DETAILED ACTION
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 . 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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 recites: the reference pressure sensing element (singular structure, e.g., 207 or 313) is "configured to":
Measure a first signal — the regulated fluid pressure (fine, this is squarely what 207 does per ¶0043)
Measure a second signal — "corresponding to a pressure measured using the pressure sensor of the test article"
The spec is consistent and clear that these are two separate, independently operating sensors, not one component doing double duty:
• ¶0043: "The characterization pressure signal can be measured using the reference pressure sensing element 207" — 207's job is the passage/fluid signal, full stop.
• ¶0045: "The sensing system to be characterized 204 includes a sensor 205... positioned some distance away from a pressure measurement point by... a tubing." — 205 is structurally distinct, has its own tubing, and is part of an entirely different assembly (the test article), not the characterization device.
• ¶0046: 207 outputs curve 252; 205 outputs curve 254 — described as two parallel, independently-generated data streams that are afterward compared by an algorithm. Nowhere does the spec say 207 reads or incorporates 205's signal, or that 207 has a mode where it measures "via" 205.
So, under a literal construction, there's no support for a single reference sensing element that measures both (a) the fluid pressure and (b) a signal obtained through the test article's own sensor. The spec's own preferred embodiment doesn't do that — it uses two separate sensors for two separate signals.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Turning to MPEP 2164.01(a), i.e. the Wands factors, Examiner finds the breath of the claims, Level of ordinary skill, Nature of the invention the state of the prior art, Amount of direction provided are sufficient evidences that the disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement, and undue experimentation would be required.
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.
Claim 8 is
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.
It is not enabled and therefore it is not clear what claim means. For examination and in the light of specification, if prior art teaches measure a first pressure signal corresponding to a pressure of the regulated fluid; and measure, when the device is coupled to a pressure sensor of a test article, a second pressure signal corresponding to a pressure measured using the pressure sensor of the test article, it meets the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by NILS-ERIK, WO 2018/197525 A1.
Claim 16
NILS-ERIK1 teaches :
A method for characterizing a dynamic response (page 1 lines 9-12) of a pressure sensing system 23, comprising:
coupling a pressure characterization device 1,2 to a test article (e.g., gas turbine engine as cited in e.g., page 1 line 15) by a pneumatic passage 3, wherein:
the test article comprises the pressure sensing system 23, the pressure sensing system 23 comprising a pressure sensor 23; and the pressure characterization device 1,2 comprises:
the pneumatic passage 3, the pneumatic passage 3 comprising a front end, a back end, and an interior (Fluid channel 3 receives pressurized fluid 13 at input port 12 and guides it through the channel (amplitude component → sensor apertures → frequency component → exhaust port 16) — a clear directional flow path with defined entry/exit.); and a pressure transducer 22 disposed on the interior of the pneumatic passage 3;
delivering a pulse of regulated fluid 13 to the interior of the pneumatic passage 3, the regulated fluid 13 having a reference pressure; measuring the reference pressure using the pressure transducer 22;
measuring an uncalibrated pressure using the pressure sensor 23 of the test article (e.g., gas turbine engine); and
determining a calibrated pressure or dynamically characterized pressure based
on the uncalibrated pressure and the reference pressure (e.g., Method steps (a)–(f) on page 8: connecting reference sensor and test sensor to apertures, supplying pressurized fluid, throttling/setting oscillation, and "providing pressure signals from the pressure sensor and the reference pressure sensor... via the... sensor signal output interface," with the evaluation unit comparing them.).
Claim 17
NILS-ERIK teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the pressure sensor of the test article is coupled to a measurement point 21 of the test article by a tubing (Waveguide/tubing connection to remote test sensor).
Claim 18
NILS-ERIK teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising delivering the regulated fluid 13 to the interior of the pneumatic passage 3 by actuation of a valve 11 or a fluidic actuator located proximate to the back end of the pneumatic passage (Amplitude adjustment component alters flow at the second position, upstream in the flow path).
Claim 20
NILS-ERIK teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the pressure characterization device 1,2 is portable, hand-held, or both ("The pressure sensor verification device may be preferably a handheld device," with a handle segment of the body (Summary; "To improve the handling...").
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, 7-9, 11-12, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as anticipated or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over NILS-ERIK, WO 2018/197525 A1.
Claim 1
NILS-ERIK in fig.1 teaches:
A device 1 to dynamically characterize a pressure measurement system (Device 1 is expressly "a pressure sensor verification device... particularly for verification and/or calibration of a dynamic pressure sensor." See Field of Invention), the device 1 comprising:
a pneumatic passage 3 comprising a front end, a back end, an interior, and a flow
path (Fluid channel 3 receives pressurized fluid 13 at input port 12 and guides it through the channel :amplitude component → sensor apertures → frequency component → exhaust port 16, i.e., a clear directional flow path with defined entry/exit);
an (adjustment component 11) coupled to the pneumatic passage 3, the adjustment component 11 for
permitting a regulated fluid to enter the flow path of the pneumatic passage 3 (Amplitude adjustment component 11 is "a regulator or restrictor for the fluid channel diameter" positioned mid-channel, i.e., it functions as a flow-controlling valve);
a reference pressure sensing element 22 disposed on the interior of the pneumatic passage 3 and along the flow path of the pneumatic passage 3; and
a controller coupled to the reference pressure sensing element and the valve (evaluation unit for comparing the signals from the pressure sensor and the signals from the reference pressure sensor"; separately, "a control device can set the amplitude adjustment component 11"). Although NILS-ERIK does not disclose a valve and does not expressly teach at the back end, but first Amplitude adjustment component 11 is "a regulator or restrictor for the fluid channel diameter" positioned mid-channel — functions as a flow-controlling valve, though not clearly at the "back end." Amplitude adjustment component 11 is "a regulator or restrictor for the fluid channel diameter" positioned mid-channel — functions as a flow-controlling valve, though not clearly at the "back end." Besides, the disclosure of instant application does not provide any criticality and it is only described in terms of flow direction and the sequence. Secondly: it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the - operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. /n re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)2. In this case, there is absolutely no criticality to the limitations related to the arrangement of a valve coupled to the back end of the pneumatic passage or mid-channel of pneumatic passage of NILS-ERIK. More specifically, NILS-ERIK teaches regulating and restricting the fluid. This means the claimed arrangement and the NILS-ERIK 's arrangement have the same function and there is no reason or indication the arrangement of NILS-ERIK does not result as same function of claim 1.
Claim 7
NILS-ERIK teaches the device of claim 1, further teaches wherein the controller is configured to:
receive a first pressure signal from the reference pressure sensing element; receive a second pressure signal from a pressure sensor; and produce a calibrated or compensated output signal based on the first pressure signal and the second pressure signal ( function met by evaluation unit, evaluation unit compares reference and test-sensor signals and determines a calibration/verification result).
Claim 8
NILS-ERIK teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the reference pressure sensing element 22 is configured to: measure a first pressure signal corresponding to a pressure of the regulated fluid; and measure, when the device is coupled to a pressure sensor of a test article (e.g., a gas turbine engine with pressure measurement 23), a second pressure signal (from 23) corresponding to a pressure measured using the pressure sensor of the test article (e.g., page 1 line 15 a gas turbine engine).
Claim 9
NILS-ERIK teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the device is portable, hand-held, or both ("The pressure sensor verification device may be preferably a handheld device," with a handle segment of the body (Summary; "To improve the handling...").
Claim 11
NILS-ERIK teaches :
A device for performing dynamic pressure characterization, comprising:
a pneumatic passage 3 adapted to be coupled to a test article (such as gas turbine engine: page 1 line 15), the test article having a pressure sensor (Second aperture 21 provides "a fluidic connection to a connectable, to be verified or to be calibrated pressure sensor" ,test sensor 23, directly or via waveguide 24 to a remote, still-installed sensor), the pneumatic passage 3 comprising a front end, a back end, and an interior, the interior of the pneumatic passage comprising a flow path (Fluid channel 3 receives pressurized fluid 13 at input port 12 and guides it through the channel (amplitude component → sensor apertures → frequency component → exhaust port 16 — a clear directional flow path with defined entry/exit);
a (Amplitude adjustment component 11 at second position 42, generally proximate to the fluid-entry side, but not unambiguously at a discrete "back end.") coupled proximate to the back end (broadly met by 11)of the pneumatic passage 3;
a source of regulated fluid 13 in fluid communication with the pneumatic passage 3 and the valve ("This supply of pressurized fluid 13 may be from a tank of pressurized air or may be taken from a compressor," pressurized "from approximately 3 up to 8 Bar," connected via input port 12);
a reference pressure sensing element 22 disposed on the interior of the pneumatic passage 3 and along the flow path between the front end and the back end of the pneumatic passage (First aperture 20 at third position 43 — literally between the amplitude component, second position 42, and frequency component ,first position 41, along the channel) ; and
a controller (evaluation unit) configured to:
receive a reference pressure signal from the reference pressure sensing element 22, the reference pressure signal corresponding to a pressure of the regulated fluid; receive an uncalibrated pressure signal from the pressure sensor 23 of the
test article (such as gas turbine engine); and
determine a calibrated pressure or dynamically characterized pressure based on the reference pressure signal and the uncalibrated pressure signal (evaluation unit compares reference and test signals; "if the amplitude is different... the amplitude can be calibrated for the test pressure sensor 23 by changing the sensitivity." A single functional unit performs the comparison and calibration determination). Although NILS-ERIK does not disclose a valve and does not expressly teach at the back end, but first Amplitude adjustment component 11 is "a regulator or restrictor for the fluid channel diameter" positioned mid-channel — functions as a flow-controlling valve, though not clearly at the "back end." Amplitude adjustment component 11 is "a regulator or restrictor for the fluid channel diameter" positioned mid-channel — functions as a flow-controlling valve, though not clearly at the "back end." Secondly: it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the - operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. /n re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In this case, there is absolutely no criticality to the limitations related to the arrangement of a valve coupled to the back end of the pneumatic passage or mid-channel of pneumatic passage of NILS-ERIK. More specifically, NILS-ERIK teaches regulating and restricting the fluid. This means the claimed arrangement and the NILS-ERIK 's arrangement have the same function and there is no reason or indication the arrangement of NILS-ERIK does not result as same function of claim 1.
Claim 12
NILS-ERIK teaches the device of claim 11, wherein the pressure sensor 23 of the test article is coupled to a measurement point 21 of the test article by a tubing (Waveguide 24 connection to a remotely located test sensor, " test pressure sensor 23 is not directly inserted into the second aperture 21 but a waveguide 24 is present to provide a pressure wave transparent connection... to a remotely located test pressure sensor 23," also called "waveguide pipe.") .
Claim 15
NILS-ERIK teaches the device of claim 11, wherein the device is portable, hand-held, or both (The pressure sensor verification device may be preferably a handheld device," with a handle segment of the body ,Summary; "To improve the handling…).
Claims 2-6 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NILS-ERIK, WO 2018/197525 A1 in view of Morgan, US 2021/0172540 A1.
Claim 2
NILS-ERIK teaches the device of claim 1, but does not specifically teach further comprising a trigger assembly coupled to the controller, the trigger assembly configured to cause an action by the controller. In the similar field of endeavor, Morgan3 teaches trigger assembly (In-cab actuator) coupled to the controller (processor), the trigger assembly (In-cab actuator) configured to cause an action by the controller (In-cab actuator → processor → solenoid/motor architecture ,¶0066–0069; Claim 21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Morgan‘s trigger assembly coupled to NILS-ERIK’s controller configured to cause an action by the modified NILS-ERIK’s controller. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to add a discrete, operator-actuated, electronically-mediated trigger to NILS-ERIK's otherwise continuous-operation device to give the operator direct, on-demand control over when a test pulse/measurement cycle begins, a known, predictable technique for converting a continuously-operating fluidic test device into a single-shot, repeatable one (as Morgan itself demonstrates in an analogous pressurized-fluid-control context). See MPEP2143 (A), which combination of known elements (continuous test device + trigger-to-controller architecture) yielding no more than the predictable result of on-demand actuation.
Claim 3
NILS-ERIK in view of Morgan teaches the device of claim 2, NILS-ERIK teaches wherein the action comprises: delivering the regulated fluid 13 to the pneumatic passage 3 ; reading an output from the reference pressure sensing element 22; producing a calibrated pressure or dynamically characterized pressure; or combinations thereof (evaluation unit combines delivery, dual-signal reading, and calibration output, evaluation unit already performs the reading and calibration-determination functions recited (comparing reference and test signals, per the Field of Invention and detailed description), and its input port/amplitude components deliver the regulated fluid, Morgan supplies only the missing piece carried over from Claim 2: a trigger-to-controller pathway causing the controller to act, combination, it is the same controller , NILS-ERIK’s evaluation unit, that performs the delivering/reading/producing actions already disclosed in NILS-ERIK) for same reason and motivation as cited above.
Claim 4
NILS-ERIK in view of Morgan device of claim 2, wherein the front end of the pneumatic passage 3 is adapted to be coupled to, or adapted to be in fluid communication with, a pressure sensor of the pressure measurement system 23 of a test article (e.g., gas turbine engine), the pressure sensor 23 configured to measure an uncalibrated pressure of the test article (e.g., page 1 line 15: Second aperture 21 fluidically connects to test sensor 23, directly or via waveguide.).
Claim 5
NILS-ERIK in view of Morgan device of claim 4, wherein the pressure sensor 23 of the test article is coupled to a measurement point of the test article by a tubing 24 ("test pressure sensor 23 is not directly inserted into the second aperture 21 but a waveguide 24 is present to provide a pressure wave transparent connection... to a remotely located test pressure sensor 23," also called "waveguide pipe.").
Claim 6
NILS-ERIK in view of Morgan device of claim 5, wherein the action comprises:
reading a first output from the reference pressure sensing element 22, the first output corresponding to a reference pressure; reading a second output from the pressure sensor 23 of the test article, the second output corresponding to the uncalibrated pressure; and
determining a calibrated pressure or dynamically characterized pressure based on the first output and the second output (Evaluation unit compares reference and test-sensor signals and determines a calibration/verification result.).
Claim 13
NILS-ERIK teaches the device of claim 11, but does not specifically teach further comprising a trigger assembly coupled to the controller, the trigger assembly configured to cause an action by the controller. Morgan teaches trigger assembly (In-cab actuator) coupled to the controller (processor), the trigger assembly (In-cab actuator) configured to cause an action by the controller (In-cab actuator → processor → solenoid/motor architecture ,¶0066–0069; Claim 21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Morgan‘s trigger assembly coupled to NILS-ERIK’s controller configured to cause an action by the modified NILS-ERIK’s controller. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to add a discrete, operator-actuated, electronically-mediated trigger to NILS-ERIK's otherwise continuous-operation device to give the operator direct, on-demand control over when a test pulse/measurement cycle begins, a known, predictable technique for converting a continuously-operating fluidic test device into a single-shot, repeatable one (as Morgan itself demonstrates in an analogous pressurized-fluid-control context). See MPEP2143 (A), which combination of known elements (continuous test device + trigger-to-controller architecture) yielding no more than the predictable result of on-demand actuation.
Claim 14
NILS-ERIK in view of Morgan device of claim 13, wherein the action comprises:
delivering a regulated fluid 13 to the interior of the pneumatic passage 3; reading a first output from the reference pressure sensing element 22; reading a second output from the pressure sensor of the test article 23; and producing the calibrated pressure or dynamically characterized pressure based on the first output and the second output (evaluation unit combines delivery, dual-signal reading, and calibration output).
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NILS-ERIK, WO 2018/197525 A1 in view of Laverdiere, US 2008/0221822 A1.
Claim 10
NILS-ERIK teaches the device of claim 1, NILS-ERIK does not specifically teach wherein the valve is a solenoid valve, an electric valve, or an actuator. In the similar field of endeavor, Laverdiere4 teaches wherein the valve or fluidic actuator located proximate to the back end of the pneumatic passage is a solenoid valve, an electric valve, or an actuator (Solenoid 368 / motor 372 actuation ¶0066–0068, Controller 42 directly and electronically coupled to valve 44, generating a "valve control signal" 50 based on sensor feedback :¶0039–0042). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Laverdiere‘s solenoid valve for NILS-ERIK‘s method wherein the valve or fluidic actuator located proximate to the back end of the pneumatic passage is a solenoid valve, an electric valve, or an actuator. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use of a solenoid/motor to actuate a pressure-control valve, which is substituting a solenoid or electric actuator for NILS-ERIK's adjustment component is one of a finite number of known, predictable valve-actuation options , a simple substitution of one known valve-actuation element for another to achieve the same function (releasing regulated fluid) with the predictable benefit of electronic/automated control. See MPEP 2143 (B).
Claim 19
NILS-ERIK teaches the method of claim 18, NILS-ERIK does not specifically teach wherein the valve or fluidic actuator located proximate to the back end of the pneumatic passage is a solenoid valve, an electric valve, or an actuator, In the similar field of endeavor, Laverdiere teaches wherein the valve or fluidic actuator located proximate to the back end of the pneumatic passage is a solenoid valve, an electric valve, or an actuator (Solenoid 368 / motor 372 actuation ¶0066–0068, Controller 42 directly and electronically coupled to valve 44, generating a "valve control signal" 50 based on sensor feedback :¶0039–0042). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Laverdiere‘s solenoid valve for NILS-ERIK‘s method wherein the valve or fluidic actuator located proximate to the back end of the pneumatic passage is a solenoid valve, an electric valve, or an actuator. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use of a solenoid/motor to actuate a pressure-control valve, which is substituting a solenoid or electric actuator for NILS-ERIK's adjustment component is one of a finite number of known, predictable valve-actuation options , a simple substitution of one known valve-actuation element for another to achieve the same function (releasing regulated fluid) with the predictable benefit of electronic/automated control. See MPEP 2143 (B).
ALTERNATIVE REJECTION FOR CLAIMS 1 AND 11
Claims 1 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiarito, US 2005/0103092 A1 in view of Laverdiere, US 2008/0221822 A1.
Claim 1
Chiarito5 teaches:
A device 100 to dynamically characterize a pressure measurement system (e.g., ¶0008), the device 100 comprising:
a pneumatic passage 112 comprising a front end, a back end, an interior, and a flow
path (Pressurized chamber 112 (back end) → coupler 118/nozzle 116 (front end); gas "escape[s] across the reference transducer 113" when seal 206 breaks ¶0027);
a valve 119 coupled to the back end of the pneumatic passage 112, the valve 119 for permitting a regulated fluid to enter the flow path of the pneumatic passage (Quick-opening" poppet valve 119 releases pressurized gas from chamber 112 into the flow path ,¶0015, ¶0027);
a reference pressure sensing element disposed on the interior of the pneumatic passage and along the flow path of the pneumatic passage (Reference transducer 113 "placed as close as possible to the seal 206 of the poppet valve 119" inside coupler 118 ,¶0030); and
a controller 130 coupled to the reference pressure sensing element (Calibration electronics 130 coupled to reference transducer 113 via path 131 : ¶0014, ¶0018; valve 119 is mechanically/spring-triggered by the operator, not electronically by 130:¶0015, ¶0026), Chiarito does not teach a controller coupled to the valve, but in the similar field of endeavor, Laverdiere teaches Controller 42 directly and electronically coupled to valve 44, generating a "valve control signal" 50 based on sensor feedback ¶0039–0042), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chiarito‘s controller to be coupled to valve as taught by Laverdiere. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to manage the operation of valve.
Claims 11 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiarito, US 2005/0103092 A1 in view of NILS-ERIK, WO 2018/197525 A1.
Claim 11
Chiarito teaches:
A device 100 for performing dynamic pressure characterization, comprising:
a pneumatic passage 112 adapted to be coupled to a test article, the test article having a pressure sensor (System 100 is a "dynamic pressure calibration system" used to "characterize dynamic performance of existing instrumentation" ¶0008;Coupler 118/nozzle 116 presses "against the port housing the sensor of interest" ¶0022), the pneumatic passage 112 comprising a front end, a back end, and an interior, the interior of the pneumatic passage comprising a flow path (Pressurized chamber 112 (back end) → coupler 118/nozzle 116 (front end); gas "escape[s] across the reference transducer 113" when seal 206 breaks (¶0027);
a valve 119 coupled proximate to the back end of the pneumatic passage (Poppet valve 119 within triggering chamber 207, proximate to pressurized chamber 112 :¶0015, ¶0026–0028); a source of regulated fluid (from tank 107) in fluid communication (e.g., ¶0012-0013) with the pneumatic passage 112 and the valve 119;
a reference pressure sensing element 113 disposed on the interior of the pneumatic passage 112 and along the flow path between the front end and the back end of the pneumatic passage (Reference transducer 113 in coupler 118, between the poppet valve/seal and the sensor-under-test interface ¶0017, ¶0030); and
a controller configured to: receive a reference pressure signal from the reference pressure sensing element 113, the reference pressure signal corresponding to a pressure of the regulated fluid (from tank 107); Although v teaches Reference vs. test-sensor comparison is largely a post-hoc, separate-instrument analysis , Chiarito in Table 1 percent-error calculations, Chiarito not clearly a single on-board controller function e.g., ¶0044, ¶0074, ¶0090 or: receive an uncalibrated pressure signal from the pressure sensor of the test article; and determine a calibrated pressure or dynamically characterized pressure based on the reference pressure signal and the uncalibrated pressure signal, NILS-ERIK teaches receive an uncalibrated pressure signal from the pressure sensor of the test article; and determine a calibrated pressure or dynamically characterized pressure based on the reference pressure signal and the uncalibrated pressure signal (Evaluation unit compares reference and test signals; "if the amplitude is different... the amplitude can be calibrated for the test pressure sensor 23 by changing the sensitivity." A single functional unit performs the comparison and calibration determination), and It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use NILS-ERIK‘s controller for Chiarito‘s controller to receive an uncalibrated pressure signal from the pressure sensor of the test article; and determine a calibrated pressure or dynamically characterized pressure based on the reference pressure signal and the uncalibrated pressure signal . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to verification and/or calibration of a dynamic pressure sensor." (Field of Invention of NILS-ERIK).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20040097813 A1
A device 10 to dynamically characterize a pressure measurement system, the device 10 comprising: a pneumatic passage 24 comprising a front end, a back end, an interior, and a flow path; a valve 51 coupled to the back end of the pneumatic passage (¶0039,0117), the valve 51 for permitting a regulated fluid to enter the flow path of the pneumatic passage 24;a reference pressure sensing element 22 disposed on the interior of the pneumatic passage 24 and along the flow path of the pneumatic passage 24; and a controller 16 coupled to the reference pressure sensing element 22 and the valve 51.
US 8307693 B2:
A device to dynamically characterize a pressure measurement system 10, the device 10 comprising :a pneumatic passage (from 40 to 20 via 30) comprising a front end, a back end, an interior, and a flow path; a reference pressure sensing element 20 disposed on the interior of the pneumatic passage (from 40 to 20 via 30) and along the flow path of the pneumatic passage; and a controller 60 coupled to the reference pressure sensing element 20 .
US 3427858 A
A device to dynamically characterize a pressure measurement system, the device comprising: a pneumatic passage (from 20 to 16:22[Wingdings font/0xE0]12[Wingdings font/0xE0]10) comprising a front end, a back end, an interior, and a flow path; a valve 30,32 coupled to the back end of the pneumatic passage (from 20 to 16:22[Wingdings font/0xE0]12[Wingdings font/0xE0]10), the valve 30,32 for permitting a regulated fluid(gas) to enter the flow path of the pneumatic passage (from 20 to 16:22[Wingdings font/0xE0]12[Wingdings font/0xE0]10);a reference pressure sensing element (26 col.5 lines 17-20) disposed on the interior of the pneumatic passage (from 20 to 16:22[Wingdings font/0xE0]12[Wingdings font/0xE0]10) and along the flow path of the pneumatic passage (from 20 to 16:22[Wingdings font/0xE0]12[Wingdings font/0xE0]10).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatemeh E. Nia whose telephone number is (469)295-9187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/FATEMEH ESFANDIARI NIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
1 Prior art of record
2 See also In re Kuhle, and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
3 Prior art of record
4 Prior art of record
5 Prior art of record
