Ex Parte Gieras

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 3, 2019

14944992 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 3, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/944,992 11/18/2015 87521 7590 06/05/2019 Cantor Colburn LLP - Hamilton Sundstrand 20 Church Street, 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jacek F. Gieras UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 91399US01 3087 EXAMINER BARRERA, RAMON M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2837 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/05/2019 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): usptopatentmail @cantorcolburn.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JACEK F. GIERAS Appeal2018-002992 Application 14/944,992 Technology Center 2800 Before DONNA M. PRAISS, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final decision to reject claims 1-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed Nov. 18, 2015 ("Spec."), the Final Office Action dated Oct. 7, 2016 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed June 2, 2017 ("Br."), and the Examiner's Answer dated Oct. 6, 2017 ("Ans."). 2 Appellant is the Applicant, Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation, which is identified as the real party in interest. Br. 1. Appeal2018-002992 Application 14/944,992 The subject matter on appeal relates to actuators, more particularly, to a constant force, short-stroke electromagnetic actuator. Spec. ,r 1. Claim 1 is illustrative ( disputed matter italicized): 1. An electromagnetic actuator comprising: an outer housing having a central axis; a plunger contained at least partially within the outer housing and configured to move along the central axis, the plunger including an outer layer and first and second permanent magnets disposed within the outer layer and arranged such they are magnetized in opposite directions and perpendicular to the central axis; a first core on a first side of the central axis and outside of outer layer, the first core having a first core slot; a second core outside of outer layer on a second side, opposite the first side of the central axis, second core having a second core slot; a first winding and second winding, the first winding passing through the first core and the second winding passing through the second core; and wherein the first and second cores are arranged such that the first and second core slots form a gap between the first and second windings and the first and second permanent magnets; wherein the first and second core slots have a slot opening width (a), the first and second magnets have a magnet height (h) measured along the central axis that the first and second cores have a core height (H) measured along the central axis and wherein: h>aÂ· ' H> h; and H-h < 0.5H. Br. 9 (Claims Appendix). Independent claim 10 is similar to claim 1, but recites "[a] method of forming an electromagnetic actuator." Id. at 11. 2 Appeal2018-002992 Application 14/944,992 The Examiner maintains and Appellant appeals the rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 over Schmid3 in view of Ries. 4 Ans. 2; Br. 3. The Examiner concludes that claims 1-1 7 are unpatentable over Schmid in view of Ries for the reasons stated on pages 2-5 of the Final Action. Appellant does not separately argue the patentability of claims 1-17. Br. 3-7. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv), we select claim 1 as representative and claims 2-17 will stand or fall together with claim 1. Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because Schmid's statement that "[o]pposite poles of the permanent magnets 16 are arranged next to one another" means that Schmid' s magnets must be arranged such that they are in the same direction as the axis, rather than perpendicular as required by both of the independent claims. Br. 4 ( quoting Schmid ,r 53) (emphasis omitted). Appellant contends that Schmid's Figure 2 shows that magnets 16 are placed into slot 15 with opposite poles next to each other, which cannot achieve Appellant's orientation. Id. at 6. The Examiner responds that Appellant's position that Schmid teaches opposite poles of the permanent magnets arranged next to one another along the same direction as the central axis would be inoperable for having cancelling magnetic forces resulting in no motion of the plunger. Ans. 5. The Examiner's position is that Schmid was intended to operate with all forces acting to drive the plunger in a single direction with the direction being dependent on the current direction in the coils of the stator. Id. 3 US 2013/0129535 Al, published May 23, 2013. 4 US 7,686,597 B2, issued Mar. 30, 2010. 3 Appeal2018-002992 Application 14/944,992 The Examiner's finding-that Schmid's teaching would be inoperable if interpreted as Appellant contends-is reasonable and not rebutted by Appellant. In addition, the rejection is not over Schmid alone, but combined with the teachings of Ries (Final Act. 2). Appellant does not dispute that Ries discloses the claimed magnetic alignment, which the Examiner finds (Final Act. 5) would have been an equivalent structure known in the art at the time of the invention. Therefore, we find the preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's findings. Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. In sum, for the reasons stated above and in the Examiner's Answer, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-17 over the cited prior art. DECISION The Examiner's decision is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l). AFFIRMED 4