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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on June 8, 2023, January 29, 2025, and 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 6, 2026, has been entered.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed July 6, 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, 5, 7, 11, & 20-22 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 Final Office Action mailed April 2, 2026, hereafter referred to as the Final Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-13 of Applicant’s remarks, filed July 6, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 11, & 20 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Schneider et al. (US 2023/0206942A1, hereinafter, Berkhahn), and further in view of Kamel et al. (US 2014/0297210 A1, hereinafter, Kamel).
In response to applicant's argument(s), with respect to the rejection of amended independent claim 1 under U.S.C. § 103, that prior art references Witlicki et al. (US 2017/0138270 A1, hereinafter Witlicki), in view of Hamilton et al. (US 6604434 B1, hereinafter, Hamilton), and further in view of Berkhahn et al. (US 2012/0278656 A1, hereinafter, Berkhahn), and similarly amended independent claim 20 under U.S.C. § 103, that prior art references Witlicki, in view of Hamilton, and further in view of Xiantu (CN 104716631 B, hereinafter, Xiantu), as cited by the Applicant, fail to teach, show, or disclose, individually or in combination, the similar amendments to independent claims 1 & 20, “such that the first output of the first sensor is provided to a controller by operating the polarity switch in a first polarity and the second output of the second sensor is provided to the controller by operating a polarity switch in a second polarity”.
In light of the amendments in independent claim 1, new ground(s) of rejection(s) is/are made over Witlicki, in view of Hamilton, in view of Berkhahn, in view of Schneider, and further in view of Kamel, and in light of the amendments in independent claim 20, new ground(s) of rejection(s) is/are made over Witlicki, in view of Hamilton, in view of Kamel, and further, in view of Xiantu. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s contentions that Witlicki, in view of Hamilton, in view of Berkhahn, and now in light of new prior art references, Schneider, Kamel, and Xiantu fail to disclose, teach, and/or suggest individually or in combination, the above stated amendment(s) in independent claims 1 & 20. Witlicki, in view of Hamilton, in view of Berkhahn, in view of Schneider, and further in view of Kamel, and Xiantu, further disclose the additional limitations that have been amended and included in independent claims 1 & 20, and meet these requirements.
Applicant argues that the polarity switch of Berkhahn is linked to a sequential daisy-chain network for fault detection, and that incorporating such a system to alternate between sensor readings would result in false fault indications, thereby destroying the intended purpose of the system and further states that a POSITA would not be motivated to incorporate Berkhahn’s switch by passing configuration into a sensor multiplexing system, see pp. 9-13 of Applicant remarks.
In response, the updated combination relies on Kamel, which discloses a polarity switch configured to reverse positive and negative lead connections for sensor measurement circuits. Kamel teaches a polarity correction device comprising a latching double-pole double-throw (DPDT) switch wired for polarity-reversal (connecting the second throw of the switch to the first throw of the second switch, etc.) situated between a sensor and an analog-to-digital controller module. Kamel’s polarity switch is utilized directly on sensor measurement lines and is controlled by a controller module. Further, Kamel’s switching mechanism does not rely on, nor is it tied to, the sequential daisy-chain logic of Berkhahn.
In response to the motivation, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference, nor whether the primary reference would be rendered inoperative for its originally intended purpose by such incorporation. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. Please see MPEP 2145 and see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413.
Further, Hamilton discloses a flow circuit configured to pass a first sensor signal when forward-biased and a second sensor signal when reverse-biased. Kamel provides the electromechanical structure, an actively controlled DPDT polarity-reversing switch, to physically execute that reversal on a sensor line. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to utilize the DPDT sensor polarity switch of Kamel to toggle the polarity of the sensor lines feeding Hamilton’s flow circuit. The motivation is to prove an external controller the ability to multiplex between the first and second sensors through Witlicki’s instrumentation egress. Kamel’s switch is designed for sensor signal routing and utilizing it to toggle between Hamilton’s sensors would not generate the “false… faults” as described by the arguments on pg. 11, and a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in implementing this known switching technique.
Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are unconvincing and the rejections of amended independent claims 1 & 20, and dependent claims 3, 5-10, & 21-22, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of amended independent claims 1 & 20, are respectively maintained. Rejections based on the newly cited prior art reference follow.
In response to applicant's argument(s), with respect to the rejection of amended independent claim 11 under U.S.C. § 103, that prior art references Witlicki, in view of Hamilton, and further in view of Berkhahn, as cited by the Applicant, fail to teach, show, or disclose, individually or in combination, the amendments(similar to independent claims 1 & 20) to independent claims 11, “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 a polarity switch box in a second polarity”.
In light of the amendments in independent claim 11, new ground(s) of rejection(s) is/are made over Witlicki, in view of Hamilton, in view of Berkhahn, and further in view of Kamel. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s contentions that Witlicki, in view of Hamilton, in view of Berkhahn, and now in light of new prior art reference, Kamel, fails to disclose, teach, and/or suggest individually or in combination, the above stated amendment(s) in independent claim 11. Witlicki, in view of Hamilton, in view of Berkhahn, and further in view of Kamel, further disclose the additional limitations that have been amended and included in independent claims 11, and meet these requirements.
Applicant argues the exact same traverse for this method claim as they did for the apparatus claim, that the polarity switch of Berkhahn is linked to a sequential daisy-chain network for fault detection, and that incorporating such a system to alternate between sensor readings would result in false fault indications, thereby destroying the intended purpose of the system and further states that a POSITA would not be motivated to incorporate Berkhahn’s switch by passing configuration into a sensor multiplexing system, see pp. 9-13 of Applicant remarks. Please see above reasoning and explanations provided for arguments presented for independent claim 11.
Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are unconvincing and the rejections of amended independent claim 11, and dependent claims 12-19, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of amended independent claim 11, are respectively maintained. Rejections based on the newly cited prior art references follow below.
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, 5-10, 11-19, & 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "toggle a polarity of the pair of sensors…” in line 14 and “between the second sensor in the pair of sensors” in ll. 16-17, without prior disclosure of “the pair of sensors”, resulting in a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets “the pair of sensors” as “the at least one pair of sensors in the plurality of sensors” disclosed in claim 1. Claims 3, 5-10, & 21-22, which do not rectify the defect, are also rejected by virtue of dependency on independent claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "wherein each sensor in the pair of sensors" in ll. 1-2, without prior disclosure of “the pair of sensors”, resulting in a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets “the pair of sensors” as “a pair of sensors”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "and reversing positive/negative lead connections between the second sensor in the pair of sensors" in ll. 17-18, without prior disclosure of “the pair of sensors”, resulting in a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets “the pair of sensors” as “multiple sensor outputs” disclosed in claim 11. Further, claim 11 recites the limitation ”connected to the controller via a polarity switch” in line 14, where “a polarity switch” was previously disclosed in line 5. The repeated recitation of “a polarity switch” introduces indefiniteness for this claim. For examination purposes, examiner interprets the second recitation to refer to “connected to the controller via the polarity switch.” Claims 12-19, which do not rectify the defect, are also rejected by virtue of dependency on independent claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 7-8, 10, & 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), in view of Berkhahn et al. (US 2012/0278656 A1, Pub. Date Nov. 1, 2012, hereinafter Berkhahn), in view of Schneider et al. (US 2023/0206942 A1, Fil. Date Dec. 22, 2022, hereinafter, Schneider), and further in view of Kamel et al. (US 2014/0297210 A1, Pub. Date Oct. 2, 2014, hereinafter, Kamel).
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]);
The Examiner is combining Witlicki in view of Schneider by implementing Schneider’s teaching a plurality of sensors actively disposed in a mobile vehicle diagnostic test device serving as test assemblies ([0050]-[0051], [0071]-[0072], [0097]-[0098], [0118]-[00119], [0130]-[0132], [0134]-[0136], [0142], [0144], [0146], [0149]-[0150]-[0151], [0153]-[0154], [0157]-[0158], [0268], [0283], & [0298]).
a plurality of sensors disposed through the test assembly (Fig. 1; [0002]-[0004], [0008], [0021], [0023], [0025], [0033], [0037] & [0039]-[0040]: teaches two sensor leads passing through one egress, meaning sensors outnumber egresses), wherein a number of sensors in the plurality of sensors exceeds a 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);
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]: routing two separate leads through a single physical egress hole structuralizes at least one pair of sensors sharing an egress);
The Examiner is combining Witlicki in view of Schneider by implementing Schneider’s data collected to be transmitted for subsequent analysis ([0251]).
an output of the flow circuit is passed through a single corresponding instrumentation egress to a controller ([0003], [0031], & [0033]-[0039]: output leads successfully exit the single shared instrumentation egress and route to an external controller device for data analysis);
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 incorporate the diagnostic computing framework of Schneider into Witlicki to tach an output being passed to a controller from a plurality of sensors disposed through the test assembly. Schneider teaches a mobile vehicle diagnostic device (MVDD) acting as a test assembly equipped with a plurality of sensors that transmits acquired signals to at least one remove computing device acting as a controller. The motivation for this combination is to improve analytical efficiency and accuracy by utilizing an external high-capacity computing controller to process complex sensor data remotely rather than relying on limited onboard processing. This represents a substitution of a known technique to improve similar devices, as integrating Schneider’s remote controller architecture into Witlicki’s engine test assembly expands data diagnostic capabilities. The resulting combination yields the predictable variation of a distributed test assembly where multiple sensor signals are routed to an advanced external controller for comprehensive defect evaluation (KSR).
PNG
media_image1.png
539
779
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 is 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) connected into an electrical conversion (flow) circuit, Figs. 8, 9 & 10 further illustrate sensors 60/61 with positive and negative output terminals),
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
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 Witlicki by incorporating the flow circuit of Hamilton that details a positive output terminal of a first sensor 60 and a negative output terminal of a second sensor 61 connected to a flow circuit configured to pass a single sensor value at a time (90/94). The motivation for doing so is to efficiently process and multiplex alternating signals from multiple sensors sharing a confined physical space without signal collision. This modification represents a substitution of a known technique to improve similar devices, as applying Hamilton’s sequential flow circuit to Witlicki’s shared egress test assembly allows distinct analog readings to be safely multiplexed. This combination yields the predictable variation of routing multiple distinct signals through a single constrained instrumentation egress using sequential time-based processing (KSR).
Witlicki, and 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 the controller and reversing positive/negative lead connections between the second sensor in the pair of sensors such that the first output of the first sensor is provided to a controller by operating the polarity switch in a first polarity and the second output of the second sensor is provided to the controller by operating a polarity switch in a second polarity.
However, Kamel, further teaches:
The Examiner is combining Witlicki and Hamilton in view of Kamel and Berkhahn, supplementing Berkhahn’s cross-connection methodology ([Abstract], [0014], [0017]-[0021], [0025], [0028]-[0029], [0063]-[0064], & [0074]-[0076]: discloses a circuit mechanism capable of toggling/reversing the polarity of transmission lines).
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 the controller and reversing positive/negative lead connections between the second sensor in the pair of sensors ([0029] & [0035]-[0041]: provides a polarity correction switch physically wired to reverse positive and negative lead connections entirely independent of network fault logic)
The Examiner is combining Witlicki and Hamilton in view of Kamel, implementing Hamilton’s forward-biased sensor data that passes to the controller ([Col. 4, ll. 39-59] & [Claim 15]).
such that the first output of the first sensor is provided to a controller by operating the polarity switch in a first polarity and the second output of the second sensor is provided to the controller by operating a polarity switch in a second polarity ([0006], [0029], [0035]-[0041], [0056], [0121], [Claim 2], [Claim 9], [Claim 12], [Claim 14], & [Claim 20]: by actively operating Kamel’s DPDT switch to a first polarity state, Hamilton’s forward-biased sensor data passes to the controller; toggling to a second reversed polarity state allows the reverse-biased second sensor data to pass).
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 test assembly of Witlicki and Hamilton by incorporating the polarity switch of Kamel and Berkhahn to detail the output being connected to the controller via a polarity switch configured to toggle a polarity between a first and second polarity by reversing positive/negative lead connections. Kamel teaches a polarity correction device 304 comprising a latching double pole double throw switch 400 wired for polarity-reversal by reversing positive and negative connections, while Berkhahn teaches cross-connecting logic to reverse polarity. The motivation for this addition is to dynamically manage signal routing from multiple sensors and remotely correct wiring faults without requiring physical access to manually rewire the leads. By applying this known technique to improve similar devices, a POSITA could easily integrate Kamel’s polarity-reversing switch 400 between the flow circuit and the controller to selectively toggle the sensor inputs. This results in the predictable variation of an actively multiplexed data acquisition system where the first output of the first sensor is provided in a first polarity and the second output of the second sensor is provided in a second polarity 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]: establishes a gas turbine engine as the foundational test assembly),
is disposed within a gas turbine engine core (Fig. 1; [0021], [0031]-[0033], [0035]-[0036], & [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 rectifying circuitry used for receiving and interpreting (processing and combine) signals from the paired 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 modify the gas turbine test assembly of Witlicki by disposing the flow circuit of Hamilton within the gas turbine engine core. Witlicki teaches placing instrumentation within internal pressurized compartments 38 of a gas turbine engine core, while Hamilton provides a flow circuit (first and second rectifiers) to sequentially process signals from paired sensors (60/61). By combining these teachings, the flow circuit is physically disposed within the internal gas turbine engine core adjacent to the sensors such that their multiple signals are processed prior to exiting the single shared instrumentation egress 37. The motivation for this modification is to improve spatial efficiency and reduce wiring complexity by consolidating multiple data streams into a single output line directly at the measurement site inside the space-constrained engine compartment. This combination represents the substitution of a known technique to improve similar devices, positioning a multiplexing flow circuit internally near the sensors is a standard electrical engineering practice that yields the predictable variation of minimizing the physical wire count passing through the engine casing, making efficient use of the limited space, and yielding predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Witlicki, teaches:
The test assembly of claim 1 (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:
The Examiner is combining Witlicki and Hamilton in view of Kamel, implementing Kamel’s switch that connects the circuit in the first polarity and the first sensor’s current is forward-biased and passes through the first rectifier of Hamilton and when Kamel’s switch is toggled to the second (reversed) polarity, the first rectifier becomes reverse-biased ([0029] & [0035]-[0041]).
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. When Kamel’s switch connects the circuit in the first polarity, the first sensor’s current is forward-biased and passes through the first rectifier) 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). When Kamel’s switch is toggled to the second (reversed) polarity, the first rectifier becomes reverse-biased (blocking the first sensor), and Hamilton’s second rectifier becomes forward-biased, allowing the current from the second sensor/circuit to pass).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the gas turbine test assembly of Witlicki with the rectifying flow circuit of Hamilton and the polarity reversing switch of Kamel to teach the flow circuit configured to allow a current from the first sensor to pass while connected in a first polarity and to allow a current from the second circuit to pass while connected in the second polarity. Witlicki teaches an engine test assembly, while Hamilton discloses a flow circuit comprising rectifiers that inherently pass forward-biased current, and Kamel discloses a DPDT switch that reverses lead polarity. By combining these teachings, a POSITA would utilize Kamel’s switch to actively toggle the polarity of Hamilton’s rectifying flow circuit, meaning the first rectifier allows current from the first sensor to pass in the first polarity, and the second rectifier allows current from the second sensor/circuit to pass in the reversed second polarity. The motivation for this modification is to improve signal isolation efficiency by using directional circuitry to selectively multiplex distinct sensor feeds on a shared line without electrical interference or signal collision. This represents a substitution of a known technique to improve similar devices, yielding the predictable variation of a flow circuit that acts as a directional gate governed by the active polarity state, 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 (60 and 61) 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, designed to detect magnetic flux polarity, 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 modify the gas turbine test assembly of Witlicki by utilizing the paired sensor configuration of Hamilton to teach wherein each sensor in the at least one pair of sensors is a shared type of sensor. Witlicki teaches passing leads from multiple sensors through a shared instrumentation egress 37, while Hamilton discloses utilizing a pair of sensors (60/61) that are of a shared type, such as two “Wiegand” wires capable of detecting magnetic flux. By combining these teachings, a POSITA would configure the test assembly such that the first and second sensors sharing the egress are identical in type and function. This combination represents a substitution of a known technique to improve similar devices. 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:
The Examiner is combining Witlicki and Hamilton in view of Kamel, implementing Kamel’s teachings of measurement devices/sensors, such as analog current sensors and current transformers, that actively generate a single “reduced current” output corresponding to the parameter being measured, which is passed to the downstream circuitry ([0008]-[0009], [0020], [0031]-[0036], [0038]-[0041], [0111], [0115], & [0119]).
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 structural arrangement, 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 modify the combined test assembly of Witlicki and Hamilton by utilizing sensors that provide a single current output, as taught by Kamel. Hamilton teaches the use of at least one pair of sensors (60/61) to detect changing conditions, while Kamel teaches that measurement devices 330 can be configured as analog current sensors or current transformers that produce a single “reduced current” output representing the measured condition. The motivation for implementing sensors with a single current output is to improve signal reliability over long transmission lead wires, as current-based signals are resistant to voltage drops and electromagnetic interference found within heavy machinery and engine testing environments. This combination constitutes the substitution of a known technique to improve similar devices, replacing Hamilton’s magnetic pulse sensors with Kamel’s standard current-output sensors to yield the predictable variation of an accurate, noise-immune multiplexed sensor assembly, according to known methods with a predictable combination of known elements to achieve a desired function, and yield predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 21, Witlicki, teaches:
The test assembly of claim 1 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0002]-[0004], & [0036]-[0038]),
Witlicki, is silent in regard to:
wherein reversing positive/negative lead connections between the first sensor and the controller and reversing positive/negative lead connections between the second sensor in the pair of sensors comprises physically switching a connection, wherein the connection is within one of the controller and the polarity switch.
However, Kamel, further teaches:
wherein reversing positive/negative lead connections between the first sensor and the controller and reversing positive/negative lead connections between the second sensor in the pair of sensors ([0006], [0029], [0035]-[0041], [0056], [0121], [Claim 2], [Claim 9], [Claim 12], [Claim 14], & [Claim 20]: as established earlier, provides the mechanical DPDT switch specifically wired to reverse the positive and negative lead connections between the sensors and the downstream measurement module) comprises physically switching a connection, wherein the connection is within one of the controller and the polarity switch ([0006], [0029], [0035]-[0041], [0055]-[0056], [0076]-[0077], [0121], [Claim 2], [Claim 9], [Claim 12], [Claim 14], & [Claim 20]: teaches that reversing the polarity comprises physically switching a connection by switching the actual physical “contacts to the alternate position”, this physical switching connection (the contacts of switch 400) is located within the polarity switch (the polarity correction device 304)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined test assembly of Witlicki and Hamilton by incorporating the latching switch of Kamel via the substitution of a known technique to improve similar devices. Kamel teaches that reversing the positive and negative lead connections between the first sensor, second sensor, and the controller comprises physically switching a connection, wherein this physical connection is located within the polarity switch (polarity correction device 304 containing switch 400). Operating this double-pole double-throw switch physically alters the contact positions to toggle the active pathway between the sensors of Hamilton’s flow circuit and the external controller. The motivation for utilizing a physical switch within the polarity switch box is the provide robust electrical isolation and a reliable mechanical separation of the signal pathways, minimizing cross-talk and electrical interference during sensitive multiplexed readings. Implementing Kamel’s internal physical switching mechanism to route Hamilton’s alternating sensor signals before they reach the controller through Witlicki’s shared egress yields the predictable variation of a stable noise-resistant data acquisition assembly (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 22, Witlicki, teaches:
The test assembly of claim 1 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0002]-[0004], & [0036]-[0038]),
Witlicki, is silent in regard to:
wherein reversing positive/negative lead connections between the first sensor and the controller and reversing positive/negative lead connections between the second sensor in the pair of sensors comprises altering an electrical state of switches, wherein the switches are within one of the controller and the polarity switch.
However, Kamel, further teaches:
wherein reversing positive/negative lead connections between the first sensor and the controller and reversing positive/negative lead connections between the second sensor in the pair of sensors ([0006], [0028]-[0029], [0035]-[0041], [0056], [0121], [Claim 2], [Claim 9], [Claim 12], [Claim 14], & [Claim 20]: provides the double-pole double-throw (DPDT) switch specifically wired to reverse the positive and negative lead connections between the sensors and the downstream controller module) comprises altering an electrical state of switches, wherein the switches are within one of the controller and the polarity switch ([0006], [0028]-[0029], [0035]-[0041], [0056], [0121], [Claim 2], [Claim 9], [Claim 12], [Claim 14], & [Claim 20]: teaches that the reversal is triggered by a control signal transmitted to the switch 400 which is located within the polarity switch (the polarity correction device 304) and is an inherent principle of electrical engineering that actuating an automated switch via a control signal comprises altering its electrical state (e.g., shifting from an unenergized state to an energized state, or applying a biasing voltage) to physically move the internal contacts).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined test assembly of Witlicki and Hamilton by incorporating the actively controlled switching logic of Kamel such that wherein reversing positive/negative lead connections comprises altering an electrical state of switches located within the polarity switch. Kamel teaches that reversing the sensor lead connections involves a controller module transmitting an electronic control signal to a polarity correction device 304 to alter the electrical state of an internal switch 400, causing its contacts to switch to an alternate position. By modifying the test assembly to utilize Kamel’s electronic control signal mechanism, the system is able to toggle the multiplexed pathways of Hamilton’s first and second sensors (60/61) without manual, mechanical intervention. The motivation for this modification is to improve system reliability and diagnostic efficiency by allowing an automated controller to electronically govern signal routing rather than relying on manual rewiring. Applying this known technique to improve similar devices yields the predictable variation of a fully automated, electromechanically or solid-state switched multiplexing circuit that reads multiple sensors through Witlicki’s single instrumentation egress 37 (KSR).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witlicki, in view of in view of Hamilton, in view of Berkhahn, in view of Schneider, in view of Kamel, and further in view of Xiantu (CN 104716631 B, Pub. Date Jun. 17, 2015, hereinafter, Xiantu).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Witlicki, teaches:
The test assembly of claim 1 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0002]-[0004], [0023], [0026], & [0033]-[0038]),
Witlicki, is 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:
The Examiner is combining Hamilton in view of Xiantu, implementing Hamilton’s flow circuit with a first rectifying element connected to receive signals from the first sensor 60 ([Col. 4, ll. 39-59] & [Claim 15]) applying Xiantu’s diode structure to Hamilton’s rectifiers yields a first diode physically and electrically connected to the first sensor.
wherein the flow circuit comprises at least a first diode connected to the first sensor in the pair of sensors (Figs. 1, 3, & 4; [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, alternatively Fig. 4 further details an electrical flow circuit comprising a first diode D5),
The Examiner is combining Hamilton in view of Xiantu, implementing Hamilton’s second rectifying element receiving signals from the second sensor 61 ([Col. 4, ll. 39-59] & [Claim 15]) incorporating Xiantu’s diode structure, the second rectifier comprises a second diode connected to the second sensor.
and a second diode connected to the second sensor in the pair of sensors (Figs. 1, 3, & 4; [0031]-[0032] & [0035]: teaches the flow circuit comprising a second diode D2 connected to a second sensor/sampling node Nv, alternatively, Fig. 4 further details an electrical flow circuit comprising a second diode D4).
PNG
media_image4.png
980
1252
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
754
781
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
912
726
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the multi-sensor test assembly of Witlicki by incorporating the flow circuit of Hamilton and the specific diode-base 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. Hamilton teaches a flow circuit comprising a first rectifier connected to receive signals from a first sensor 60 and a second rectifier connected to a second sensor 61, while Xiantu provides an electrical flow circuit featuring discrete diode components including a first diode and a second diode. The motivation for this combination is to isolate and multiplex distinct analog 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, while providing directional current control and preventing reverse-voltage damage between the sensor lines. Applying these known techniques to improve similar devices represents a substitution of Xiantu’s standardized discrete diodes into Hamilton’s established rectifying sensor flow pathways. This combination yields the predictable variation of a stable integrated signal routing architecture that safely manages alternating sensor currents using dedicated diode components (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Witlicki, teaches:
The test assembly of claim 5 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0002]-[0004], [0023], & [0033]-[0038]),
Witlicki, is 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 an electrical flow circuit diagram showing the cathode (top triangle point) of the first diode D5 and a second diode D4, the cathode of D5 is physically and electrically connected directly 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),
The Examiner is combining Hamilton in view of Xiantu, implementing Hamilton’s controller that receives the multiplexed sensor signals ([Col. 4, ll. 39-59], [Claim 5], & [Claim 15]).
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,” routing multiplexed sensor signals to the controller in Hamilton).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined test assembly flow circuit of Witlicki and Hamilton by implementing the specific diode topology of Xiantu. This modification teaches 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 (sharing a physical junction at Node U), which functions directly as the output line for that circuit leg. The motivation for this modification is to improve the flow circuit’s electrical reliably by providing robust directional signal routing and reverse-voltage protection for the multiplexed sensor outputs sharing the instrumentation line, and a stable signal routing architecture switching and routing architecture capable of handling fluctuating electrical flows within the test assembly’s controller systems. Applying this known technique to improve similar devices represents a substitution of Xiantu’s standardized diode node structure into Hamilton’s existing rectifying flow circuit, yielding the predictable variation of a stable signal routing architecture (KSR).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witlicki, in view of Hamilton, in view of Hamilton, in view of Berkhahn, in view of Schneider, in view of Kamel, and further in view of Ertas et al. (US 2024013370 A1, Fil. Date Oct. 24, 2022, hereinafter, Ertas).
Regarding dependent claim 9, Witlicki, teaches:
The test assembly of claim 8 (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 strain gauge.
However, Ertas, further teaches:
The Examiner is combining Hamilton in view of Ertas, implementing Hamilton’s structural arrangement of utilizing at least one pair of sensors operating in tandem ([Col. 9, ll. 57-67] & [Col. 10, ll. 1-3]).
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 that the sensors used to monitor forces/pressures in the engine environment can be strain gauges; applying this to Hamilton’s pair of sensors dictates that each sensor is a strain gauge).
PNG
media_image7.png
813
813
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined test assembly of Witlicki and Hamilton by implementing the specific sensor type taught by Ertas as a substitution of a known technique to improve similar devices. Hamilton teaches utilizing at least one pair of sensors (60/61) to monitor conditions within the test assembly, while Ertas teaches that such sensors (152/154) utilized in a turbine engine environment can be a strain gauge. The motivation for selecting a strain gauge as the sensor type is to provide accurate durable measurements capable of withstanding the extreme vibrations, pressures, and dynamic mechanical forces inherently present during gas turbine engine testing. Ertas teaches the necessity of monitoring fatigue cycles and pressure amplitudes on gas turbine components. Applying Ertas’s known strain gauge technology to Hamilton’s paired sensor configuration within Witlicki’s engine test assembly yields the predictable variation of a structurally robust, sensitive diagnostic measurement system capable of detecting minute physical deformations, 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 11-13, & 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witlicki, in view of in view of Hamilton, in view of Berkhahn, and further in view of Kamel.
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]: established the overarching method of a gas turbine test assembly engine where multiple sensor leads pass through a single shared instrumentation egress):
an output of the flow circuit is passed through a single corresponding instrumentation egress to a controller ([0003], [0031], & [0033]-[0039]: the combined output signals exit the single shared instrumentation egress and route to an external controller device for data analysis);
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;
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 a polarity switch box in a second polarity;
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
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 the controller and reversing positive/negative lead connections between the second sensor in the pair of sensors.
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. 4, ll. 39-59], [Col. 12, ll. 27-67], [Col. 13, ll. 1-27], & [Claim 15]: describes the routing step 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) to a converting flow circuit (comprising rectifiers), 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”);
The Examiner is combining Witlicki and Hamilton in view of Kamel and Berkhahn by implementing the output lines of Hamilton’s flow circuit routed into the polarity reversing switch architecture taught by Kamel ([0029] & [0035]-[0041]) and Berkhahn ([Abstract], [0014], [0017]-[0019], [0025] & [0063]-[0064]: discloses a circuit mechanism capable of toggling/reversing the polarity of transmission lines).
providing an output of the flow circuit to a polarity switch ([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. In the combined method, the output lines of Hamilton’s flow circuit are routed into the polarity reversing switch architecture taught by Kamel and Berkhahn);
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 structurally illustrate sensors 60/61 generating positive and negative outputs/signals which are connected to the flow circuitry for conversion);
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 engine of Witlicki by incorporating the sensor flow circuit of Hamilton as a substitution of a known technique to improve similar devices. This combination teaches providing a first output of a first sensor 60 and a second output of a second sensor 61 to a flow circuit within a test assembly, wherein a positive output terminal of the first sensor and a negative output terminal of the second sensor are connected to the flow circuit. Further, Hamilton teaches that the flow circuit is configured to pass a single sensor value at a time. The motivation for this modification is to reduce wiring complexity and improve spatial efficiency by sequentially multiplexing distinct analog signals from multiple sensors over a shared transmission line within the confined engine space. By applying Hamilton’s sequentially processing rectifier circuitry to Witlicki’s paired sensor leads 39 sharing a single egress 37, a POSITA would achieve the predictable variation of routing multiple data streams without requiring additional physical egress points through the engine casing (KSR).
However, Kamel, further teaches:
The Examiner is combining Witlicki and Hamilton in view of Kamel, implementing Hamilton’s forward-biased sensor data that passes to the controller ([Col. 4, ll. 39-59] & [Claim 15]).
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 a polarity switch box in a second polarity ([0006], [0029], [0035]-[0041], [0056], [0121], [Claim 2], [Claim 9], [Claim 12], [Claim 14], & [Claim 20]: by actively operating Kamel’s DPDT switch in a first polarity state, Hamilton’s forward-biased first sensor output passes to the controller; toggling to a second reversed polarity state allows the reverse-biased second sensor output to pass);
The Examiner is combining Witlicki and Hamilton in view of Kamel and Berkhahn, supplementing Berkhahn’s cross-connection methodology ([Abstract], [0014], [0017]-[0021], [0025], [0028]-[0029], [0063]-[0064], & [0074]-[0076]: discloses a circuit mechanism capable of toggling/reversing the polarity of transmission lines).
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 the controller and reversing positive/negative lead connections between the second sensor in the pair of sensors ([0029] & [0035]-[0041]: provides a double-pole double-throw (DPDT) polarity correction switch physically wired to reverse positive and negative lead connections between the sensors and the downstream measurement 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 test assembly of Witlicki and Hamilton by integrating the actively controlled polarity switch of Kamel via the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement. This combination details wherein an output of the flow circuit is passed through a single corresponding instrumentation egress 37 to the controller and is connected to the controller via a polarity switch 400. Kamel teaches a polarity switch being configured to toggle a polarity of the pair of sensors between the first sensor and the controller and reversing positive/negative lead connections between the first sensor and the controller and reversing positive/negative lead connections between the second sensor in the pair of sensors. Furthermore, operating this polarity switch in a first polarity provides a first output of the first sensor 60 to the controller, and operating the polarity switch box in a second polarity provides the second output of the second sensor 61 to the controller by leveraging Hamilton’s forward and reverse-biased flow circuit. The motivation for incorporating Kamel’s double-pole double-throw switch 400 is to provide the external controller with the ability to dynamically manage signal routing and electronically multiplex between the paired sensors without needing to physically access and manually rewire the sensor leads. Utilizing Kamel’s physical polarity-reversing switch 400 to selectively toggle the active sensor inputs yields the predictable variation of an actively multiplexed data acquisition system (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 12, Witlicki, teaches:
The method of claim 11 (Fig. 1; [0003], [0023], [0031], [0033], [0037]-[0039] & [0043]),
The Examiner is combining Witlicki in view of Kamel, implementing Kamel’s polarity switch 400 that is operated by Witlicki’s controller ([0029] & [0035]-[0041]).
wherein the polarity switch is disposed exterior to the test assembly ([0039]: routes the sensor lines out of the test assembly to external controllers to avoid extreme internal heat. Kamel’s polarity switch 400 would be operated by this 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 test assembly method of Witlicki by disposing the polarity switch of Kamel exterior to the test assembly. Witlicki teaches passing sensor leads through an instrumentation egress 37 to a controller or data collection device located outside the test engine 20, while Kamel teaches a polarity switch 400 managed by the system controller. By combining these teachings, the method incorporates the limitation wherein the polarity switch is physically disposed exterior to the test assembly alongside the external controller. The motivation for this modification is to protect the sensitive electronic switching circuitry from thermal degradation caused by the extreme temperatures found within internal engine compartments. This configuration represents a predictable variation of known signal routing techniques, yielding a data collection system where delicate switching hardware is safely housed inside the hazardous test environment (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]: teaches the physical step of passing lead wires through a single instrumentation egress 37 to connect internal components to exterior devices. In the combined method, the lead wire carrying the output of the internal flow circuit must pass through this egress to reach the exterior polarity switch).
Witlicki, is silent in regard to:
wherein providing the output of the flow circuit to the polarity switch
However, Hamilton, further teaches:
The Examiner is combining Witlicki and Hamilton in view of Kamel, implementing Kamel’s exterior polarity-reversing switch to selectively toggle the sensor feeds ([0029] & [0035]-[0041]).
wherein providing the output of the flow circuit to the polarity switch (Figs. 1 & 10; [Col. 4, ll. 39-59], [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; the combined method requires routing the multiplexed output from Hamilton’s internal flow circuit to Kamel’s exterior 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 modify the test assembly method of Witlicki with the flow circuit of Hamilton and the polarity switch of Kamel, such that providing the output of the internal flow circuit to the exterior polarity switch comprises passing a lead through a single instrumentation egress. The combined method dictates that the internal flow circuit of Hamilton must route its multiplexed output signal to the actively controlled polarity switch 400 of Kamel, which is disposed exterior to the test assembly. To physically achieve this signal routing, a POSITA would naturally pass the output lead carrying the flow circuit’s signal through the single instrumentation egress 37 taught by Witlicki to bridge the pressurized internal bearing compartment and the exterior controller environment. The motivation for this modification is to transmit multiplexed internal sensor data to an external data collection system while protecting delicate switching components from extreme internal engine heat. This arrangement represents a predictable variation of known signal routing methodologies, applying established wiring techniques to a known test apparatus to yield the benefit of minimizing penetrations through the engine casing (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:
The Examiner is combining Witlicki and Hamilton in view of Kamel, implementing the controller of Hamilton to actively control the position of the switch in Kamel to alternate the polarity state at least once ([0029] & [0035]-[0041]).
and alternating a polarity of the switch box at least once during the test (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. To successfully multiple and retrieve the distinct signals from the first and second sensors of Hamilton during the active engine test, the controller must actively control the position of the switch in Kamel to alternate the polarity state).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined test assembly method of Witlicki and Hamilton by actively utilizing the polarity switch of Kamel as an application of a known technique to a known method to yield predictable results. The modified method corresponds to operating a test assembly test and alternating a polarity of the switch box at least once during the test by having the external controller change the position of Kamel’s DPDT polarity switch 400 while the gas turbine engine test of Witlicki is running. Witlicki teaches actively operating the gas turbine test assembly to collect real-time data from internal sensors. The motivation for alternating the polarity of the switch during the active test operation is to enable the sequential extraction of data from both the forward-biased first sensor and reverse-biased second sensor taught by Hamilton over the shared egress line. By toggling the polarity switch state at least once during the engine test, the system gains the benefit of improved data collection efficiency by capturing a complete operational profile from multiple distinct sensors without requiring redundant physical wiring, and successfully sampling, recording, and comparing the distinct operational data from multiple sensors during a single continuous testing event, maximizing the data collected per test run. All 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, Kamel, further teaches:
wherein alternating the polarity of the switch box at least once during the test ([0006], [0029], [0035]-[0041], [0056], [0121], [Claim 2], [Claim 9], [Claim 12], [Claim 14], & [Claim 20]: as established in previous claims, the combined method requires the controller to actively control the position of the switch box to alternate the polarity and toggle the active sensor pathway during the engine test) comprises alternating the polarity of the switch box according to a predetermined duty cycle ([0006], [0021], [0029], [0035]-[0041], [0056], [0074]-[0075], [0078]-[0079], [0121], [Claim 2], [Claim 9], [Claim 12], [Claim 14], & [Claim 20]: teaches controlling the state of external electronic switches by applying a duty cycle pulsed signal to repeatedly alternate the switch state at a specific continuous frequency (such as several times a minute). In the combined method, this duty cycle switching logic is applied to the polarity switch to automatically and continuously alternate the polarity at a predetermined rate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined test assembly method of Witlicki, Hamilton, and Kamel such that alternating the polarity of the switch box at least once during the test comprises alternating the polarity according to a predetermined duty cycle. Kamel teaches controlling the state of external electronic switches by outputting a variable duty cycle pulsed signal from a PWM controller module 324 to switch the circuit state at continuous frequencies, such as several times a minute. The motivation for automating the actuation of Kamel’s polarity switch 400 using a predetermined duty cycle is to improve data acquisition efficiency by multiplexing the first and second sensor signals (60/61) of Hamilton at a known, uniform sampling rate. Applying this known technique to improve similar devices yields the predictable variation of a time-division multiplexed sensor assembly that consistently and automatically updates the external controller with data from both sensors without requiring manual intervention during the engine test (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, Kamel, further teaches:
wherein the polarity of the switch box is actively controlled ([0006], [0029], [0035]-[0041], [0056], [0088]-[0089], [0121], [Claim 2], [Claim 9], [Claim 12], [Claim 14], & [Claim 20]: teaches that the polarity of the switch box is actively controlled by transmitting an electronic control signal from a controller module to actuate the switch, rather than functioning as a passive or manually toggled component).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined test assembly method of Witlicki, Hamilton, and Kamel such that the polarity of the switch boxes is actively controlled. Kamel teaches an energy management controller module 312 that actively controls a polarity switch 400 by transmitting an electronic control signal to automatically switch the electrical contacts to the alternate position. The motivation for this modification is to electronically and dynamically toggle the multiplexed sensor pathways without necessitating manual human intervention or physical rewiring at the hazardous engine test site. Applying this known technique to improve similar devices yields the predictable variation of a fully automated sensor multiplexing system that cycles through the first and second sensor signals (60/61) of Hamilton via centralized processor commands (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”, identifies the test assembly as a gas turbine engine 20 undergoing testing operations).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witlicki, in view of in view of Hamilton, in view of Berkhahn, in view of Kamel, and further in view of Xiantu.
Regarding dependent claim 14, Witlicki, teaches:
The method of claim 11 (Fig. 1; [0003], [0023], [0033], [0037]-[0039] & [0043]),
Witlicki, is 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:
The Examiner is combining Hamilton in view of Xiantu, implementing Hamilton’s flow circuit with a first rectifying element connected to receive signals from the first sensor 60 ([Col. 4, ll. 39-59] & [Claim 15]) applying Xiantu’s diode structure to Hamilton’s rectifiers yields a first diode physically and electrically connected to the first sensor.
wherein the flow circuit comprises at least a first diode connected to the first sensor (Figs. 1, 3, & 4; [0031-[0032] & [0035]: Hamilton teaches a method step of receiving signals from a first sensor into a flow circuit comprising a first rectifier. Applying Xiantu’s diode structure to Hamilton’s rectifiers yields a first diode physically and electrically connected to the first sensor),
The Examiner is combining Hamilton in view of Xiantu, implementing Hamilton’s second rectifying element receiving signals from the second sensor 61 ([Col. 4, ll. 39-59] & [Claim 15]) incorporating Xiantu’s diode structure, the second rectifier comprises a second diode connected to the second sensor.
and a second diode connected to the second sensor (Figs. 1, 3, & 4; [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, alternatively Fig. 4 details an electrical flow circuit comprising a first diode (D5) and second diode (D4)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the engine testing method of Witlicki by incorporating the flow circuit of Hamilton and 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. Hamilton teaches a method utilizing a flow circuit comprising a first rectifier connected to receive signals from a first sensor 60 and second rectifier connected a second sensor 61. Xiantu provides the electrical architecture for this flow circuit featuring discrete diode components, including a first diode D5 and a second diode D4. The motivation for this combined modification is to isolate and safely multiplex the sequential electrical signals from multiple distinct sensor signals during the engine test through Witlicki’s shared engine egress 37 while providing robust directional current control to prevent reverse-voltage damage between the sensor lines. Applying these known techniques to improve similar devices represents a substitution of Xiantu’s standardized discrete diodes into Hamilto’s established rectifying sensor flow pathways. This combination yields the predictable variation of a stable method for signal routing that safely manages alternating sensor currents using dedicated diode components (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 15, Witlicki, teaches:
The method of claim 14 (Fig. 1; [0003], [0023], [0033], [0037]-[0039] & [0043]),
Witlicki, is 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),
The Examiner is combining Hamilton in view of Xiantu, implementing Hamilton’s controller that receives the multiplexed sensor signals ([Col. 4, ll. 39-59], [Claim 5], & [Claim 15]).
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,” routing multiplexed sensor signals to the controller in Hamilton).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined test assembly method of Witlicki and Hamilton by implementing the specific diode topology of Xiantu. This modification teaches 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 (sharing a physical junction at Node U). Xiantu discloses an electrical flow circuit diagram where the cathode of diode D5 and the diode D4 share a physical junction at Node U, which functions directly as the output line for thar circuit leg. The motivation for this modification is to improve the flow circuit’s electrical reliability during the testing method by providing robust directional signal routing and reverse-voltage protection for the multiplexed sensor outputs sharing the instrumentation line, and a stable signal routing architecture switching and routing architecture capable of handling fluctuating electrical flows within the test assembly’s controller systems. Applying this known technique to improve similar devices represents a substitution of Xiantu’s standardized diode node structure into Hamilton’s existing rectifying flow circuit, yielding the predictable variation of a stable method for multiplexed signal routing (KSR).
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witlicki, in view of Hamilton, in view of Kamel, 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;
However, Hamilton, further teaches:
a flow circuit having a first input configured to receive a positive output signal of a first 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], & [Claim 19]: discloses a “flow circuit” (signal processing circuitry) that receives the positive pulse/signal from the first sensor 60), 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),
The Examiner is combining Witlicki in view of Hamilton, implementing Witlicki’s instrumentation lead wires passed through an adapter to a controller ([0008]-[0009], [0013], [0023], [0033], [0039]-[0040], [0042]-[0043], [Claim 3], & [Claim 4]).
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 combined apparatus sequentially outputs a single multiplexed sensor signal through the physical egress to an external controller);
PNG
media_image8.png
548
831
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the multi-sensor instrumentation lead structure of Witlicki by incorporating the sequential flow circuit of Hamilton. This combination 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, 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. The motivation for this modification is to safely multiplex and transmit distinct analog signals from multiple sensors sharing a confined physical test space without electrical signal collision or data loss. Applying Hamilton’s alternating flow circuit to Witlicki’s shared lead wires represents the substitution of a known technique to improve similar devices. This combination yields the predictable variation of routing multiple distinct signals through a constrained instrumentation egress using sequential time-based processing, 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:
the polarity switch box being configured to reverse a polarity of a connection to
the controller;
wherein the polarity switch box is configured to be controlled by the controller;
However, Kamel, further teaches:
the polarity switch box being configured to reverse a polarity of a connection to the controller ([0029] & [0035]-[0041]: provides the Double-Pole Double-Throw (DPDT) polarity switch configured to reverse positive and negative connections);
wherein the polarity switch box is configured to be controlled by the controller ([0029] & [0035]-[0041]: teaches that the polarity switch box is actively controlled by an electronic signal transmitted from the management control module);
The Examiner is combining Witlicki and Hamilton in view of Kamel, implementing Hamilton’s forward-biased sensor data that passes to the controller ([Col. 4, ll. 39-59] & [Claim 15]).
wherein a first output of the first sensor is provided to the controller by operating the polarity switch in a first polarity and a second output of the second sensor is provided to the controller by operating a polarity switch in a second polarity [0006], [0029], [0035]-[0041], [0056], [0121], [Claim 2], [Claim 9], [Claim 12], [Claim 14], & [Claim 20]: by actively operating Kamel’s DPDT switch to a first polarity state, Hamilton’s forward-biased sensor data passes to the controller; toggling to a second reversed polarity state allows the reverse-biased second sensor data to pass); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined test assembly of Witlicki and Hamilton by integrating the actively controlled polarity switch box of Kamel. This combination teaches output to the controller is routed through a 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 to reverse polarity, such that a first output of the first sensor is provided in a first polarity and a second output of the second sensor is provided in a second polarity. The motivation for incorporating Kamel’s double-pole double-throw switch is to provide the external management controller with the ability to dynamically manage signal routing and electronically multiplex between the paired sensors without needed to physically access and manually rewire the dangerous internal sensor leads. Applying this known technique to a known device ready for improvement allows the external controller to seamlessly and safely toggle the forward and reverse-biased flow pathways established by Hamilton. Utilizing Kamel’s physical polarity-reversing switch to selectively toggle the active sensor inputs yields the predictable variation of a fully automated remotely multiplexed data acquisition system (KSR).
Witlicki, Hamilton, and Kamel, 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 structure with this configuration, utilizing distinct, discrete diodes, 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 modify the combined test assembly flow circuit of Witlicki, Hamilton, and Kamel by implementing the specific diode topology of Xiantu. This modification teaches the flow circuit comprises at least a first diode D5 and second diode D4, a cathode of the first diode being configured to be connected to an anode of the second diode at a node (Node U), and wherein the node is connected to the flow circuit output. The motivation for this modification is to improve the flow circuit’s electrical reliability by providing a robust overcurrent and reverse-voltage protection for the sensitive multiplexed sensor signals sharing the instrumentation line. Applying this known technique to similar devices represents a substitution of Xiantu’s standardized discrete diode node structure into Hamilton’s existing rectifying flow circuit. This combination yields the predictable variation of a stable signal routing architecture capable of safely managing rapidly alternating polarities without causing electrical damage to the downstream controller hardware, further maximizing the sensing abilities of the sensors, provide standard and necessary circuit protection, such as managing current from inductive loads, according to known methods, (KSR).
Conclusion
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 September 14, 2026
/A.A/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights