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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on June 8, 2023, January 29, 2025 & April 18, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed January 9, 2026 has been received and made of record. Claims 1, 3, & 5-22 remain pending in the application. Claims 2 & 4 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3, 11, 16 & 20 are amended. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 08, 2025, hereafter referred to as the Non-Final Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-12 of Applicant’s remarks, filed January 9, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) & claim 11 under U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, in light of the amendments and upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Berkhahn et al. (US 2012/0278656A1, hereinafter Berkhahn).
In response to applicant's argument(s), with respect to the rejection of amended independent claim 1 under U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), which now includes claim language from cancelled claims 2 & 4 as part of the amendment, that prior art reference, Witlicki et al. (US 2017/0138270 A1, hereinafter Witlicki), and similarly amended independent claim 11 under U.S.C. § 103, that prior art references, Witlicki, in view of Hamilton et al. (US 6604434 B1, hereinafter Hamilton), as cited by the Applicant, fail to teach, show, or disclose, individually or in combination, the similar amendments to independent claims 1 & 11, “a positive output terminal of the first sensor in the at least one pair of sensors and a negative output terminal of a second sensor in the at least one pair of sensors are connected to a flow circuit; an output of the flow circuit is passed through a single corresponding instrumentation egress to a controller; the flow circuit is configured to pass a single sensor value at a time; and wherein the output of the flow circuit is connected to the controller via a polarity switch, the polarity switch being configured to toggle a polarity of the pair of sensors between a first polarity and a second polarity by reversing positive/negative lead connections between the first sensor and a controller and reversing positive/negative lead connections between the second sensor in the pair of sensors.”
In light of the amendments in independent claims 1 & 11, new ground(s) of rejection(s) is/are made over Witlicki, in view of Hamilton, and further in view of Berkhahn. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s contentions that Witlicki, in view of Hamilton, and now in light of new prior art reference, Berkhahn, fail to disclose, teach, and/or suggest individually or in combination, the above stated amendment(s) in independent claims 1 & 11. Witlicki, in view of Hamilton, and further in view of Berkhahn, further disclose the additional limitations that have been amended and included in independent claims 1 & 11, and meet these requirements. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are unconvincing and the rejections of amended independent claims 1 & 11, and dependent claims 3, 5-10, & 12-22, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of amended independent claims 1 & 11, are respectively maintained. Rejections based on the newly cited prior art reference follow.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 7, 21 & 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In dependent claims 5 & 7, suggest updating “The test assembly of claim 4”, in line 1, to read, “The test assembly of claim 1”.
In dependent claim 21, suggest rephrasing “in the pair of sensors is comprises”, in line 3, to read “in the pair of sensors comprises”, and suggest rephrasing “a connection within one of the controller”, in line 4, to read “a connection with the controller”.
In dependent claim 22, suggest rephrasing “in the pair of sensors is comprises”, in line 3, to read “in the pair of sensors comprises”, and suggest rephrasing “an electrical state of the switches within one of the controller”, in line 4, to read “an electrical state of the switches with the controller”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-19, & 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1 recites the limitation "and a controller and reversing positive/negative lead connections" in ll. 17-18, where “a controller” was previously disclosed in claim 1 line 12. The repeated recitation of “a controller” introduces indefiniteness for this claim. For examination purposes, examiner interprets the second recitation to refer to “and the controller and reversing positive/negative lead connections.” Dependent claims 3 & 5-10 are also rejected by virtue of dependency of rejected claim 1, which do not rectify the defect.
Dependent claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the flow circuit is disposed within a core”, in ll. 1-2, without specifying if the core refers to gas turbine engine core, of refers to a magnetic wire/core, or if it refers to a processing/computing core, resulting in a lack of metes and bounds for this claim. For examination purposes, examiner interprets “a core” as the gas turbine engine core. Claims 3 & 5-7 are also rejected by virtue of dependency of rejected claim 1, which do not rectify the defect.
Independent claim 11 recites the limitation, “providing an output of the flow circuit”, in line 5, without prior disclosure, resulting in a lack of antecedent basis for this claim. For examination purposes, examiner interprets this limitation as “providing an output of a flow circuit”. Independent claim 11 also recites “and a controller and reversing positive/negative lead connections” in ll. 18-19, where “ a controller was previously disclosed in claim 11 line 6. The repeated recitation of “a controller” introduces indefinites for this claim. For examination purposes, examiner interprets the second recitation to refer to “and the controller and reversing positive/negative lead connections. Claims 12-19 are also rejected by virtue of dependency of Claim 11, which do not rectify the defect.
Dependent claims 21 & 22 recite the limitation, “and a controller”, in line 2, where “a controller”, was previously disclosed in claim 1 line 12. The repeated recitation of “a controller” introduces indefiniteness for this claim. For examination purposes, examiner interprets the second recitation to refer to “the controller.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 3, 7-8, 10-13, 16-19, & 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witlicki et al. (US 2017/0138270 A1, Pat. Date May. 18, 2017, hereinafter Witlicki), in view of in view of Hamilton et al. (US 6604434 B1, Pat. Date Aug. 12, 2013, hereinafter Hamilton), and further in view of Berkhahn et al. (US 2012/0278656 A1, Pub. Date Nov. 1, 2012, hereinafter Berkhahn).
Regarding independent claim 1, Witlicki, teaches:
A test assembly comprising (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0002]-[0004], & [0037]):
a plurality of instrumentation egresses disposed throughout the test assembly (Fig. 1; [0002]-[0004], [0021], [0023], [0025], [0033], & [0037]);
PNG
media_image1.png
539
779
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a plurality of sensors disposed through the test assembly (Fig. 1; [0002]-[0004], [0008], [0021], [0023], [0025], [0033], [0037] & [0039]-[0040]), wherein the number of sensors in the plurality of sensors exceeds the number of instrumentation egresses in the plurality of instrumentation egresses (Fig. 1; [0002]-[0004], [0008], [0021], [0023], [0025], [0033], [0037], & [0039]-[0040]: states that an instrumentation egress can be used with “one or more sensors”, an adaptor within the egress can have multiple holes to pass a “plurality of instrumentation leads”, and states “During engine testing and validation, the sensors collect information about parameters, such as temperature and pressure, within the compartment”, one egress is linked to two or more sensor leads passing through the single egress, which structurally demonstrates the number of sensors exceeds the number of egresses); and
at least one pair of sensors in the plurality of sensors sharing a single instrumentation egress (Fig. 1; [0002]-[0004], [0008], [0021], [0023], [0025], [0033], [0037] & [0039]-[0040]);
an output of the flow circuit is passed through a single corresponding instrumentation egress to a controller ([0003], [0031] & [0033]-[0039]);
Witlicki, is silent in regard to:
a positive output terminal of a first sensor in the at least one pair of sensors and a negative output terminal of a second sensor in the at least one pair of sensors are connected to a flow circuit,
the flow circuit being configured to pass a single sensor value at a time; and
However, Hamilton, further teaches:
a positive output terminal of a first sensor in the at least one pair of sensors and a negative output terminal of a second sensor in the at least one pair of sensors are connected to a flow circuit (Figs. 8, 9 & 10; [Col. 9, ll. 42-67] & [Col. 12, ll. 26-49 & 59-67]: teaches using a pair of sensors (60/61) that produce alternating positive and negative electrical pulses depending on changes in magnetic polarity, figured shows the first sensor 61 producing a series of alternating positive (+) and negative (-) pulses (waveform 84) and the second sensor 60 also producing a series of alternating positive and negative pulses (waveform 86), Figs. 8, 9 & 10 further illustrate sensors 60/61 with positive and negative output terminals),
the flow circuit being configured to pass a single sensor value at a time (Fig. 12C; [Col. 12, ll. 50-58] & [Col 14, ll. 1-27 & 55-67]: teaches the circuitry is configured to combine the signals sequentially (subsequently) from two sensors through the circuitry into a single output channel (first output 128) representing magnitude, this single channel, which represents the processed information from the sensor pair constitutes a “single sensor value at a time”); and
PNG
media_image2.png
511
856
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
709
1531
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the gas turbine test assembly of Witlicki to include the sensor wiring and sequential flow circuit processing taught by Hamilton. The motivation for this modification would be to efficiently process and decode the signals coming from multiple sensors sharing a confined egress space. Applying Hamilton’s circuit to Witlicki’s shared egress configuration, according to known methods, yields the predictable result (KSR) of accurately interpreting multiple sensor inputs using a streamlined, multiplexed data processing approach.
Witlicki, in combination with Hamilton, are silent in regard to:
wherein the output of the flow circuit is connected to the controller via a polarity switch, the polarity switch being configured to toggle a polarity of the pair of sensors between a first polarity and a second polarity by reversing positive/negative lead connections between the first sensor and a controller and reversing positive/negative lead connections between the second sensor in the pair of sensors.
However, Berkhahn, further teaches:
wherein the output of the flow circuit is connected to the controller via a polarity switch, the polarity switch being configured to toggle a polarity of the pair of sensors between a first polarity and a second polarity by reversing positive/negative lead connections between the first sensor and a controller and reversing positive/negative lead connections between the second sensor in the pair of sensors ([Abstract], [0014], [0017]-[0019], [0025 & [0063]-[0064]: discloses a circuit mechanism capable of toggling/reversing the polarity of transmission lines).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the combined apparatus of Witlicki and Hamilton by incorporating the polarity-reversing switch taught by Berkhahn. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a remote mechanism to correct wiring faults, mitigate signal routing errors, and/or toggle signal monitoring states without needed to physically access and manually rewire the sensor leads located deep within the pressurized, space-constrained gas turbine compartments. This combination is a simple application of a known technique (Berkhahn’s polarity reversing circuit) to a known apparatus (Witlicki/Hamilton sensor assembly) to yield the predictable result (KSR) of a robust, fault-tolerant instrumentation testing system.
Regarding dependent claim 3, Witlicki, teaches:
The test assembly of claim 1 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0002]-[0004], & [0037]), is disposed within a core (Fig. 1; [0021], [0031]-[0033] & [0043]: teaches positioning at least one instrumentation sensor within a gas turbine engine compartment 38, such as a bearing compartment, located in the engine core).
Witlicki, is silent in regard to:
wherein the flow circuit
However, Hamilton, further teaches:
wherein the flow circuit ([Col. 5, ll. 1-40], [Col. 6, ll. 1-24], [Col. 12, ll. 26-67], [Col. 13, ll. 1-27], & [Col. 14, ll. 1-23]: teaches circuitry for receiving and interpreting signals from sensors, this circuitry is analogous to the “flow circuit”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the flow circuit, of Hamilton to Witlicki, in order to improve, by modifying the test assembly of Witlicki with the signal processing circuitry of Hamilton, in the same location as the sensors of Witlicki, within the core compartment, to enhance, and reduce the wiring complexity through the egress and improve signal-to-noise ratio before transmitting the signal out of the engine, arriving at the claimed invention, making efficient use of the limited space, and yielding predictable results (KSR).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the flow circuit, of Hamilton to Witlicki, in order to improve, by modifying the test assembly of Witlicki with the signal processing circuitry of Hamilton, in the same location as the sensors of Witlicki, within a core compartment, to enhance, and reduce the wiring complexity through the egress and improve signal-to-noise ratio before transmitting the signal out of the engine, arriving at the claimed invention, making efficient use of the limited space, and yielding predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Witlicki, teaches:
The test assembly of claim 4 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0002]-[0004], [0023], & [0033]-[0038]),
Witlicki, is silent in regard to:
wherein the flow circuit is configured to allow a current from the first sensor to pass while connected in the first polarity and to allow a current from the second circuit to pass while connected in the second polarity.
However, Hamilton, further teaches:
wherein the flow circuit is configured to allow a current from the first sensor to pass while connected in the first polarity (Fig. 10; [Col. 4, ll. 18-43], [Col. 5, ll. 1-40], [Col. 6, ll. 1-24], [Col. 12, ll. 26-67], [Col. 13, ll. 1-27], [Col. 14, ll. 1-23] & [Claim 15]: teaches a sensor that produces a signal with a first (positive) polarity and discloses a rectifier circuit to process it, the rectifier circuit receives an alternating polarity signal, where the rectifier must be configured to pass the current from positive pulses (the “first polarity”) to produce its output of all positive pulses) and to allow a current from the second circuit to pass while connected in the second polarity (Fig. 10; [Col. 4, ll. 18-38], [Col. 5, ll. 1-40], [Col. 6, ll. 1-24], [Col. 12, ll. 26-67], [Col. 13, ll. 1-27], [Col. 14, ll. 1-23] & [Claim 15]: teaches that the same sensor produces a signal with a second (negative) polarity and that the rectifier circuit processes this signal as well, the rectifier must also be configured to process or “allow to pass” (by inverting) the current from the negative pulses (the “second polarity)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the flow circuit configured to allow a current from the first sensor to pass while connected in the first polarity and to allow a current from the second circuit to pass while connected in the second polarity, of Hamilton to Witlicki, in order to improve, by modifying the test assembly of Witlicki, incorporating the specific sensor and signal processing system of Hamilton, to enhance and provide Witlicki’s test setup the capability to accurately measure directional fluid flow, a common need in engine testing, incorporating Hamilton’s complete sensor system, including the pair of sensors and their associated rectifier circuits (comprising diodes), into Witlicki’s test assembly, with a predictable combination of known elements to achieve a desired function, and yielding predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Witlicki, teaches:
The test assembly of claim 1 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0002]-[0004], & [0036]-[0038]),
Witlicki, is silent in regard to:
wherein each sensor in the at least one pair of sensors is a shared type of sensor.
However, Hamilton, further teaches:
wherein each sensor in the at least one pair of sensors is a shared type of sensor (Fig. 1; [Col. 4, ll. 18-37], [Col. 9, ll. 40-67] & [Col. 10, ll. 1-45]: teaches using a pair of sensors and makes it obvious they are of a “shared type”, disclosure refers to the sensors as a pair and provides a single exemplary type (“Wiegand wire”) applicable to the pair, the principle of quadrature decoding, relies on comparing two similar but phase-shifted signals, that would require that the sensors generating these signals to be of the same type to ensure their responses are comparable).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate wherein each sensor in the at least one pair of sensors is a shared type of sensor, of Hamilton to Witlicki. The motivation to use a shared type of sensor is to capture differential readings, track rotational speed/direction, or provide redundancy for a specific environmental parameter (e.g., measuring magnetic flux, temperature or pressure) within the harsh environment of the turbine bearing compartment before routing the signals through the polarity-switching flow circuit. Improving, by modifying the test assembly of Witlicki, incorporating the specific sensor and signal processing system of Hamilton, including its use of a pair of sensors of a shared type, to enhance and provide Witlicki’s test setup the capability to accurately measure directional fluid flow, a common need in engine testing, with a predictable combination of known elements to achieve a desired function, and yielding predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 10, Witlicki, teaches:
The test assembly of claim 1 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0002]-[0004], & [0036]-[0038]),
Witlicki, is silent in regard to:
wherein each sensor in the pair of sensors provides a single current output.
However, Hamilton, further teaches:
wherein each sensor in the pair of sensors ([Col. 4, ll. 18-38], [Col. 9, ll. 41-67], [Col. 10, ll. 1-45], [Col. 12, ll. 26-67], [Col. 13, ll. 1-27]) provides a single current output ([Col. 5, ll. 2-23], [Col. 9, ll. 41-67], [Col. 10, ll. 1-45], [Col. 12, ll. 26-67], [Col. 13, ll. 1-27], & [Col. 14, Claim 1, ll. 48-67]: discloses the sensors (Wiegand wires) that generate a “single current output” in the form of discrete electrical pulses or signals for each magnetic event, each sensor produces its own independent stream of signals (e.g., signal series 84 from sensor 61 and signal series 86 from sensor 60)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate wherein each sensor in the pair of sensors provides a single current output, of Hamilton to Witlicki. In order to improve, by modifying the test assembly of Witlicki, incorporating the sensor system taught by Hamilton, to enhance and provide Witlicki’s test setup the capability to accurately measure directional fluid flow, a common need in engine testing, according to known methods with a predictable combination of known elements to achieve a desired function, and yielding predictable results (KSR).
Regarding independent claim 11, Witlicki, teaches:
A method for providing multiple sensor outputs through a single instrumentation egress of a test assembly engine comprising (Fig. 1; [0003], [0033] & [0037]-[0039]):
an output of the flow circuit is passed through a single corresponding instrumentation egress to a controller ([0003], [0031] & [0033]-[0039]);
Witlicki, is silent in regard to:
providing a first output of a first sensor and a second output of a second sensor to a flow circuit within a test assembly;
providing an output of the flow circuit to a polarity switch;
a positive output terminal of a first sensor in the at least one pair of sensors and a negative output terminal of a second sensor in the at least one pair of sensors are connected to a flow circuit;
the flow circuit is configured to pass a single sensor value at a time; and
However, Hamilton, further teaches:
providing a first output of a first sensor and a second output of a second sensor to a flow circuit within a test assembly ([Col. 3, ll. 13-58], [Col. 12, ll. 27-67], [Col. 13, ll. 1-27] & [Claim 15]: describes the generation of a “first stream” 84 from sensor 61 and a “second stream” 86 from sensor 60 (providing separate outputs of the first and second sensors), describes the conversion of these signals into pulse trains 92, 93, 100, 101 (converting/rectifying the circuitry), where the entire path, from sensor detection to the creation of processed pulse trains, constitutes a “flow circuit”);
providing an output of the flow circuit to a polarity switch (Disclosed in combination: Hamilton: [Col. 3, ll. 13-67], [Col. 4, ll. 1-38] [Col. 12, ll. 27-67], [Col. 13, ll. 1-67], & [Col. 14, ll. 1-24]:describes converting the pulse trains into channels 108 and 110 of alternating high and low states, the decoding circuitry which interprets the seque3nce and state (form of polarity) of the signals from the two channels to determine direction, functions as a “polarity switch”, switches its interpretation and output based on the sequence of the signals, which is determined by their relative polarity and timing; Berkhahn: [Abstract], [0014], [0017]-[0019], [0025] & [0063]-[0064]: discloses a circuit mechanism capable of toggling/reversing the polarity of transmission lines);
a positive output terminal of a first sensor in the at least one pair of sensors and a negative output terminal of a second sensor in the at least one pair of sensors are connected to a flow circuit (Figs. 8, 9 & 10; [Col. 9, ll. 42-67] & [Col. 12, ll. 26-49 & 59-67]: teaches using a pair of sensors (60/61) that produce alternating positive and negative electrical pulses depending on changes in magnetic polarity, figured shows the first sensor 61 producing a series of alternating positive (+) and negative (-) pulses (waveform 84) and the second sensor 60 also producing a series of alternating positive and negative pulses (waveform 86), Figs. 8, 9 & 10 further illustrate sensors 60/61 with positive and negative outputs/signals which are connected to the flow circuitry for conversion);
the flow circuit is configured to pass a single sensor value at a time (Fig. 12C; [Col. 12, ll. 50-58] & [Col 14, ll. 1-27 & 55-67]: teaches the circuitry is configured to combine the signals sequentially (subsequently) from two sensors through the circuitry into a single output channel (first output 128) representing magnitude, this single channel, which represents the processed information from the sensor pair constitutes a “single sensor value at a time”); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the gas turbine test assembly of Witlicki to include the paired sensor wiring and sequential flow circuit processing taught by Hamilton. The motivation for this modification would be to efficiently process, multiplex, and decode the individual signals originating from multiple sensors of a shared type that must share a confined egress space. Applying Hamilton’s circuit to Witlicki’s shared egress configuration, according to known methods, yields the predictable result (KSR) of accurately tracking component parameters, interpreting multiple sensor inputs using a streamlined, multiplexed data processing approach, and minimizing the required physical wiring footprint passing through the engine casing.
Witlicki, in combination with Hamilton, are silent in regard to:
providing the first output of the first sensor to a controller by operating the polarity switch in a first polarity and providing the second output of the second sensor to the controller by operating the polarity switch box in a second polarity;
wherein the output of the flow circuit is connected to the controller via a polarity switch, the polarity switch being configured to toggle a polarity of the pair of sensors between a first polarity and a second polarity by reversing positive/negative lead connections between the first sensor and a controller and reversing positive/negative lead connections between the second sensor in the pair of sensors.
However, Berkhahn, further teaches:
providing the first output of the first sensor to a controller by operating the polarity switch in a first polarity and providing the second output of the second sensor to the controller by operating the polarity switch box in a second polarity ([Abstract], [0014], [0017]-[0019], [0025 & [0063]-[0064]: operating the switch in a first polarity, the first sensor’s current passes to the controller, by operating the switch in a second reversed polarity, the second sensor’s current passes to the controller);
wherein the output of the flow circuit is connected to the controller via a polarity switch, the polarity switch being configured to toggle a polarity of the pair of sensors between a first polarity and a second polarity by reversing positive/negative lead connections between the first sensor and a controller and reversing positive/negative lead connections between the second sensor in the pair of sensors ([Abstract], [0014], [0017]-[0019], [0025] & [0063]-[0064]: discloses the functional step of toggling/reversing the polarity of transmission lead connections between the node (sensor flow circuit) and the network (controller)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the combined apparatus of Witlicki and Hamilton by incorporating the polarity-reversing switch architecture taught by Berkhahn between the flow circuit and the external controller. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a remote, electronic mechanism to toggle which sensor’s signal is forward-biased and received by the controller (allowing current from the first sensor to pass in the first polarity and the second sensor to pass in the second polarity), mitigate signal routing errors, multiplex sensor readings or correct wiring faults remotely, and/or toggle signal monitoring states without needed to physically access and manually rewire the sensor leads located deep within the pressurized, space-constrained gas turbine compartments. This combination is a simple application of a known technique (Berkhahn’s polarity reversing circuit) to a known apparatus (Witlicki/Hamilton sensor assembly) to yield the predictable results (KSR) of a robust, fault-tolerant instrumentation testing system.
Regarding dependent claim 12, Witlicki, teaches:
The method of claim 11 (Fig. 1; [0003], [0023], [0031], [0033], [0037]-[0039] & [0043]),
Witlicki, is silent in regard to:
wherein the polarity switch is disposed exterior to the test assembly.
However, Hamilton, further teaches:
wherein the polarity switch is disposed exterior to the test assembly (Disclosed in combination: Hamilton: Fig. 1; [Col. 5, ll. 2-40], [Col. 8, ll. 50-65], & [Col. 10, ll. 4-45]: teaches “polarity switch” (rectifier) and its circuitry located in a separate electronics housing, away from the measurement area, Fig. 1 illustrates register/chamber 24 separate from fluid chamber 22; Berkhahn: [Abstract], [0014], [0017]-[0019], [0025] & [0063]-[0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the combined method of Witlicki, Hamilton, and Berkhahn such that the polarity switch is disposed exterior to the test assembly. Witlicki teaches passing the sensor lead wires through the instrumentation egress to a controller or data collection device located outside the test engine to avoid extreme temperatures and limited space of the internal engine compartments. When incorporating the polarity-reversing switch of Berkhahn to toggle the sensor signals being fed to the controller, it would be an obvious and predictable design choice to position this switch exterior to the test assembly, either integrated with or adjacent to the external controller. In order to improve and to protect the sensitive electronics (switching circuitry) from the harsh internal environment of the test assembly (thermal degradation), maximizing the data acquired from the test assembly, and to allow operators easy access, according to known methods with a predictable combination of known elements to achieve a design function, and yield predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 13, Witlicki, teaches:
The method of claim 11 (Fig. 1; [0003], [0023], [0033], [0037]-[0039] & [0043]), comprises passing a lead through a single instrumentation egress (Fig. 1; [0033], [0038]-[0039]).
Witlicki, is silent in regard to:
wherein providing the output of the flow circuit to the polarity switch
However, Hamilton, further teaches:
wherein providing the output of the flow circuit to the polarity switch (Disclosed in combination: Hamilton: Figs. 1 & 10; [Col. 5, ll. 2-40], [Col. 8, ll. 50-65], [Col. 10, ll. 4-45], [Col. 12, ll. 26-67], [Col. 13, ll. 1-27], [Col. 14, ll. 1-23] & [Claim 15]: teaches “polarity switch” (rectifier) and its circuitry operating on signal polarity, directing current based on its polarity, circuitry is placed between the sensor outputs and the final decoder and teaches that the outputs from the pair of sensors are connected to circuitry that receives, rectifies, and translates the signals, this signal processing circuitry is interpreted as “output of flow circuit”, Fig. 1 illustrates register/chamber 24 separate from fluid chamber 22; Berkhahn: [Abstract], [0014], [0017]-[0019], [0025] & [0063]-[0064]: the combined method requires routing the multiplexed output from Hamilton’s flow circuit to Berkhahn’s polarity reversing switch to selectively toggle the sensor feeds)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the combined method of Witlicki, Hamilton, and Berkhahn such that providing the output of the internal flow circuit to the exterior polarity switch comprises passing a lead through a single instrumentation egress. Witlicki teaches passing sensor lead wires through a single instrumentation egress to safely route electrical signals from the extreme environment of the internal bearing compartments to external data devices. Therefore, a POSITA would predictably route the output lead of Hamilton’s flow circuit through the single instrumentation egress taught by Witlicki, according to known methods, in order to physically and electrically connect it to the exterior polarity switch taught by Berkhahn, yielding predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 16, Witlicki, teaches:
The method of claim 11 (Fig. 1; [0003], [0023], [0033], [0037]-[0039] & [0043]), further comprising operating a test assembly test ([0003], [0033] & [0037]-[0039]),
Witlicki, is silent in regard to:
and alternating a polarity of the switch box at least once during the test.
However, Hamilton, further teaches:
and alternating a polarity of the switch box at least once during the test (Disclosed in combination: Hamilton: Fig. 10; [Col. 12, ll. 27-67], [Col. 13, ll. 1-67], [Col. 14, ll. 1-23]: teaches a method where the sensor signal alternates polarity during operation (“a test”), and this signal is processed by a rectifier (“switch”), the method of operating the device during a measurement “test” involves generating and processing a signal whose polarity alternates at least once, processing is performed by the rectifier circuit (the “switch”), where the switch’s operational state alternates in response to the signal’s alternating polarity; Berkhahn: [Abstract], [0014], [0017]-[0019], [0025] & [0063]-[0064]: teaches the capability of actively reversing/cross-connecting the polarity during system operation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the combined method of Witlicki, Hamilton, and Berkhahn to include operating the test assembly and alternating the polarity of the switch box at least once during the test. Witlicki teaches actively operating the gas turbine test assembly to collect real-time data from internal sensors. The combined method utilizes Berkhahn’s polarity switch to selectively multiplex the signals from Hamilton’s first and second sensors through a single egress. A POSITA would predictably alternate the polarity of the switch at least once while the engine test is actively running. The motivation for doing so is to successfully sample, record, and compare the distinct operational data from both sensors during a single continuous testing event, maximizing the data collected per test run. In order to improve, and enhance directional flow measurement capability during the engine test, according to known methods, with a predictable combination of known elements to achieve a design function, and yield predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 17, Witlicki, teaches:
The method of claim 16 (Fig. 1; [0003], [0023], [0033] & [0037]-[0039]),
Witlicki, is silent in regard to:
wherein alternating the polarity of the switch box at least once during the test comprises alternating the polarity of the switch box according to a predetermined duty cycle.
However, Hamilton, further teaches:
wherein alternating the polarity of the switch box (Disclosed in combination: Hamilton: Figs. 1 & 10; [Col. 10, ll. 4-45], [Col. 12, ll. 27-67], [Col. 13, ll. 1-67], [Col. 14, ll. 1-23]) at least once during the test comprises alternating the polarity of the switch box according to a predetermined duty cycle (Figs. 1& 10; [Col. 9, ll. 40-67], [Col. 10, ll. 4-45], [Col. 12, ll. 27-67], [Col. 13, ll. 1-67], [Col. 14, ll. 1-23]: teaches a method where signal polarity alternates based on the rotation of a magnet with a fixed, predetermined pole structure, the structure of the magnet (e.g., four poles) is predetermined, the fixed structure dictates that for each rotation, a fixed and predictable number of polarity alternations will occur in a repeating pattern, where the repeating pattern of polarity changes is equivalent to “predetermined duty cycle”, also mentions the conversion of the signals produced by the meter magnet, relies on a precise, repeating sequence (e.g.,…2-3-1-0-2-3-1-0…), which is a “duty cycle”, repeating a pattern of high/low states over a rotational period; Berkhahn: [Abstract], [0014], [0017]-[0019], [0025] & [0063]-[0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the combined method of Witlicki, Hamilton, and Berkhahn to include alternating the polarity of the switch box at least once during the test, and alternating the polarity of the switch box according to a predetermined duty cycle. Witlicki teaches actively operating the gas turbine test assembly to collect real-time data from internal sensors. The combined method utilizes Berkhahn’s polarity switch to selectively multiplex the signals from Hamilton’s first and second sensors, alternating the polarity of the switch box. In order to improve, by modifying the test assembly for a gas turbine of Witlicki, implementing electrical switching or control as part of the test method of Witlicki, incorporating the technique of generating alternating polarity signals (Berkhahn), according to a predetermined cycle from Hamilton for controlled, cyclical electrical sequences in test and measurement systems. To provide and enhance directional flow measurement capability during the engine test, according to known methods, with a predictable combination of known elements to achieve a design function, and yield predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 18, Witlicki, teaches:
The method of claim 11 (Fig. 1; [0003], [0023], [0033], [0035], [0037]-[0039] & [0043]),
Witlicki, is silent in regard to:
wherein the polarity of the switch box is actively controlled.
However, Hamilton, further teaches:
wherein the polarity of the switch box is actively controlled (Disclosed in combination: Hamilton: Figs. 1 & 10; [Col. 10, ll. 4-45], [Col. 12, ll. 27-67], [Col. 13, ll. 1-67], [Col. 14, ll. 1-23] & [Claim 15]: discloses a system that actively controls the interpretation of signal polarity, the circuitry (rectifiers, translators, decoders) constitutes the “switch box”; Berkhahn: [Abstract], [0014], [0017]-[0019], [0025] & [0063]-[0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the combined method of Witlicki, Hamilton, and Berkhahn such that the polarity of the switch box is actively controlled. Berkhahn teaches a polarity-reversing switch that is actively triggered by system logic (e.g., fault detection means). Applying this switch to the combined test assembly to multiplex the signals of Hamilton’s paired sensors through Witlicki’s single egress, would be predictably necessary for the external controller to actively control the switch box. In order to improve, by modifying the test assembly for a gas turbine of Witlicki that has an external controller for monitoring, incorporating the signal processing and polarity control of Hamilton/Berkhahn into the test engine environment and control of Witlicki. To enhance the data collection system to dictate when the switch toggles, ensuring synchronized, accurate sampling of both the first and second sensors without requiring manual human intervention during the hazardous gas turbine test, being able to perform more complex determinations, discerning the rotational direction of engine components, and using polarity decoding techniques, according to known methods, with a predictable combination of known elements to achieve a design function, and yield predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 19, Witlicki, teaches:
The method of claim 11 (Fig. 1; [0003], [0023], [0033], [0035], [0037]-[0039] & [0043]), wherein the test assembly is a test gas turbine engine (Fig. 1; [0002]-[0003], [0005], [0031] & [0033]: Title: “Instrumental Adaptor for a Gas Turbine Engine”).
Regarding dependent claim 21, Witlicki, teaches:
The test assembly of claim 1 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0002]-[0004], & [0036]-[0038]),
Witlicki, in combination with Hamilton, are silent in regard to:
wherein reversing positive/negative lead connections between the first sensor and a controller and reversing positive/negative lead connections between the second sensor in the pair of sensors is comprises altering an electrical state of switches within one of the controller and the polarity switch.
However, Berkhahn, further teaches:
wherein reversing positive/negative lead connections between the first sensor and a controller and reversing positive/negative lead connections between the second sensor in the pair of sensors ([Abstract], [0014], [0017]-[0019], [0025] & [0063]-[0064]: provides the functional step and structure for reversing the polarity of the transmission leads) is comprises altering an electrical state of switches within one of the controller and the polarity switch ([Abstract], [0014], [0017]-[0019], [0025] & [0063]-[0064]: teaches that the cross-connection (reversal) occurs within the “fault protection means”, which maps to the polarity switch, where altering the internal electrical pathway to cross-connect the lines constitutes physically switching a connection within that polarity switch box).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the combined test assembly of Witlicki, Hamilton, and Berkhahn such that reversing the lead connections comprises physically switching a connection within the polarity switch. Berkhahn teaches a fault protection circuit (polarity switch) that cross-connects and reverse the polarity of the transmission lines. It is a well-known, standard engineering practice to implement this type of cross-connection logic using physical switching components (such as electromechanical relays) located internally within the switch unit. The motivation for utilizing a physical switch within the polarity switch box is to provide a robust, reliable electrical routing mechanism that can physically isolate and swap the sensor signal pathways before they reach the external controller, according to known methods, and yield predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 22, Witlicki, teaches:
The test assembly of claim 1 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0002]-[0004], & [0036]-[0038]),
Witlicki, in combination with Hamilton, are silent in regard to:
wherein reversing positive/negative lead connections between the first sensor and a controller and reversing positive/negative lead connections between the second sensor in the pair of sensors is comprises altering an electrical state of switches within one of the controller and the polarity switch.
However, Berkhahn, further teaches:
wherein reversing positive/negative lead connections between the first sensor and a controller and reversing positive/negative lead connections between the second sensor in the pair of sensors ([Abstract], [0014], [0017]-[0019], [0025] & [0063]-[0064]) is comprises altering an electrical state of switches within one of the controller and the polarity switch ([Abstract], [0014], [0017]-[0019], [0025] & [0063]-[0064]: teaches that the reversal logic occurs within the fault protection means (polarity switch), where the system logic inherently alters the electrical state of the internal switches (e.g., charging them from an “open/off” state to a “closed/on” state via an applied control voltage) to reroute the signal pathway).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the combined test assembly of Witlicki, Hamilton, and Berkhahn such that reversing the lead connections comprises altering an electrical state of the switches within the polarity switch. Berkhahn teaches a fault protection circuit (polarity switch) that actively cross-connects and reverses the polarity of the transmission lines. It is an inherent and well-known engineering principle that automated electronic circuits configured to selectively cross-connect signal pathways utilize internal switching elements (such as solid-state transistors or logic gates). Applying Berkhahn’s cross-connection logic predictably requires altering the electrical state of these internal switches (e.g., biasing a transistor to a closed state) with the polarity switch box to successfully execute the reversal of the sensor lead connections, according to known methods, and yield predictable results (KSR).
Claims 5-6 & 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witlicki, in view of Hamilton, in view of Xiantu (CN 104716631 B, Pub. Date Jun. 17, 2015, hereinafter Xiantu), and further in view of Berkhahn.
Regarding dependent claim 5, Witlicki, teaches:
The test assembly of claim 4 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0002]-[0004], [0023], [0026], & [0033]-[0038]),
Witlicki, in combination with Hamilton, are silent in regard to:
wherein the flow circuit comprises at least a first diode connected to the first sensor in the pair of sensors, and a second diode connected to the second sensor in the pair of sensors.
However, Xiantu, further teaches:
wherein the flow circuit comprises at least a first diode connected to the first sensor in the pair of sensors (Figs. 1 & 3; [0031]-[0032] & [0035]: teaches a flow circuit with this configuration, a current sampling circuit (“flow circuit”) with a first sensor (sampling node Nu) and a second sensor (sampling node Nv), a first diode D1 is connected to the first sensor, and a second diode D2 is connected to the second sensor), and a second diode connected to the second sensor in the pair of sensors (Figs. 1 & 3; [0031]-[0032] & [0035]:; teaches the flow circuit comprising a second diode D2 connected to a second sensor/sampling node Nv).
PNG
media_image4.png
980
1252
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
754
781
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the flow circuit using the specific diode-based sampling branch architecture, comprising at least a first diode connected to the first sensor and a second diode connected to the second sensor, of Xiantu to Witlicki and Hamilton. The motivation for this combination is to isolate and multiplex sensor signals as taught by Xiantu, where the diodes prevent reverse current/signal interferences when tracking maximum signal values, before routing them through the space-constrained egress of Witlicki. In order to improve, by implementing the multi-channel current sampling circuit (“flow circuit”) sensor of Xiantu inside the test assembly of Witlicki, incorporating the method of passing leads though the single egress as taught by Witlicki, connected the specific sensor circuitry of Xiantu to an external controller of Witlicki, maximizing the sensing abilities of the sensors, by integrating a known sensor circuit into a known test environment, and yielding predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Witlicki, teaches:
The test assembly of claim 5 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0002]-[0004], [0023], & [0033]-[0038]),
Witlicki and Hamilton, are silent in regard to:
wherein a cathode of the first diode is connected to an anode of the second diode at a node, and wherein the node is connected to the flow circuit output.
However, Xiantu, further teaches:
wherein a cathode of the first diode is connected to an anode of the second diode at a node (Fig. 4; illustrates a first diode D5 and a second diode D4, the cathode of D5 is connected to node U, and the anode of D4 is also connected to node U, therefore, the cathode of the first diode is connected to the anode of the second diode at the node U, structure is also present for diodes D7/D6 and node V and diodes D9/D8 at node W), and wherein the node is connected to the flow circuit output (Fig. 4; [0004]-[0005], [0011]-[0012], & [0042]: teaches that the node where the diodes are connected (node U) is the output of the circuit that controls current flow to the motor, analogous to the claimed “flow circuit output”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate a cathode of the first diode connected to an anode of the second diode at a node, and wherein the node is connected to the flow circuit output, of Xiantu to Witlicki and Hamilton. The motivation to combine the inverter bridge of Xiantu with the sensor assemblies of Witlicki and Hamilton, would provide a robust, standardized switching and routing architecture capable of handling fluctuating electrical flows within the test assembly’s controller systems. Improving, by applying the well-known freewheeling diode configuration from the power electronics art, as taught by Xiantu, to the output of the sensor circuit of Hamilton, and the test assembly of Witlicki to provide standard and necessary circuit protection, such as managing current from inductive loads, with a predictable combination of known elements to interface sensor outputs with other electronics to achieve a desired function, and yielding predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 14, Witlicki, teaches:
The method of claim 11 (Fig. 1; [0003], [0023], [0033], [0037]-[0039] & [0043]),
Witlicki and Hamilton, are silent in regard to:
wherein the flow circuit comprises at least a first diode connected to the first sensor and a second diode connected to the second sensor.
However, Xiantu, further teaches:
wherein the flow circuit comprises at least a first diode connected to the first sensor and a second diode connected to the second sensor (Figs. 1 & 3; [0031-[0032] & [0035]: teaches a flow circuit with this configuration, a current sampling circuit (“flow circuit”) with a first sensor (sampling node Nu) and a second sensor (sampling node Nv), a first diode D1 is connected to the first sensor, and a second diode D2 is connected to the second sensor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the flow circuit using the specific-diode based sampling architecture, comprising at least a first diode connected to the first sensor and a second diode connected to the second sensor, of Xiantu to Witlicki and Hamilton. The motivation for this combination is to isolate and multiplex the sequential electrical signals from multiple sensor signals. In order to improve, by implementing the multi-channel current sampling circuit (“flow circuit”) sensor of Xiantu inside the test assembly of Witlicki, incorporating the method of passing leads though the single egress as taught by Witlicki, connected the specific sensor circuitry of Xiantu to an external controller of Witlicki, maximizing the sensing abilities of the sensors, according to known methods, by integrating a known sensor circuit into a known test environment, and yielding predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 15, Witlicki, teaches:
The method of claim 14 (Fig. 1; [0003], [0023], [0033], [0037]-[0039] & [0043]),
Witlicki and Hamilton, are silent in regard to:
wherein a cathode of the first diode is connected to an anode of the second diode at a node, and wherein the node is connected to the flow circuit output.
However, Xiantu, further teaches:
wherein a cathode of the first diode is connected to an anode of the second diode at a node (Fig. 4; illustrates a first diode D5 and a second diode D4, the cathode of D5 is connected to node U, and the anode of D4 is also connected to node U, therefore, the cathode of the first diode is connected to the anode of the second diode at the node U, structure is also present for diodes D7/D6 and node V and diodes D9/D8 at node W), and wherein the node is connected to the flow circuit output (Fig. 4; [0004]-[0005], [0011]-[0012], & [0042]: teaches that the node where the diodes are connected (node U) is the output of the circuit that controls current flow to the motor, analogous to the claimed “flow circuit output”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate a cathode of the first diode connected to an anode of the second diode at a node, and wherein the node is connected to the flow circuit output, of Xiantu to Witlicki and Hamilton, in order to improve, by applying the well-known freewheeling diode configuration from the power electronics art, as taught by Xiantu, to the output of the sensor circuit of Hamilton, and the test assembly of Witlicki, to provide standard and necessary circuit protection, such as managing current from inductive loads, according to known methods, with a predictable combination of known elements to interface sensor outputs with other electronics to achieve a desired function, and yielding predictable results (KSR).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witlicki, in view of Hamilton, in view of Ertas et al. (US 2024013370 A1, Fil. Date Oct. 24, 2022, hereinafter Ertas), and further in view of Berkhahn.
Regarding dependent claim 9, Witlicki, teaches:
The test assembly of claim 8 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0002]-[0004], & [0036]-[0038]),
Witlicki, in combination with Hamilton, are silent in regard to:
wherein each sensor in the at least one pair of sensors is a strain gauge.
However, Ertas, further teaches:
wherein each sensor in the at least one pair of sensors is a strain gauge (Fig. 3; [0019], [0039], [0067], [0087], [0098], [Claim 17] & [Claim 18]: teaches a monitoring apparatus that uses a pair of sensors, which may be strain gauges).
PNG
media_image6.png
813
813
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify and incorporate wherein each sensor in the at least one pair of sensors is a strain gauge, of Ertas to Witlicki and Hamilton, so that paired sensors are strain gauges, as motivated by Ertas. Ertas teaches the necessity of monitoring fatigue cycles and pressure amplitudes on gas turbine components. In order to improve, by modifying the test assembly of Witlicki, incorporating a seal monitoring apparatus for a turbine engine that uses a pair of sensors and further teaches that these sensors may be strain gauges of Ertas, to enhance and provide Witlicki’s test setup the capability to accurately measure internal parameters, such as strain gauges, a common need in engine testing, according to known methods, with a predictable combination of known elements to achieve a desired function of monitoring an internal engine component, and yielding predictable results (KSR).
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witlicki, in view of Hamilton, and further in view of Xiantu.
Regarding independent claim 20, Witlicki, teaches:
A multi sensor instrumentation lead structure comprising (Fig. 1; [0003], [0023], [0033], [0037]-0039] & [0043]) :
Witlicki, is silent in regard to:
a flow circuit having a first input configured to receive a positive output signal of a first sensor, a second input configured to receive a negative output circuit of a second sensor, and an output configured to output a single sensor signal from the input to a controller through a polarity switch box;
the polarity switch box being configured to reverse a polarity of a connection to
the controller; and
wherein the polarity switch box is configured to be controlled by the controller; and
However, Hamilton, further teaches:
a flow circuit having a first input configured to receive a positive output signal of a first sensor, a second input configured to receive a negative output circuit of a second sensor (Figs. 1 & 8-11; [Col. 9, ll. 40-67], [Col. 10, ll. 4-45], [Col. 12, ll. 26-67], [Col. 13, ll. 1-67], [Col. 14, ll. 1-23] & [Claim 15]: discloses a “flow circuit” (signal processing circuitry) that receives the positive pulse/signal from the first sensor 60 and receives the negative signal output from the second sensor 61), and an output configured to output a single sensor signal from the input to a controller through a polarity switch box ([Col. 9, ll. 40-67], [Col. 10, ll. 1-45], [Col. 12, ll. 26-67], [Col. 13, ll. 1-67], [Col. 14, Claim 1, ll. 48-67] & [Claim 15]: teaches outputting the converted signals sequentially (single at a time) a sensor providing a single stream to a polarity switch (rectifier));
the polarity switch box being configured to reverse a polarity (Figs. 10 & 11; [Col. 12, ll. 27-67], [Col. 13, ll. 1-67] & [Col. 14, ll. 1-23]: teaches a rectifier (“polarity switch box”) that reverses the polarity of the negative pulses in the signal) of a connection to the controller (Figs. 1 & 10; [Col. 9, ll. 40-67], [Col. 10, ll. 1-45], [Col. 12, ll. 26-67], [Col. 13, ll. 1-67], [Col. 14, ll. 1-23] & [Claim 15]: discloses a system that actively controls the interpretation of signal polarity, the circuitry (rectifiers, translators, decoders) constitutes the “switch box”, and is connected to decoding circuitry (controller)); and
wherein the polarity switch box is configured to be controlled by the controller (Figs. 1 & 10; [Col. 9, ll. 40-67], [Col. 10, ll. 1-45], [Col. 12, ll. 26-67], [Col. 13, ll. 1-67], [Col. 14, ll. 1-23], & [Col. 17, Claim 15, ll. 40-63]: teaches that the polarity information processed by the switch is actively interpreted by decoding circuitry (controller), discloses a system that actively controls the interpretation of signal polarity, the circuitry (rectifiers, translators, decoders) constitutes the “switch box”); and
PNG
media_image7.png
548
831
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate a flow circuit having a first input configured to receive a positive output signal of a first sensor, a second input configured to receive a negative output circuit of a second sensor, and an output configured to output a single sensor signal from the input to a controller through a polarity switch box, the polarity switch box being configured to reverse a polarity of a connection to the controller, and the polarity switch box configured to be controlled by the controller, of Hamilton to Witlicki. In order to improve, by modifying the test assembly for a gas turbine of Witlicki that has multiple sensor leads from a gas turbine routed to an external controller for monitoring, incorporating the signal processing and polarity control from multiple sensors to determine parameters like direction of Hamilton, into the test engine environment and control of Witlicki, to enhance being able to perform more complex determinations, discerning the rotational direction of engine components, using polarity decoding techniques, according to known methods, with a predictable combination of known elements to achieve a design function, and yield predictable results (KSR).
Witlicki and Hamilton, are silent in regard to:
wherein the flow circuit comprises at least a first diode and a second diode, a cathode of the first diode being configured to be connected to an anode of the second diode at a node, and wherein the node is connected to the flow circuit output.
However, Xiantu, further teaches:
wherein the flow circuit comprises at least a first diode and a second diode (Figs. 1 & 3-4; [0031-[0035]: teaches a flow circuit with this configuration, a current sampling circuit (“flow circuit”) with a first sensor (sampling node Nu) and a second sensor (sampling node Nv), a first diode D1 is connected to the first sensor, and a second diode D2 is connected to the second sensor), a cathode of the first diode being configured to be connected to an anode of the second diode at a node (Fig. 4; illustrates a first diode D5 and a second diode D4, the cathode of D5 is connected to node U, and the anode of D4 is also connected to node U, therefore, the cathode of the first diode is connected to the anode of the second diode at the node U, structure is also present for diodes D7/D6 and node V and diodes D9/D8 at node W), and wherein the node is connected to the flow circuit output (Fig. 4; [0004]-[0005], [0011]-[0012], & [0042]: teaches that the node where the diodes are connected (node U) is the output of the circuit that controls current flow to the motor, analogous to the claimed “flow circuit output”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the flow circuit comprising at least a first diode and a second diode, a cathode of the first diode being configured to be connected to an anode of the second diode at a node, and the node connected to the flow circuit output, of Xiantu to Witlicki and Hamilton. In order to improve, by implementing the multi-channel current sampling circuit (“flow circuit”) sensor of Xiantu inside the test assembly of Witlicki, incorporating the method of passing leads though the single egress as taught by Witlicki, to the output of the sensor circuit of Hamilton, connected the specific sensor circuitry of Xiantu to an external controller of Witlicki. By applying the well-known freewheeling diode configuration from the power electronics art, as taught by Xiantu, to the output of the sensor circuit of Hamilton, and the test assembly of Witlicki, to enhance maximizing the sensing abilities of the sensors, provide standard and necessary circuit protection, such as managing current from inductive loads, according to known methods, by integrating a known sensor circuit into a known test environment and combining known elements to interface sensor outputs with other electronics to achieve a desired function, and yield predictable results (KSR).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Goldberg et al. (US2005/0185643A1) discloses fast rerouting of traffic in a circuit switched mesh network. Roux et al. (US2005/0065669A1) discloses aircraft equipment control system.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUGO NAVARRO whose telephone number is (571)272-6122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 08:30-5:00 pm EST.
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/HUGO NAVARRO/Examiner, Art Unit 2858 March 22, 2026
/EMAN A ALKAFAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 3/31/2026