ll. 45-61; col. 6, ll. 6-51; col. 7, l. 14 to col. 8, l. 22.
Harder teaches a puller comprising a proximal plate 14 separated from a distal plate 12 by spacers 16 and bolts 20, with the distal plate 12 having an opening (see Fig. 2).
Kerr teaches a puller comprising a pushrod having a threaded portion 54 threaded into a nut 46 welded to a body 32, with another nut 70 welded to the body 32 for receiving a lever 74 for preventing rotation of the puller.
Specification
The specification is objected to because:
At col. 3, ll. 40-41, “threaded holes 54” should read “threaded holes [54] 72”. See Fig. 5; col. 4, ll. 30-33.
At col. 3, l. 41, “threaded holes 54” should read “threaded holes [54] 72”.
At col. 3, l. 42, “threaded holes 42 engaged” should read “threaded holes [42 engaged] 72 engage”.
At col. 3, l. 45, “they 18, 20” should read “[they] the plates 18, 20”.
At col. 3, l. 49, “through holes 46” should read “through holes [46] 70”. See Fig. 5; col. 4, ll. 30-33.
At col. 3, l. 53, “through holes 46” should read “through holes [46] 70”.
At col. 3, l. 54, “threaded holes 42” should read “threaded holes [42] 72”.
At col. 3, l. 64, “a threaded hole 54 of the proximal plate 18” is inaccurate. As shown in the drawings, the threaded hole 54 is in the nut 60 (not in the plate 18).
At col. 4, ll. 1-3, “The threaded hole 54 formed in the proximal plate 18 are formed with a recess 58 in the distal side 50 of the proximal plate 18” is inaccurate because:
As shown in the drawings, the threaded hole 54 is in the nut 60 (not in the plate 18).
The threaded hole 54 is not formed in the recess 58. Rather, the nut 60 is secured in the recess 58.
Note that the verb “are” is grammatically incorrect.
At col. 4, l. 9, “the distal side” should read “the distal side 50”.
At col. 4, ll. 21-23, “a wrench with an elongate handle may be utilized as the breaker bar 64” is inconsistent, confusing and inaccurate. The specification first refers to a wrench as an alternative to a breaker bar (see col. 4, ll. 15-16). This is consistent with the conventional meanings of these terms. However, the patent specification goes on to state that the mount may have a hexagonal configuration so that a wrench with an elongate handle may be utilized as the breaker bar (see col. 4, ll. 20-23). A conventional breaker bar (i.e., a bar having a projecting drive member for receiving a socket and/or for engaging a similarly-shaped drive recess) is not capable of engaging the disclosed hexagonal mount 62 of the proximal plate 18 apart from the provision of a socket (or similar attachment) that is attached to the projecting drive member of the breaker bar and that engages the external sides of the hexagonal mount 62. Further, a conventional open-end or closed-end wrench is capable of engaging the disclosed hexagonal mount, but such a wrench is not accurately defined as a “breaker bar”.
In the 10th to 11th lines of the rewritten paragraph located at col. 4, ll. 28-59 (see the reexamination certificate), “the threaded [holes] hole 54 formed in the proximal plate 18” is inaccurate for the reasons given above.
At col. 4, ll. 61-62, “the threaded hole 54 of the proximal plate 18” is inaccurate for the reasons given above.
At col. 4, ll. 66-67, “The push rod 24 may include three components, namely, a threaded portion 80 and the distal portion 26” is confusing and inaccurate because it refers to three components but only names two components.
At col. 5, l. 7, “the threaded hole 54 of the proximal plate 18” is inaccurate for the reasons given above.
At col. 5, l. 11, “recess cavity 82” should read “[recess] recessed cavity 82”.
At col. 5, l. 12, “recess cavity 82” should read “[recess] recessed cavity 82”.
At col. 5, l. 14, “and an inner end 90” should read “and on an inner end 90”.
At col. 5, ll. 18-20, “The distal portion 26 has a smaller surface area to the ball bearing 84 compared to the distal end 92 of the distal portion 26 to the shaft 14” is confusing and inaccurate. It appears this should read “The distal portion 26 has a smaller surface area [to] in contact with the ball bearing 84 compared to the surface area of the distal end 92 of the distal portion 26 [to] in contact with the shaft 14”
At col. 5, l. 36, “threaded holes 70” should read “threaded holes [70] 72”.
At col. 5, ll. 38-39, “a lower side 94 of a bolt head 96” should read “[a] lower [side] sides 94 of [a] bolt [head] heads 96”.
At col. 5, l. 47, “the threaded holes 54 of the proximal plate 18” is inaccurate for the reasons given above. Further, there is only one threaded hole 54.
At col. 6, ll. 4-5, “the threaded hole 54 of the proximal plate 18” is inaccurate for the reasons given above.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) for failing to show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. These features must be shown or canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered. The following features are not shown:
“the proximal plate having a threaded hole axially aligned to the central axis of the puller” (claim 12, ll. 14-15; claim 20, ll. 13-14; claim 39, ll. 13-14).
“a push rod threadably engaged to the threaded hole of the proximal plate” (claim 12, line 20; claim 20, l. 19; claim 39, l. 19)
“a proximal side of the mount has a recess which is sized and configured to receive the wrench or a wrenching tool” (claim 21).
“wherein a hexagonal wrench or wrenching tool is removably engageable to a recess of a mount of the proximal plate, and the method further comprises a step of engaging the recess of the mount of the proximal plate with the hexagonal wrench or wrenching tool to hold the proximal plate stationary as the push rod is rotated” (claim 27, ll. 12-15).
“engaging the recess of the mount of the proximal plate with the hexagonal wrench or wrenching tool to…” (claim 28).
“engaging the mount or the recess of the proximal plate with the hexagonal wrench or wrenching tool to…” (claim 29).
“engaging the mount with the hexagonal wrench or wrenching tool or the recess with the hexagonal wrench or wrenching tool to…” (claim 30).
“engaging the recess of the proximal plate with the hexagonal wrench or wrenching tool to…” (claim 31).
“the protrusion sized and configured to receive the breaker bar so that the breaker bar is removably engageable to the protrusion” (claim 39, ll. 29-30).
“engaging a breaker bar to a mount of the proximal plate…the mount being sized and configured to receive the breaker bar…” (claim 41, ll. 9-11).
The drawings are objected to because:
Fig. 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP 608.02(g).
Fig. 1 should include reference number 12 and a lead line directed to the pulley. See col. 2, l. 67.
Fig. 1 should include reference number 16 and a lead line directed to the supercharger. See col. 2, l. 67; col. 3, ll. 25-27.
The drawings fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because reference number 10 is mentioned in the specification (col. 2, l. 66), but it does not appear in the drawings.
Fig. 3 should include reference number 12 and a lead line directed to the pulley. See col. 2, l. 67.
In Fig. 3, the lead lines for reference numbers 94 are not properly directed lower sides of the bolt heads 96 located in the same plane. See col. 5, ll. 38-40.
The drawings fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference number 96 is used to designate both bolt heads (Fig. 3; col. 5, l. 39) and a length (Fig. 4; col. 5, l. 51). The same reference character must never be used to designate different parts.
In Fig. 4, the dashed outline representing the nut 60 and its flange 61 is incomplete.
In Fig. 5, the lead line for reference number 61 is not properly directed to the flange of the nut 60. See col. 4, ll. 7-9.
The drawing objections will not be held in abeyance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-19 would be allowable if a corrected reissue declaration is filed to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 251.
Claims 36-38 and 40 would be allowable if (i) these claims are amended to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 112(b), and (ii) a corrected reissue declaration is filed to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 251.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on August 21, 2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the error relied upon to support the reissue application has been explicitly identified in applicant’s remarks. This argument fails because:
Applicant cites 37 CFR 1.175(f)(2), which is not applicable to the instant application since the instant application is not a continuing reissue application.
As explained in MPEP 1414, the “at least one error” pursuant to 35 USC 251, which is relied upon to support the reissue application, must be specifically identified in the oath/declaration.
Applicant’s remarks states that the patent is wholly or partly inoperative or invalid by reason of a defective specification, namely, defective language in the original patent claims. This statement is not accurate or sufficient. Errors in the specification (written description) are different than errors in the claims for the purpose of reissue.
Applicant argues that the claims have been amended to remove new matter. The examiner disagrees for the reasons detailed above.
Applicant argues that the claims have been amended to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 251 based on improper broadening outside the two-year statutory period. This argument is persuasive, so the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the claims have been amended to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 251 based on improper recapture. This argument is persuasive, so the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the claims have been amended to comply with 35 USC 112(b). The examiner disagrees for the reasons detailed above.
Applicant argues that the specification states that the mounts 62 may receive a wrench or breaker bar. This argument is not persuasive because the examiner has interpreted this statement in the specification in the manner that it would have been interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. A breaker bar, by itself, is not capable of being received by the hexagonal mounts 62 illustrated in applicant’s drawings.
Applicant argues, with respect to claims 12, 15, 20, 22 and 39, that the insert (and, thus, its threaded hole) forms part of the proximal plate. This argument is not persuasive because the insert and the proximal plate are disclosed as two distinct elements.
Applicant’s response fails to address the objections to the specification and drawings.
Final Action
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).
Response Period
A shortened statutory period for reply is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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.
Amendments in Reissue Applications
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification, claims or drawings must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g).
Failure to fully comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g) will generally result in a notification to applicant that an amendment before final rejection is not completely responsive. Such an amendment after final rejection will not be entered.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Disclosure Obligations
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which the patent for which reissue is sought is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Filing and Contact Information
All correspondence relating to this reissue application should be directed:
By Patent Center5: Registered users may submit via the Patent Center at: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
By Mail6 to: Commissioner for Patents
United States Patent & Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
By FAX to: (571) 273-8300
By hand: Customer Service Window
Knox Building
501 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter English whose telephone number is (571)272-6671. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00 am - 6:00 pm EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eileen Lillis, can be reached at 571-272-6928.
/PETER C ENGLISH/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993 Conferees:/WILLIAM C DOERRLER/ Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/EILEEN D LILLIS/SPRS, Art Unit 3993
1 A copy was provided as Exhibit 1007 of the request for reexamination.
2 A copy was provided as Exhibit 1005 of the request for reexamination. The examiner has provided a copy that is more complete and/or legible.
3 A copy was provided as Exhibit 1002 of the request for reexamination.
4 A copy was provided as Exhibit 1003 of the request for reexamination. The examiner has provided a copy that is more complete and/or legible.
5 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).
6 Mail Stop REISSUE should only be used for the initial filing of reissue applications, and should not be used for any subsequently filed correspondence in reissue applications. See MPEP 1410.
