US 11041775

I'll verify against live sources, particularly for any 2026 litigation activity, then summarize.

US 11,041,775 B2 — Verified Summary

Search scope note: I ran targeted searches for the exact number 11041775 and for CAFC/PTAB/litigation activity. I do not have direct API access to USPTO PatentCenter, PTAB (PTABE2E), or the CAFC docket system — my results come from web search over public patent databases and court-docket aggregators. So absence of litigation findings below is absence of evidence, not proof of non-existence.

---

Bibliographic data

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11041775/en

---

Abstract (as granted)

An apparatus is described and in one embodiment includes a first portion comprising an inner diameter, a first outer diameter, and a first length and a second portion, wherein the first portion and the second portion are integrally connected together, the second portion comprising the inner diameter, at least one second outer diameter, and a second length. The embodiment further includes a flange comprising a contact surface, wherein the inner diameter of the first portion and the second portion provides a hollow pathway through the apparatus.

---

Plain-language overview of the three independent claims

Claim 1 — the apparatus (the pressure tap support itself). A single, unitary part with two integrally joined sections sharing one common inner bore: a "tap" section (with its own outer diameter and length) and a "support" section (with one or more outer diameters and a length) that carries a flange with a contact surface. The shared inner diameter forms a continuous hollow passage through the whole part. Critically, claim 1 is not limited to the flange alone — it requires the support section to include at least one of: (a) one or more ergonomic/gripping features sized to be gripped with at least two fingers, or (b) a chamfer at the end opposite the flange that fully encircles the inner diameter.

Claim 7 — the wind tunnel device (system-level). A wind tunnel device having many holes along one or more of its sides, a pressure tap support seated in each hole (each support being a first portion plus an integrally connected second portion, with the shared inner diameter forming a hollow pathway), and a rigid tube sitting inside each support's hollow pathway. Note: claim 7 as granted does not itself recite a flange, nor the ergonomic/chamfer feature.

Claim 13 — the method. Configuring such a pressure tap support within a hole in the skin of an apparatus, then configuring a rigid tube within the support's hollow pathway. Dependent claims add affixing the flange to the skin's inner surface with adhesive (claim 15) and trimming any part of the first portion protruding past the skin's outer surface (claim 16).

Dependent claims worth noting: claim 2 (hole diameter equals first outer diameter); claim 3 (first length ≥ material thickness — i.e., the support is trimmed to skin thickness); claim 5 (flange fully encircles the first portion); claim 6 (hollow pathway receives a tube of equal outer diameter); claim 12 (first-portion end and tube end both flush with the outer skin surface).

---

Technical problem and stated advantage

The specification frames the invention against conventional practice, where each of hundreds of pressure ports is made by bonding a small rigid tube (often < 0.063 in OD) directly into a hole in the model skin. Two problems are identified: (1) conventional adhesives can take up to ~12 hours to cure, and the tube must be held in place meanwhile; and (2) holes below 0.063 in cannot be reliably drilled by CNC/automated machines (especially in composite skins, where small bits break), forcing manual drilling. The claimed support interposes a larger-diameter interface between the skin and the tube, allowing larger, machine-drillable holes and a bigger bond area — with fast epoxies (< 5 min), the spec claims port setup can drop from an hour-plus to five minutes or less.

---

Prosecution observation (useful for any validity analysis)

The granted claim set differs materially from the pre-grant publication US 2020/0191675 A1, which carried 20 claims. In the published version, the "flange does not fully encircle" (claim 7), ergonomic-feature (claim 8), and chamfer (claim 9) limitations were separate dependent claims. In the granted patent, those features were consolidated into independent claim 1 as an "at least one of" requirement, and the total claim count dropped to 17. This indicates amendment during prosecution to overcome art. Caveat: I am reading this from the published application text retrieved in search, not from the full prosecution history file wrapper, which I could not open.

---

Litigation / CAFC screening (negative result)

No district court complaint, IPR/PGR petition, or CAFC appeal involving US 11,041,775 was surfaced. The Bell Helicopter/Bell Textron matters that did appear are unrelated (e.g., a Texas Supreme Court mandamus matter, In re Bell Helicopter Services Inc., No. 24-0883, and a product-liability docket, Baker v. Bell Textron Inc., N.D. Tex.). Given the patent lapsed in mid-2025 for nonpayment of maintenance fees, its practical assertion value today is limited.

Uncertainty flags: (1) I could not query USPTO or CAFC systems directly, so the litigation screen should be independently re-verified in PACER/Docket Navigator and PTABE2E. (2) The Family/applications data I retrieved shows a single US family member only — no foreign counterparts identified; I did not verify this in Espacenet/Global Dossier directly. (3) I do not have authoritative information on any terminal disclaimer, USPTO fee-status nuance, or pending petition to revive the lapsed patent.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 11041775.

Litigation Search Results: US Patent No. 11,041,775

Bottom line: I found no record of any litigation (district court, ITC, CAFC appeal, or PTAB proceeding) involving U.S. Patent No. 11,041,775. I cannot confirm that any litigation exists, and I am explicitly reporting that absence rather than a false match.

Patent identified (verified against the authoritative full text)

• Patent: US 11,041,775 B2 — "Pressure tap support for tube holding during wind tunnel testing"
• Assignee of record: Bell Helicopter Textron Inc.
• Application: US 16/224,330; filed 2018-12-18; granted 2021-06-22
• Status (per the patent record): "Expired – Fee Related" — maintenance fee lapse, patent discontinued 2025-07-28, effective 2025-06-22.

Searches performed and why they did not produce results

I searched for the specific number and variants ("11041775," "US 11,041,775," "11,041,775 B2," plus assignee/inventor terms and PTAB/IPR leads). Every hit returned references to different patents, which I deliberately did not count as litigation for this patent:

• US 9,545,775 (Al-Azem / Safe Arc Technologies; Al-Azem v. Safe Arc Tech., LLC, No. 6:25-cv-00417 (W.D. La.)) — different patent number.
• US 11,190,750 (Ouster v. Hesai, Fed. Cir. No. 25-1786) — different number and subject matter (LiDAR).
• US 9,975,750 and US 9,321,386 / 10,202,266 (Vermeer v. Kubota) — different numbers.
• Various "'775 patents" in telecom (Finesse Wireless) — different patents.

None of these is US 11,041,775. Per your instruction not to return results for similar numbers, I have excluded them.

Caveats on completeness

• My searches did not successfully return a direct hit on the Unified Patents litigation portal, PACER, Docket Alarm, or the CAFC docket specifically for this patent number, so I cannot claim to have exhaustively cleared every federal docket. I reached a search-step limit before completing all planned queries.
• Given the patent's short enforceability window (granted June 2021, lapsed June 2025 for nonpayment of maintenance fees) and its narrow, internal-tool subject matter (a wind-tunnel model fixture), it is plausible that the patent was never asserted, but I state this as an inference, not a verified fact.

Recommendation for definitive confirmation

To confirm a negative, the authoritative sources to check directly are:

• PACER (Case Locator) for any district court docket naming "11,041,775."
• USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) API / Patent Center for IPR/PGR/CBM petitions against the patent.
• USPTO Assignment records (the recorded assignment, REEL/FRAME 047810/0188, dated 2018-12-13) to identify any transfers that could precede an assertion campaign.
• CourtListener / RECAP and the Unified Patents litigation portal (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist).

If you can supply a PACER or Docket Alarm access path, I can run a number-specific query to close out the negative with citation-level certainty.

I'll verify the structured data (no AIA trials on file) against live sources before reporting.

Searches surfaced only unrelated "'775" patents (e.g., US 8,130,775 in Cisco v. ...). Let me run tighter checks specific to the patent number and the assignee.

Let me do two final confirmation checks against PTAB docket aggregators and Unified Patents.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 11,041,775: zero. The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings for this patent, and four rounds of targeted web searching produced no petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, or Federal Circuit appeal naming this patent. The breakdown by status is therefore 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denied.

Bottom line for a defendant: the defensive posture here is not "the patent is hardened by surviving IPRs." It is: untested, unasserted at the PTAB, and expired. No challenger has ever taken claims 1–17 to the Board, so there is no FWD to cite, no cancellation to rely on, and no estoppel record to work with. Any invalidity positions are freshly available — with one signal worth flagging below.

---

Why I'm reporting a null result rather than a list

I searched the exact strings "US 11,041,775", "11,041,775", "11041775", and 16/224,330 against PTAB materials, docket aggregators, and general web. Every apparent hit was a different patent that also happens to be numbered "'775" or end in 775 — chiefly US 8,130,775 (a pseudowire/MPLS networking patent litigated in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. ..., IPR2020-01226, and later subject to ex parte reexamination 90/014,701). Those documents are false positives; they are not this patent and I have not treated them as proceedings.

The canonical structured block in this prompt states the USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest, which matches what I found independently. I found no older or recently-filed proceeding that ODP might have missed.

Uncertainty flag (stated explicitly because the task demands it): I do not have direct API or credentialed access to PTABE2E, USPTO PatentCenter's trial tab, or CourtListener's docket search. My screen is web-search over public aggregators. Absence of evidence over that channel is not conclusive proof of non-existence — but for a patent this narrow (a wind-tunnel pressure-tap adapter), with no litigation history surfaced in the prior bibliographic section, the null result is the expected and most likely correct answer. A defendant should still re-verify in PTABE2E by patent number and by application number 16/224,330 before relying on it.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status — all untested. No claim of US 11,041,775 has ever been adjudicated by the PTAB or the Federal Circuit. Claims 1–17 are in their as-granted form (17 claims, independents 1, 7, and 13). Nothing is canceled. Nothing is confirmed. The only claim-scope changes on the public record are the prosecution-history amendments noted in the earlier section, where the "at least one of … ergonomic features … and a chamfer feature" limitation was pulled up into independent claim 1, and the count dropped from 20 claims as published in US 2020/0191675 A1 to 17 as granted.

Estoppel landscape — clean, but practically mooted by lapse. Because no AIA trial was ever instituted, § 315(e)(2) estoppel does not exist against anyone — there is no petitioner, no privy, and no instituted ground. Every prior-art ground the earlier section identified is theoretically available: the nine US publications cited on the face of the patent (US20040065153A1, US20050252299A1, US20080202250A1, US20100089169A1, US20120240686A1, US20160053925A1, US20180356310A1, and the two others), plus anything else a searcher can find. The practical constraint is not estoppel but enforceability: the patent lapsed for nonpayment of maintenance fees, with the lapse recorded 2025-07-28 and effective 2025-06-22. An expired patent cannot be infringed going forward, so a validity defense is largely academic unless the patent owner petitions for revival under 37 C.F.R. § 1.378 (unintentional delay) and the patent is reinstated.

Pattern signals — none. No serial petitioner on this patent. No PTAB appeal activity by the patent owner (there is no FWD to appeal). No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, etc.) appears anywhere in the chain — my Unified-patents-directed search returned nothing, and given the patent's narrow aerospace-testing subject matter and Bell Helicopter's status as a large operating entity rather than a litigating NPE, a defensive-aggregator challenge would be economically implausible. The cited-art count (9 references, all US publications, several from unrelated fields like semiconductor pressure sensors and patient-ventilation gas measurement) is consistent with a lightly-searched mechanical/aerospace prosecution, not with a patent that drew industry attention.

---

Recommended next steps

For a defendant today:

• Lead with expiration, not invalidity. The patent is expired for failure to pay maintenance fees (effective 2025-06-22; lapse recorded 2025-07-28). A demand letter citing US 11,041,775 is asserting a dead patent unless and until a § 1.378 revival petition is granted. Check USPTO PatentCenter's fee/status tab for this patent to confirm the current state and whether any revival petition is pending.
• If revival occurs and assertion follows, you have an untested claim set and a clean § 315(e)(2) slate. The most attractive IPR targets are the lapsed "at least one of" construction in claim 1 — a § 112(b) indefiniteness argument over what it means to require at least one of an ergonomic gripping feature or a chamfer, and how the alternative is to be applied against an accused product — and prior art in the generic pressure-tap/pressure-port adapter space, which is a well-developed mechanical field.
• Do not cite any FWD, institution decision, or PTAB proceeding number for this patent. There is none. If opposing counsel represents otherwise, the representation is checkable in PTABE2E in one query.
• Verify my negative independently. Query PTABE2E by patent number 11041775 and by application number 16/224,330, and run the same patent number through CourtListener's docket search for any CAFC appeal. I could not do this directly, and I am flagging that limitation rather than presenting the null result as certified.

If active proceedings were pending — they are not, so no trial-stage milestone table (institution deadline, oral hearing, statutory one-year FWD date) is warranted for this patent.

I'll research the assignment chain. Let me start with targeted searches.

Let me dig into the assignment record specifics and any post-issuance transfers.

Key lead: Textron/Bell uses a master "IP Assignment" agreement. Let me pursue the correspondent of record and any Textron Innovations transfer.

Tooling note / search-scope disclosure: I ran the searches available to me but have no direct API access to USPTO Assignment Center, PEDS/ODP, PACER, or PTABE2E. Findings below come from Google Patents legal-events data, the authoritative full text of the patent, USPTO assignment/TTAB documents surfaced in web search, and related Bell/Textron records. Where I could not retrieve a field, I say so rather than filling it in. The single most important limitation: I could not load the reel 047810/0188 cover sheet, so I could not read the correspondent of record for this patent's only assignment.

Data-consistency check with the previously generated sections: the reel/frame, execution date, and recording date below match the earlier summary; no contradiction found. One correction to flag: the earlier negative litigation screen is at risk of one false positive — PTAB petition papers mentioning "the '771 patent" in a cable-reel IPR concern US 10,906,771, not this patent. Do not attribute those filings to US 11,041,775.

---

Inventors

Pattern assessment: No unusual inventor pattern. All four appear as co-assignors on a single confirmatory assignment executed 2018-12-13, five days before the 2018-12-18 filing date — the normal "employees assign to employer at filing" shape. I found no evidence of any inventor departing Bell/Textron within 12 months of filing; however, I did not verify employment histories (no professional-records source was checked), so this is absence of evidence, not a verified negative. The absence of any later inventor-originated assignment is consistent with a stable corporate portfolio.

---

Original assignee

Bell Helicopter Textron Inc., Fort Worth, Texas — the entity named on the issued patent's front page as both original and current assignee.

• Primary line of business: Rotorcraft OEM — commercial and military helicopters and tiltrotors (e.g., Bell 407/412/429/505/525, AH-1Z, V-22, V-280). A wholly owned operating subsidiary of Textron Inc. (NYSE: TXT), which reports Bell as a reportable segment.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? No. The claims cover a wind tunnel test fixture (a pressure-tap support holding a rigid tube in a model skin). This is internal test-shop tooling, not an article sold in commerce. Bell operates wind-tunnel testing capability, which is the reason this fixture exists, but there is no product-embodying-the-claims to point to. That matters for the NPE analysis: it makes downstream "operating-company assertion of a product claim" essentially inapplicable.
• Current status: Operating, not dissolved, not in bankruptcy. Note the corporate-name change pattern in this family: applications filed by Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. around 2018 frequently issue on the face with Textron Innovations Inc. (Providence, RI / Fort Worth, TX) as assignee — e.g., US 9,347,473 (App. 14/035,031, applicant Bell Helicopter Textron Inc., assignee Textron Innovations Inc.) and US 11,053,966 (App. 16/002,599, same pattern). This patent is an exception: it names Bell Helicopter Textron Inc., not Textron Innovations Inc., as assignee. See "unresolved gaps" under the timeline.

---

Assignment timeline

One recorded assignment. One link. Nothing after it.

• 2018-12-13 (executed) / recorded 2018-12-18 — Reel 047810/0188
  • Conveyance: Assignment — "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST" (entire interest)
  • Assignor: Landry, Francois; Landry, Martin; Beaucaire, Francis; Morris, Kevin Donald (individual inventors)
  • Assignee: BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON INC., Texas (Fort Worth, TX)
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED. Neither Google Patents legal events nor the sources I could reach expose the correspondent for this reel/frame, and the cover sheet itself was not loadable. Related-but-not-evidence (flagged explicitly): Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. (5445 Corporate Drive, Suite 200, Troy, MI 48098; employee of record Lisabeth H. Coakley) is the recurring correspondent on a set of Bell Helicopter / Textron assignments I did surface (reels 3639/0174, 3639/0181, 5558/0424, 5558/0458, 5989/0024) and is a mainstream Textron-family prosecution firm. Those are trademark records on different properties, on a different reel, years earlier. Under your own recurrence rule, that is not a finding — it is a lead to check against reel 047810/0188 directly.
  • Context: Ordinary employee-to-employer assignment at filing. Not an acquisition, fire-sale, reorg, securitization, or asserter transfer.

Post-issuance assignments (2021-06-22 through today): none recorded. Google Patents' legal events for US 11,041,775 list only the 2018 AS entry plus fee-status events; current assignee is shown as Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. No transfer to Textron Innovations Inc., no transfer to any third party, no security agreement, no release, no license recordation.

Unresolved gap to verify at the Assignment Center (I could not resolve it): whether a separate Textron Innovations Inc. recordation exists for app. 16/224,330 that Google Patents does not index. Given that sibling Bell applications from the same period show the Textron Innovations Inc. assignment on their faces, a same-day/same-family recordation is plausible but I did not see it and will not assert it.

If the Assignment Center returns nothing beyond the 2018 link for this patent number, the correct reading is: the original operating assignee still owns the patent — which is a finding, not a null result.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11041775
    2018 : Inventors execute assignment 13 Dec
         : Filed 18 Dec by Bell Helicopter Textron
         : Recorded Reel 047810 Frame 0188
    2020 : Pre-grant publication 18 Jun
    2021 : Patent issued 22 Jun
    2025 : Lapsed for unpaid maintenance fee

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Aggregate: 0 present, 7 not present, 1 not assessable. This is a flat, unengaging ownership record — precisely the profile of a captive corporate tooling patent, not a monetization asset.

---

Verdict

Insufficient data (the defined category covering "no records, or only the original assignment").

The chain consists of a single executed link — reel 047810/0188, executed 2018-12-13, recorded 2018-12-18 — conveying the entire interest from inventors Landry, Landry, Beaucaire, and Morris to Bell Helicopter Textron Inc., the operating OEM that filed the application five days later. There are zero post-issuance assignments and zero recorded transfers to any NPE, aggregator, or third party, so every troll-pattern signal above resolves negative or unassessable; the one signal that might have mattered (repeat correspondent, #3) is unassessable because the chain has only one link and I could not read its correspondent. The patent's practical history reinforces the call: it expired for nonpayment of maintenance fees effective 2025-06-22, i.e., it was never transferred and never asserted, and it is now unenforceable.

Two things to verify before relying on this:

1. Pull reel 047810/0188 at the Assignment Center and record the correspondent of record — I could not read it, and it is the single field most likely to change the analysis if it turns out to be a repeat player on other Bell/Textron disposals.
2. Confirm at the Assignment Center whether any Textron Innovations Inc. recordation exists for application 16/224,330; sibling Bell filings of the same vintage show that assignment on their faces, and its presence or absence here is the one open question in the chain.

Verification: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (mirror: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) — search by patent number 11041775 or application 16/224,330. Underlying record of the sole link: Reel/Frame 047810/0188; patent source of record: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11041775/en.

I'll research each cited reference to provide accurate descriptions and anticipation analysis. Let me run several searches in parallel.

Let me research the remaining cited references.

Prior Art Analysis — US 11,041,775 B2

Patent under analysis: US 11,041,775 B2 — "Pressure tap support for tube holding during wind tunnel testing"

• App. 16/224,330; filed & priority 2018-12-18; granted 2021-06-22; assignee Bell Helicopter Textron Inc.
• Effective prior-art cutoff: 2018-12-18 (no earlier priority claimed).
• Source of face citations: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11041775/en (Patent Citations, 9 US publications, all "cited by examiner").

Scope / method note (important): All nine references were cited on the face of the patent by the examiner. All published between 2004 and 2018, i.e., all qualify as prior art under pre-AIA §102(b)/AIA §102(a)(1) as printed publications / published applications before 2018-12-18. None of them is a wind-tunnel-model pressure tap support. I therefore assess each against the claim elements below, and I state the result candidly: no listed reference appears to anticipate (fully disclose) any claim of US 11,041,775 — their relevance is as element-level art for a §103 combination, not as §102 anticipatory art. I flag where I could not retrieve a reference's full text due to a search-step limit, so those descriptions are from bibliographic data only.

Claim-1 element set used for the charts:
(A) first portion: inner diameter + first outer diameter + first length;
(B) second portion integrally connected: shared inner diameter + ≥1 second outer diameter + second length;
(C) flange with contact surface;
(D) shared inner diameter forms a hollow pathway through the apparatus; and
(E) the second portion has at least one of (i) ergonomic features grippable with two fingers, or (ii) a chamfer at the end opposite the flange that fully encircles the inner diameter.

Claim 7 element set: wind-tunnel device + multiple holes in sides + multiple pressure-tap supports in the holes (each = elements A, B, D) + rigid tubes in the hollow pathways.
Claim 13 element set: method of configuring such a support in a skin hole + configuring a rigid tube in the hollow pathway.

---

Summary table

---

Reference-by-reference detail

1. US 2004/0065153 A1 — "Pressure differential measuring tool"

• Applicant: Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (granted as US 6,820,491 B2, 2004-11-23).
• Dates: filed 2002-10-05; published 2004-04-08.
• Description: A wafer container/enclosure (e.g., SMIF pod) with a pressure tube (20) passing through a tube opening (27) in a side panel; glue forms an airtight seal between tube and opening; the tube has an interior end and an exterior end connected to a pressure gauge. Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20040065153A1/en
• §102 analysis: Discloses the general concept of a tube through a hole in a wall, bonded/sealed (glue) in place — the problem the '775 patent addresses, not the solution. No first/second integrally-connected portions with distinct outer diameters, no flange contact surface, no ergonomic/chamfer feature (Element E). Does not anticipate any claim. Most relevant (at most, and only as background) to claims 13/16 (configuring a tube in a skin hole).

2. US 2005/0252299 A1 — "Pressure detecting apparatus"

• Applicant: Denso Corporation (filed as US 10/… , JP priority 2004-05-17; granted family member US 7,207,226 B2 relates to related Denso subject matter).
• Dates: filed 2004-05-17; published 2005-11-17.
• Description: A housing with an elongated pipe projecting from one end; a pressure-sensitive element disposed at the top end of the pipe; a connector in the housing; a flexible printed circuit in the pipe. The pipe is inserted into a mounting hole (e.g., engine block) to sense pressure. Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20050252299A1
• §102 analysis: Discloses a housing (second portion) + projecting pipe (first portion) structure inserted into a hole — superficially evocative of the two-portion geometry (Elements A/B). But: (i) the pipe carries the sensor, and the internal passage holds a wiring member, not a hollow pathway receiving a rigid tube (Element D fails); (ii) no flange contact surface (Element C fails); (iii) no ergonomic/chamfer feature (Element E fails); (iv) not a wind tunnel device. Does not anticipate any claim.

3. US 2007/0000668 A1 — "Internal running elevator"

• Applicant/inventor: Matheus Christensen.
• Dates: priority 2003-05-15; published 2007-01-04.
• Description: Per title/bibliographic data, an internal running elevator apparatus. (I could not retrieve the specification text before reaching the search-step limit; description is from face data only.)
• §102 analysis: On its face this is not analogous art to a wind-tunnel pressure tap support. No disclosure of a first/second portion, flange, hollow tube pathway, or ergonomic/chamfer features is apparent. Does not anticipate any claim. (Recommend retrieving full text to confirm; this entry is the least relevant of the nine.)

4. US 2008/0202250 A1 — "Pressure sensor"

• Applicant: Silicon Micro Sensors GmbH.
• Dates: priority 2007-02-23; published 2008-08-28.
• Description: A pressure sensor (housing/diaphragm-type). (Full text not retrieved before the step limit; description from face data only — Silicon Micro Sensors GmbH is the applicant of a family of pressure-sensor applications, and its sibling US 2010/0089169 A1 (ref. 5 below) describes a sensor housing with a flange and welded diaphragm.)
• §102 analysis: A pressure-sensor housing with an internal cavity and a pressure inlet is analogous to Element B/D only in the loosest sense; no first portion/second portion with distinct outer diameters, no contact-surface flange for bonding to a skin, no ergonomic/chamfer feature, no rigid-tube-receiving through-path. Does not anticipate any claim.

5. US 2010/0089169 A1 — "Pressure sensor and manufacturing method of the same"

• Applicant: Silicon Micro Sensors GmbH.
• Dates: priority 2008-09-03; published 2010-04-15.
• Description: A pressure sensor and its manufacturing method (sensor housing with internal cavity; a method of assembling/bonding sensor components). (Full text not retrieved before the step limit.)
• §102 analysis: Relevant only to the general notion of a housing with an internal cavity and a method of assembling/bonding — arguably touching Elements D and the method framing of claim 13. It lacks the integrally-connected two-portion support geometry, flange contact surface, and ergonomic/chamfer feature. Does not anticipate any claim.

6. US 2012/0240686 A1 — "Pressure measuring port with thermoplastic elastomeric interface" (Blomberg, Max D.)

• Dates: filed 2011-03-25; published 2012-09-27.
• Description: A pressure measuring port with a housing having an internal fluid cavity, a port communicating with the cavity, and an annular flange (42) with a flat/smooth top surface (24) used as a welding area; a thermoplastic-elastomeric film is heat-welded to the flange to seal the port; the port body is a single unitary component with an integral elastic seal. Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20120240686 ; https://www.patentsencyclopedia.com/app/20120240686
• §102 analysis: This is the structurally closest of the nine on the flange concept: it discloses a port body with an annular flange and a contact/welding surface (i.e., Element C in substance, and arguably a "contact surface" affixable to a mating structure). It also describes a "single unitary component." However it fails the remaining elements: the flange surface receives a welded membrane, not an adhesive bond to a skin; there is no first portion + integrally-connected second portion each with its own outer diameter/length (Elements A/B fail in the claim's structural sense); there is no hollow pathway configured to receive a rigid measurement tube (Element D fails — the cavity carries the process fluid); and there is no ergonomic/chamfer feature fully encircling the inner diameter (Element E fails). Does not anticipate any claim. Best use: §103 secondary reference on the flange/contact-surface feature (claims 1, 4, 5).

7. US 2014/0360501 A1 — "Gas pressure measurement system for patient ventilation apparatus"

• Applicant: Air Liquide Medical Systems.
• Dates: priority 2013-06-06; published 2014-12-11.
• Description: A gas-pressure measurement system for a patient-ventilation apparatus (a pressure-sensing port/interface in a ventilation circuit). (Full text not retrieved before the step limit.)
• §102 analysis: Relevant at most to the general idea of a pressure-measurement port/interface coupled to a housing (Elements B/D loosely). No wind-tunnel device, no multiple-holes-in-a-skin system, no rigid-tube-in-hollow-pathway, no flange-to-skin bonding, no ergonomic/chamfer feature. Does not anticipate any claim.

8. US 2016/0053925 A1 — "Structure for attaching pressure detector"

• Applicant: Nidec Copal Electronics Corporation (KR family member KR 101732047 B1).
• Dates: priority 2013-03-28; published 2016-02-25.
• Description: An attachment structure in which a pressure detector is held airtight within an insertion hole of an attachment-tool main body attached to a machine/pipeline, using a pipe, a gasket presser, a gasket, a split ring, a bonnet, and a flange portion on the detector base; a communication hole in the insertion-hole floor links the main-body passage to the hole interior. Sources: https://uspto.report/patent/app/20160053925 ; https://patents.justia.com/assignee/nidec-copal-electronics-corporation
• §102 analysis: Structurally relevant to the "mount a pressure component in a hole with a flange-sealed interface" concept (touches Elements A/B/C loosely and the claim-7/claim-13 "in a hole" framing; and to claim 15's affixing concept). Critically, it uses an external attachment-tool main body + gasket/split-ring/bonnet assembly, not an integrally-molded unitary two-portion support with a shared inner diameter forming a hollow pathway that receives a rigid tube; there is no ergonomic/chamfer feature (Element E), and no wind-tunnel device. Does not anticipate any claim. Best use: §103 secondary reference for the flange/mounting-in-a-hole features of claims 7, 13, 15.

9. US 2018/0356310 A1 — "Harsh environment differential pressure monitor"

• Applicant: Acrulog Pty. Ltd.
• Dates: priority 2017-06-09; published 2018-12-13.
• Description: A portable differential-pressure monitoring unit in a case, with a differential-pressure sensor in fluid communication with ambient atmosphere via a non-gas-permeable membrane tube, plus temperature/humidity sensing, data processor, display, and wireless comms. Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20180356310A1/en
• §102 analysis: Concerns a measurement/monitoring apparatus, not a tube-holding support structure. No first/second portion, no flange contact surface bonded to a skin, no hollow pathway for a rigid tube, no ergonomic/chamfer feature. Does not anticipate any claim. (Note: it published only 5 days before the '775 filing date and is the second-most-recent citation; still not anticipatory on any claim.)

---

Overall §102 conclusion

Anticipation (35 U.S.C. §102): Based on the authoritative claim text and the retrieved descriptions, none of the nine face-cited references discloses every element of any independent claim (1, 7, or 13), so none anticipates. The fatal gaps for every reference are: (a) the integrally-connected first-portion/second-portion body sharing one inner diameter that forms a hollow pathway sized to receive a rigid measurement tube (claim 1 element D; claim 7's "rigid tubes … within the hollow pathway"); and (b) claim 1's Element E — the second portion having at least one of ergonomic two-finger gripping features or a chamfer fully encircling the inner diameter. No cited reference discloses Element E at all, which is consistent with the prosecution observation (in the earlier section) that the applicant consolidated the ergonomic/chamfer limitations into claim 1, likely to place those features beyond the cited art.

Where the references have real value — §103: They are best treated as element-level art for obviousness combinations:

• Flange / contact surface (claims 1, 4, 5): US 2012/0240686 A1 (Blomberg) — annular flange with a flat bonding surface.
• Mounting a pressure element in a hole with a flanged, sealed interface (claims 7, 13, 15): US 2016/0053925 A1 (Nidec Copal).
• Housing + projecting tubular portion inserted into a hole (claims 1, 7): US 2005/0252299 A1 (Denso).
• Bonded tube through a wall opening (background / claim 13, 16): US 2004/0065153 A1 (TSMC).

Additional art worth checking (beyond the face citations): To test the two-portion unitary-tube-holder concept more directly, an examiner/analyst would look at wind-tunnel pressure-tap adapters, pitot-static port fittings, and quick-connect tube bulkhead fittings (Art Unit classes G01M9/08, G01L19/14, F16M13/02) — subject matter not represented in the nine face citations.

---

Confidence and caveats

• High confidence: the bibliographic data, dates, and the claim-element framework (taken verbatim from the authoritative full text).
• High confidence: the descriptions of references 1, 2, 6, 8, and 9 (full text/abstracts retrieved).
• Lower confidence (description only, not full text): references 3 (US 2007/0000668 A1), 4 (US 2008/0202250 A1), 5 (US 2010/0089169 A1), and 7 (US 2014/0360501 A1) — I reached the search-step limit before retrieving their specifications. Their §102 conclusions above rest on title/field/assignee and are unlikely to change (none is a wind-tunnel tap support), but the element-level descriptions should be re-verified against the full documents.
• No litigation relevance inferred here: consistent with the earlier sections, the patent lapsed 2025-06-22 for nonpayment of maintenance fees, so none of this prior art has been tested in an adversarial §102/§103 proceeding; this is a desk analysis, not a validity opinion.
• Rule compliance: all identifiers (patent numbers, publication numbers, dates) are reproduced literally as found; I did not auto-correct any number.

I'll research the cited prior art references to build a grounded §103 analysis.

Obviousness Analysis — US 11,041,775 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope note on sources. This analysis uses the nine U.S. references listed in the "Citations" (Patent Citations) block of the patent's Google Patents page, as directed. I was able to retrieve substantive text for five of the nine — US20040065153A1, US20050252299A1, US20120240686A1, US20160053925A1, and US20180356310A1 — and I map those in detail. For three of the nine (US20080202250A1, US20100089169A1, US20070000668A1) I did not retrieve full text in this session; I rely on their titles/titles-of-record and flag my uncertainty explicitly. I also address CN112304564A, which appears on the page as a citing document, not as citable art, and explain why it cannot be used. Where I rely on inference rather than retrieved text, I say so.

---

1. The governing framework and the art's starting point

Legal frame. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) requires the scope/content of the prior art, the differences between the prior art and the claims, and the level of ordinary skill — with secondary considerations considered if offered. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) supplies the operative rationales here: (a) combining prior-art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (b) simple substitution of one known element for another; (c) use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way; and (d) "obvious to try" where there is a finite number of identified, predictable solutions.

Critically, the specification admits the core of the environment as prior art. The Background states, as conventional practice:

"each pressure port is configured by making a hole in a surface … of the model and affixing a rigid tube (e.g., a metal tube) within the hole … at an angle that is approximately 90 degrees normal to the inner surface of the skin and such that the inserted end of the rigid tube is flush with the outer surface of the skin."
https://patents.google.com/patent/US11041775/en

This is an applicant admission under § 103 that (i) wind-tunnel models with many holes, (ii) rigid tubes seated in those holes, (iii) adhesive bonding, and (iv) flush end placement were all known. The only thing the '775 disclosure adds over that admitted baseline is a larger intermediate support body (flange + tap portion) interposed between skin and tube. That admission materially narrows the gap the claims must bridge.

Level of ordinary skill. A POSITA here is a mechanical/aerospace test engineer (or a mechanical designer) with a bachelor's degree in mechanical or aerospace engineering and ~2–4 years' experience with instrumentation, fluid-pressure measurement, and bonded/drilled assemblies — or equivalent. Such a person is thoroughly familiar with pressure ports, tube fittings, quick-cure structural adhesives, and standard manufacturing tolerances/chamfers. All the cited references are within that person's field of view.

Claim construction points affecting the § 103 analysis.

• Claim 1 is not limited to wind-tunnel use. It recites a bare "apparatus." That widens the analogous-art field and makes the port/fitting art squarely applicable.
• Claim 1's final limitation is in the alternative: "the second portion comprises at least one of [ergonomic gripping features] and [a chamfer feature … that fully encircles the inner diameter]." Under the patent's own lexicography ("at least one of" / "one or more of" is "open ended … both conjunctive and disjunctive"), a prior-art combination or an obviousness rationale that renders either alternative obvious satisfies the claim. This collapses the hardest-looking limitation into whichever prong is easiest to prove — here, the chamfer.
• The chamfer is expressly disclosed as a functional lead-in: it "provide[s] a guide for channeling, directing, or otherwise helping to funnel a tube (and potentially adhesive) into the hollow pathway." That framing invites the "known technique / predictable result" rationale.

---

2. What each cited reference discloses

2.1 US 2012/0240686 A1 — Blomberg ("Pressure measuring port with thermoplastic elastomeric interface")

Retrieved text: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20120240686 and https://www.patentsencyclopedia.com/app/20120240686

• Discloses a port 16 with an "annular flange 42" that "creates the annular top surface 24," where "[t]he top surface 24 of the flange 42 is flat and smooth, to maximize the surface area for welding."
• The port is a body with a bore (fluid cavity) — i.e., a portion with an inner diameter and a flange contact surface used to attach the part to another structure.
• Expressly describes unitary construction: "The sealed pressure measuring port 10 … is a single unitary component including the rigid plastic housing 12 with integral elastic seal 20."
• States dimensional ranges for the flange (thickness ~0.04–0.075 in; combined thickness ~0.19 in) — evidence that flange sizing is a routine design parameter.

Mapping to claim 1: flange + contact surface (yes); integral/unitary body (yes); a body portion with inner bore and second outer diameter (yes). Missing: the distinct first "tap" portion of a different OD sized to a hole; a chamfer fully encircling the inner diameter; finger-gripping features; wind-tunnel context.

2.2 US 2005/0252299 A1 — Denso ("Pressure detecting apparatus")

Retrieved text: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20050252299

• "a housing; a pipe extending from one end of the housing and having an elongated shape; and a pressure sensitive element … The pipe includes a top end capable of receiving the pressure."
• Expressly contemplates insertion into a hole: "The pipe portion of the housing is inserted into a mounting hole of an engine block which corresponds to the object to be detected," and more generally "the pipe portion of the housing is inserted into an object to be detected … pressure to be detected … is applied to a tip portion of the pipe portion."
• Two-portion, one-piece instrument: an elongated tube portion projecting from a housing portion.

Mapping to claim 1: first portion with an outer diameter/length that is inserted into a hole (the pipe) — yes; second portion (housing) — yes; both share a pressure passageway, i.e., a continuous bore from the receiving end to the sensor — yes (functionally the "hollow pathway"). Missing: a flange with a flat contact surface for bonding to a skin; chamfer/grip; the defined OD relationships.

2.3 US 2004/0065153 A1 — TSMC ("Pressure differential measuring tool")

Retrieved text: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20040065153A1 and https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2004/00465153.html (page text shows the reference; verified content below)

• "A pressure tube 20 extends through a tube opening 27 provided typically in one of the side panels 28 of the enclosure 19."
• "Glue … is typically provided between the pressure tube 20 and the edges of the tube opening 27 to provide an airtight seal between the pressure tube 20 and the enclosure 19 at the tube opening 27. Alternatively, the pressure tube 20 may be molded integrally with the enclosure 19."
• The tube has an interior end 21 and exterior end 22, with a pressure gauge coupled to the exterior end.

Mapping to claim 1: a tube passing through an opening in a panel/skin, sealed by adhesive or integrally molded — this is the closest thing in the cited set to the environment of the '775 invention and to the "affix to the inner surface / adhesive" concept. Missing: the intermediate support body with two distinct portions and a flange; chamfer/grip.

2.4 US 2016/0053925 A1 — Nidec Copal ("Structure for attaching pressure detector")

Retrieved text: https://uspto.report/patent/app/20160053925 and https://www.patents-review.com/a/20160053925-structure-attaching-pressure-detector.html

• A pressure detector "attached and fixed in an airtight manner … in the insertion hole 16 of the attachment tool main body 15."
• Component stack includes "a pipe, a gasket presser, a gasket, a split ring, and a bonnet," with the detector mounted via flange portions 31a/34a pressed by a pressing member, sealed by a gasket (outer dia 4 mm / inner 2 mm / height 1 mm).
• Teaches that a sensor/device body with a flange portion can be seated and sealed in a hole, with separate sealing/retention hardware.

Mapping to claim 1: body seated in a hole; flange portion; contact/compression seal at the interface. Missing: bonding to a skin's inner surface via flange contact surface; chamfer/grip; the two-portion OD architecture.

2.5 US 2018/0356310 A1 — Acrulog ("Harsh environment differential pressure monitor")

Retrieved text: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20180356310A1 and the PDF at patentimages.storage.googleapis.com

• Discloses a "non-gas permeable membrane tube in connection with the differential pressure sensor and an external environment" and a ported case. Relevance to the '775 claims is peripheral — it is pressure-measurement plumbing, but it does not disclose a two-portion skin-mountable support. I would characterize it as weak/cumulative art, useful only to show the general practice of coupling tubes to pressure sensors.

2.6 US 2008/0202250 A1 and US 2010/0089169 A1 — Silicon Micro Sensors GmbH ("Pressure sensor" / "Pressure sensor and manufacturing method of the same")

Not retrieved this session — flagged. From the titles of record these are pressure-sensor packaging/manufacture references. Given the '775 subject matter, they most plausibly disclose a sensor housing with a pressure-inlet port and a mounting/housing body — i.e., cumulative art for the "pressure port body" concept. I cannot map limitations to them with confidence and will not assert specific disclosures.

2.7 US 2007/0000668 A1 — Christensen ("Internal running elevator")

Not retrieved — flagged. On its face an elevator-related mechanical reference; it appears non-analogous to pressure-tap supports and I see no articulated basis for combining it. I treat it as a citation of little or no § 103 value and will not build a combination on it.

2.8 CN 112304564 A — "A static aeroelastic wind tunnel test wing model" (Dalian Univ. of Technology)

This is not prior art. It appears on the patent page under "Families Citing this family," with a priority date of 2020-12-16 and publication 2021-02-02 — both after the '775 effective filing date of 2018-12-18. A later-filed/later-published document that merely cites the '775 patent cannot be used under § 102 or § 103 as prior art. It is cited here only as evidence of the field's later interest, not as a reference.

---

3. Element-by-element mapping for independent claim 1

Nothing in the table is exotic. The two genuinely claim-1-specific features — a two-portion body with an external skin-bonding flange, and a chamfer/grip at the far end — are each known individually. The § 103 question is only whether combining them was motivated and predictable.

---

4. Combination rationales

Combination A (primary, for claim 1): Denso '299 + Blomberg '686 + TSMC '153

Rationale — KSR (a)/(c): combining known elements to improve a similar device in the same way, yielding a predictable result.

1. Start with Denso. It already supplies the "insert-a-tube-into-a-hole-to-sense-pressure" architecture: an elongated pipe projecting from a housing, with the pipe's tip receiving pressure and the housing carrying the sensor. A POSITA adapting a pressure port to a panel/skin — the TSMC environment — would naturally keep this two-portion, one-piece geometry.
2. Add Blomberg's flange. Denso's device is inserted into a hole but is not retained by a broad, bondable face. Blomberg supplies exactly the missing piece: a port body with an annular flange whose flat top surface is designed "to maximize the surface area" for attachment. Blomberg's stated purpose — enlarging the attachment footprint — is the same problem the '775 patent identifies (a larger, more robust bond interface than a thin rigid tube affords). A POSITA seeking to stabilize a tube in a thin composite skin, and thereby avoid bond breakage when a flexible line is later connected (a problem the '775 Background itself describes), has a clear reason to adopt a flanged port body. Combining a known flanged port with a known insert-into-hole sensor tube is a simple substitution of a known element (flanged body) for a known element (plain pipe/housing) to obtain a predictable benefit (larger bond area). KSR (b).
3. TSMC supplies the application context and the integral/glue teaching. TSMC shows a pressure tube through a panel opening, sealed with glue, or "molded integrally with the enclosure." That is a direct teaching to make the port-and-panel interface (i) adhesively sealed and (ii) optionally integral — the very choices claim 1 recites ("integrally connected together" + flange contact surface for bonding). A POSITA would consult TSMC because it addresses the same problem of running a pressure passage through a wall/panel, even though its end use is a semiconductor indexer rather than a wind tunnel. The fields are analogous: both are fluid-pressure measurement ports in a wall.
4. Reasonably expected to work. Nothing in the combination is unpredictable: a flanged, one-piece insert with a through-bore, bonded at its flange to a panel, and receiving a tube in the bore, is a conventional mechanical assembly. No new result (no unexpected property) is required.

Result: Claim 1 is obvious over Denso + Blomberg + TSMC. The residual chamfer/grip limitation is addressed below and does not save the claim.

Combination B (alternative, for claim 1): Blomberg '686 + Nidec '925 + TSMC '153

Rationale — KSR (a): known flange-seated-in-hole devices combined.

Nidec discloses a pressure detector mounted in an insertion hole via flange portions with a sealing gasket; Blomberg discloses a port with a flat, wide annular flange maximizing attachment area; TSMC discloses a tube through a panel opening sealed with glue or molded integrally. A POSITA combining these to make a skin-mountable pressure tap support is doing no more than assembling known mounting, sealing, and flanging elements in a predictable way. This combination is weaker than A because Nidec's retention is via mechanical press/clamp hardware rather than adhesive bonding to an inner skin surface, but it independently renders the two-portion-plus-flange architecture obvious.

The "at least one of … gripping features and chamfer" limitation

Because the limitation is disjunctive, only one prong need be obvious.

• Chamfer prong (strong). A lead-in chamfer/bevel at the mouth of a bore, whose function is to guide a mating part (here a tube) into the bore and to seat adhesive, is a textbook "known technique used to improve a similar device in the same way." The '775 specification confirms the function: the chamfer is "a guide for channeling, directing, or otherwise helping to funnel a tube (and potentially adhesive) into the hollow pathway" and "provide[s] an enlarged area to receive adhesive." Courts and the MPEP treat funneling chamfers and insertion lead-ins as routine engineering choices. Applied to Denso's or Blomberg's bore mouth, adding a full-perimeter chamfer is at most a predictable design variation — and "fully encircling the inner diameter" is simply what a machined/molded circular chamfer around a circular bore is. KSR (a).
• Gripping prong (also strong). Knurls, flats, ribs, and finger grips on a small cylindrical fitting body are ubiquitous ergonomic expedients for hand-held installation. Nidec's assembly is itself handled into a hole; the Acrulog and TSMC references involve parts manipulated during assembly. Providing a two-finger grip on the support portion is an obvious ergonomic improvement with no technical risk. KSR (c).
• Even were both prongs contested, the combination that renders the rest of claim 1 obvious would render one prong obvious by these rationales; a "reasonably expected to succeed" showing is easily made, and there is no teaching away.

Conclusion on claim 1: obvious. A prima facie case is available under at least Denso + Blomberg + TSMC, with the chamfer/grip limitation supplied as an obvious design choice (or, if the examiner prefers a structural reference, Nidec's flanged/handled body plus common fitting-design knowledge).

---

5. Independent claim 7 (wind tunnel device)

Claim 7 adds: a "wind tunnel device" with "a plurality of holes configured along one or more sides," "a plurality of pressure tap supports configured within the plurality of holes" (each being the first-portion/second-portion structure), and "a plurality of rigid tubes configured within the hollow pathway."

• The wind-tunnel environment and rigid tubes in holes are admitted prior art by the specification's Background (quoted in § 1 above; "hundreds of pressure ports … affixing a rigid tube … within the hole").
• The pressure tap support in each hole is the claim-1 subject matter, addressed above.
• Therefore claim 7 = (admitted wind-tunnel-with-ports baseline) + (pressure tap support per claim 1). Since claim 1 is obvious, claim 7 is obvious for the same reasons, with the additional TSMC teaching of a tube-through-an-opening in a panel supplying the "holes/sides" feature. Motivation: mounting a flanged support in each of many holes is the natural scaling of the same solution — and the '775 Background expressly identifies the scaling problem (hundreds of ports, automated drilling difficulty with sub-0.063-in holes) that motivates using a larger-diameter intermediate support.

6. Independent claim 13 (method)

Claim 13 recites configuring the support within a skin hole and configuring a rigid tube within the hollow pathway — i.e., installing the claim-1 apparatus. Method claims whose only novel step is assembling a structurally obvious apparatus are obvious where the assembly steps are conventional: TSMC teaches inserting a tube through an opening and sealing/bonding (glue, or molding integrally); the '775 Background admits inserting a rigid tube into a hole from the inner surface and bonding with adhesive. No step of claim 13 is non-routine.

Dependent claims 2–6, 8–12, 14–17 are, on their face, routine design choices or mechanical necessities and should fall with their independent claims:

• Claim 2 (hole diameter = first outer diameter) — matching an insert OD to a hole ID is the definition of a "flush fit," expressly a design objective in the spec.
• Claim 3 (first length ≥ material thickness) — sizing a plug length to skin thickness (and trimming the excess) is a design choice; the spec admits trimming to flush.
• Claim 4 (contact surface extends from first OD to a second OD) — inherent in any flange extending from a smaller tap portion to a larger body.
• Claim 5 (flange fully encircles the first portion) — Blomberg's annular flange 42 inherently fully encircles its port.
• Claim 6 (tube OD = passage ID) — necessary for the "air tight seal" the spec requires; dimensional matching.
• Claim 8 (flexible tubes connected to rigid tubes) — admitted conventional in the Background (flexible tube "connected to a pressure measurement device").
• Claim 9 (flange affixed to inner skin surface) — TSMC's glue/molded-integral teaching.
• Claim 10 (chamfer) — the chamfer prong addressed in § 4.
• Claim 11 (rigid tubes affixed to supports) — adhesive bonding, conventional.
• Claim 12 (support end and tube end both flush with outer surface) — the admitted conventional objective ("flush with the outer surface of the skin").
• Claims 14–17 (connect flexible tube; affix flange with adhesive; trim protruding portion; insert tube, apply adhesive, push until flush) — each is a conventional assembly/bonding step.

---

7. Secondary considerations

No secondary-consideration evidence is of record for the '775 patent. The patent's stated advantages (fast epoxy cure, machine-drillable larger holes) are predictable consequences of using a larger-diameter flanged support rather than "unexpected results," and there is no showing of nexus, commercial success, licensing, or industry praise. Moreover, the patent expired for nonpayment of maintenance fees (effective 2025-06-22; lapse recorded 2025-07-28, per the legal-events block on the patent page), so there is no commercial trajectory to weigh. Secondary considerations therefore do not rebut the prima facie case.

---

8. Weaknesses in the obviousness case (stated candidly)

1. No single reference discloses the whole assembly. § 103, not § 102, is the correct vehicle; the case rests on combining at least two references.
2. Field-of-use distance. The three strongest references sit in different end uses (semiconductor fab, engine cylinder pressure, sterile medical fluid). A patentee could argue non-analogous art. The counter is strong: the fields-of-endeavor (fluid-pressure measurement ports/fittings) and the problem to be solved (mounting a pressure port in a wall and passing a tube through it) overlap, and the '775 Background's own admissions supply the wind-tunnel context, so the claimed apparatus/device/method differ from admitted practice only by the intermediate support.
3. Two references not fully retrieved (US20080202250A1, US20100089169A1) and one apparently non-analogous (US20070000668A1). I have not verified their disclosures and do not rely on them. If either Silicon Micro Sensors reference discloses a flanged, skin-mountable port (plausible but unverified), it would strengthen Combination A; I make no such assertion.
4. The "at least one of" drafting is a double-edged sword: it makes infringement harder to prove, but for § 103 it narrows the required showing to a single prong, which helps the obviousness case.
5. Potential § 112(b) overlay (noted in the earlier section): the disjunctive "at least one of … and …" limitation invites indefiniteness. That is a validity theory independent of § 103 and, if sustained, would strengthen a defendant's position; it does not weaken the § 103 analysis above.

---

9. Bottom line

A strong prima facie obviousness case under § 103 exists against all three independent claims, built from the patent's own face-cited art:

• Claim 1 — obvious over Denso US20050252299A1 + Blomberg US20120240686A1 + TSMC US20040065153A1, with the "at least one of gripping features/chamfer" limitation supplied as an obvious design choice (or via Nidec US20160053925A1 for a flanged, handled, hole-seated body). Motivation: same field (pressure ports in a wall), same problem (secure, bondable, readily installed tube interface), predictable result, KSR rationales (a), (b), and (c).
• Claim 7 — obvious over the same combination plus the applicant's admitted wind-tunnel-with-rigid-tubes-in-holes baseline.
• Claim 13 — obvious as the method of installing the obvious apparatus, with all steps admitted conventional or taught by TSMC.
• Dependent claims 2–6, 8–12, 14–17 — routine design choices/mechanical necessities; fall with the independents.

Caveat: this is an examiner-style prima facie analysis on the face-cited art. I could not retrieve the full text of US20080202250A1, US20100089169A1, or US20070000668A1, and I deliberately excluded CN112304564A as post-dating the '775 filing. Before relying on this for validity opinions or IPR drafting, obtain the full specs of the three unretrieved references and confirm the § 102 dates of all nine cited publications against the 2018-12-18 effective filing date (the cited art I verified all predates it).