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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 02 September 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the amendment filed 02 September 2025 wherein: claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 14-15, 17-18, and 22 are amended; claims 9, 12-13, and 16 are canceled; claims 1-8, 10-11, 14-15, and 17-24 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Examiner acknowledges the prior claim objection and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection have been overcome by amendment.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Figure 2 show a graphical use interface 240 with three lights, described as a “stop light” in the specification (p. 22, ll. 9-12). The drawings do not show a graphical user interface with only a green light and a red light. Therefore, the graphical user interface with only a red light and a green light must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification is not in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.74 because it does not sufficiently describe the graphical user interface 240 as shown in Figure 2. See also MPEP §§ 608.01(f)-(g). In this case, the specification recites “graphical user interface 240 may provide a simple graphical display of performance indicator of a ‘pass’ or ‘fail’ status via a green or red stop light” (p. 22, ll. 9-12). However, despite stop lights ordinarily having three lights (red, yellow, green, also called red, amber, green (RAG) in user interface design), and three lights being clearly shown in Applicant’s Figure 2 (element 240), a third light is not described in Applicant’s specification. Applicant’s disclosure is therefore insufficient because one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the third light to have some functionality, but the functionality is not disclosed.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1-8, 10-11, 14-15, and 17-24
Claim 1-8, 10-11, 14-15, and 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) 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.
According to the approach used by the court in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (See MPEP § 2164), There are many factors (“Wands factors”) to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is “undue.” These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
Claims 1 and 14-15
Regarding claims 1 and 14-15, with reference to representative claim 1, the claims recites a graphical user interface including a green light and a red light. The only example of a graphical user interface including a green light and a red light is a three-light stop light (Applicant’s specification, p. 22, ll. 9-12; Fig. 2 element 240; see specification objection above). The specification does not describe how to use the middle light (yellow, or amber in red-amber-green (RAG) as commonly called in user interface design). Taking these factors into account, because the amount of direction provided by the inventor is limited to a three-light stop light and description of the red and green light, but no direction is provided for the third light, undue experimentation would be required by one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the full scope of claim 1. Accordingly, claims 1 and 14-15 are rejected.
Claims 2-8, 10-11, and 17-24
Regarding claims 2-8, 10-11, and 17-24, the claims are rejected due to their dependence.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-11, 14-15, and 17-24
Claims 1-8, 10-11, 14-15, and 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. The claims are incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01.
Claims 1 and 14-15
Regarding claims 1 and 14-15, with reference to representative claim 1, the claims recite a graphical user interface with a red light and a green light. The only example of a graphical user interface including a green light and a red light is a three-light stop light (Applicant’s specification, p. 22, ll. 9-12; Fig. 2 element 240; see specification objection above). Because Applicant apparently considers the graphical user interface an essential aspect of the Applicant’s invention, as evidenced by its presence in claim 1, the key features of the graphical user interface must also necessarily be essential. However, claim omits the third light of the stop light, the omission amounting to a gap between the elements. Accordingly, claims 1 and 14-15 are rejected.
Claims 2-8, 10-11, and 17-24
Regarding claims 2-8, 10-11, and 17-24, the claims are rejected due to their dependence.
Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102–103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102–103) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 11, 15, 17-20, and 24
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 11, 15, 17-20, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfe (US 2010/0260926 A1) in view of Rostami (US 2017/0236266 A1), Rao (US 2002/0088952 A1), and Lopez (US 2009/0302850 A1).
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, while the claim is not limited to what is shown in Applicant’s specification or figures, Examiner provides an annotated copy of Applicant’s Fig. 1B below which show features of the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
352
826
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s Fig. 1B, showing a surface comprising, in order from top to bottom, a surface coating, a fluorescence layer, and a substrate.
For comparison, Examiner provides an annotated copy of Fig. 2 of Wolfe below.
PNG
media_image2.png
900
1100
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wolfe, fig. 2, showing UV illumination (with a stimulation wavelength in the range of 200 to 450 nm) and visible stimulated emission (with an emission wavelength in the range of 450 to 750 nm) and a surface comprising, in order from top to bottom, a surface coating, a fluorescence layer, and a substrate.
Wolfe discloses a method, comprising: exposing a surface to ultraviolet light (fig. 2: UV illumination), wherein: the surface comprises a substrate (fig. 2: iron based structural component), a surface coating (fig. 2: top coat) and a fluorescence layer (fig. 2: primer with luminescence pigment) beneath the surface coating (top coat); and the surface coating (top coat) does not emit radiation when exposed to ultraviolet radiation; measuring a fluorescence response to the ultraviolet light at the surface by detecting light in a predetermined frequency range within the visible light spectrum; determining a proportion (total percentage of part area) of the surface comprising the surface coating (top coat) disposed over the fluorescence layer (primer with luminescence pigment) based on the measured fluorescence response; and performing a quantitative evaluation based on area of structural health using the determined proportion, wherein the method can be used for different types of substrates (¶ 44: “FIG. 2 should not be construed as being limiting to the Scope of the present invention. For example, it should be appreciated that the UV reactive coating can be incorporated into any layer or functionally-graded organic/metallic coating system, a coating having greater than two layers, or metallic, ceramic, polymer, or composite substrate. The present invention is not limited to Fe-based systems/substrates to detect corrosion. The present invention contemplates use with other alloys. Further, the present invention should not be construed as being limited to aliphatic top coats. The present invention is applicable to all paint systems that accommodate electromagnetic interactive responsive materials. For example, a UV phosphor material could be incorporated into a primer or coating system. The primer or coating system would provide a new method of nondestructive evaluation of coated structures which would eliminate the need for costly consumables used in traditional NDE techniques, such as MPI and FDP. Furthermore, the primer, Surface or coating system of the present invention would make damage more visible from farther viewing distances than traditional visual inspection which makes inspection of larger structures, such as bridges and boats, much easier”; line before par. [0044]: “UV Stimulation to Visual Emission, par. [0044], [0046]-[0047], fig. 2).
Wolfe does not expressly disclose the quantitative evaluation comprises comparing the determined proportion of the surface comprising the coating to a predetermined threshold, the predetermined threshold comprising a threshold proportion of the surface retaining the surface coating; and indicating a performance indicator of the surface based on the comparison, wherein the performance indicator is a first indication or a second indication, wherein the first indication indicates that the surface meets one or more performance criteria and the second indication indicates that the surface does not meet one or more performance criteria.
Rostami discloses a quantitative evaluation comprises comparing a determined proportion (of area) of a surface to a predetermined threshold (acceptance threshold), the predetermined threshold comprising a threshold proportion of the surface; and indicating a performance indicator (i.e., a determination of whether the object under inspection is defective or not), wherein the performance indicator is a first indication or a second indication, wherein the first indication indicates that the surface meets one or more performance criteria (the object is non-defective) and the second indication indicates that the surface does not meet one or more performance criteria (the object is defective; Abstract, par. [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the invention of Wolfe in view of the teachings of Rostami so that the quantitative evaluation comprises comparing the determined proportion of the surface comprising the coating to a predetermined threshold, the predetermined threshold comprising a threshold proportion of the surface retaining the surface coating; and indicating a performance indicator of the surface based on the comparison.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage of automating defect analysis of the surface. Examiner notes it has been held to be obvious to provide an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result. See MPEP 2144.04(III).
While Wolfe discloses using the method for different types of substrates as described above, and Wolfe modified teaches using a predetermined threshold as described above, Wolfe modified does not expressly disclose determining the predetermined threshold according to a determined type of the substrate.
However, given that Wolfe discloses using the method for different types of substrates, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected different types of substrates to have different structural requirements. For example, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected a bridge to have different structural requirements than those of a boat (Wolfe discloses bridges and boats as two examples in ¶ 44 as described above). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the need to use different thresholds for different types of substrates.
That these features would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the teachings of Rao, which discloses an optical inspection method for detecting particles on a surface of a substrate (Abstract) comprising determining a predetermined threshold (intensity threshold) according to a determined type of a substrate (par. [0114], [0155], claim 33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the invention of Wolfe in view of the further teachings of Rao to include determining the predetermined threshold according to a determined type of the substrate.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage recited in Rao of being able to inspect different types of substrates (Rao, par. [0155]), with inspecting different types of substrates also disclosed by Wolfe in par. [0044]).
Wolfe modified does not expressly disclose the indicating is to a user on a graphical user interface, wherein the graphical user interface is configured to: display a green light as the first indication; and display a red light as the second indication.
However, the general graphical user interface design wherein green means a component has passed inspection and red means a component has failed inspection was so well-known and routinely used as to be instantly and immediately to one of ordinary skill in the art. For example, Lopez discloses indicating to a user on a graphical user interface (90), wherein a performance indicator is a first indication (green light for absence of a problem) or a second indication (red light for presence of a problem), wherein the first indication indicates the material meets one or more performance criteria (absence of a problem) and the second indication indicates that the surface does not meet one or more performance criteria (presence of a problem), wherein the graphical user interface is configured to: display a green light (via element 92) as the first indication; and display a red light (via element 92) as the second indication (¶ 123).
Accordingly, it would have been instantly and immediately obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the invention of Wolfe in view of the teachings of Lopez to include the claimed graphical user interface.
One would have been motivated to do so to clearly indicate to the user the results of the inspection, as suggested by Lopez in paragraph 123: “Such status buttons 92 thus function as ‘idiot lights’ similar to that on an automobile” (i.e., such that even an “idiot” can understand).
Applicant’s specification does not provide any evidence of unexpected results for using the claimed user interface. That is, the user interface is only used to indicate to a user a desired condition or an undesired condition.
Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, Wolfe modified teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the predetermined frequency range is based on fluorescence properties of the fluorescence layer of the surface (Wolfe, par. [0044], [0046]-[0047]).
Claim 3
Regarding claim 3, Wolfe modified teaches the method of Claim 1, further comprising determining fluorescence properties of the surface (Wolfe, par. [0044], [0046]-[0047]).
Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, Wolfe modified teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein, if the determined proportion exceeds the predetermined threshold, indicating the performance indicator comprises indicating that the surface meets one or more performance criteria (i.e., by indicating a non-defective object; Rostami, Abstract, par. [0053]; providing the indication via a green light as described in the rejection of claim 1 above; while Rostami determines defectiveness by calculating the proportion of the defective area, and not the proportion of the non-defective area, these proportions are by definition related by (non-defective area proportion) + (defective area proportion) = 100%. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that in this context, there are only two options for determining if a surface is defective, namely whether the proportion of the defective area above a defectiveness threshold, or if the proportion of the non-defective area is below a non-defectiveness threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the invention of Wolfe in view of the further teachings of Rostami.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage of automating defect analysis of the surface.
Claim 5
Regarding claim 5, Wolfe modified teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein, if the determined proportion does not exceed the predetermined threshold, indicating the performance indicator comprises indicating that the surface does not meet one or more performance criteria (i.e., by indicating an object is defective; Rostami, Abstract, par. [0053]; providing the indication via a green light as described in the rejection of claim 1 above; while Rostami determines defectiveness by calculating the proportion of the defective area, and not the proportion of the non-defective area, these proportions are by definition related by (non-defective area proportion) + (defective area proportion) = 100%. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that in this context, there are only two options for determining if a surface is defective, namely whether the proportion of the defective area above a defectiveness threshold, or if the proportion of the non-defective area is below a non-defectiveness threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the invention of Wolfe in view of the further teachings of Rostami.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage of automating defect analysis of the surface.
Claim 7
Regarding claim 7, Wolfe modified teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the predetermined threshold is based in part on a type of the fluorescence layer (Wolfe, par. [0044], [0046]-[0047]).
Claim 8
Regarding claim 8, Wolfe modified teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein determining the proportion of the surface comprises determining an area of the surface for which a fluorescence response is measured (Wolfe, par. [0047]).
Claim 11
Regarding claim 11, Wolfe modified teaches the method of Claim 1, further comprising selecting a surface type of the surface before measuring the fluorescence response, wherein determining a proportion of the surface comprising the surface coating disposed over the fluorescence layer is further based on the surface type (Wolfe, par. [0044], [0046]-[0047]).
Claim 15
Regarding claim 15, Examiner refers to the rejection of claim 1 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 17-18
Regarding claims 17-18, Examiner refers to the rejections of claims 4-5 above, respectively, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 19-20
Regarding claims 19-20, Examiner refers to the rejections of claims 2-3 above, respectively, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 24
Regarding claim 24, Wolfe modified teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising determining a type of the surface coating (topcoats), wherein the predetermined threshold is determined further according to the type of the surface coating (i.e., given the multiple types of topcoats as disclosed in Wolfe, ¶ 44, the transmittance of the fluorescent light through the topcoat would inherently depend on the type of topcoat, therefore the type of topcoat is a result-effective variable; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adjusted the threshold based on the type of the topcoat to optimize defect detection; routine optimization has been held to be obvious; see MPEP 2144.05(II)).
Claim 6
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfe in view of Rostami, Rao, and Lopez as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Frankel (US 2003/0068824 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Wolfe modified teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the surface is a portion of an exterior of a variety of a vehicle, wherein the vehicle is one of an automobile, a ship, and a space vehicle (Wolfe, par. [0025]).
Wolfe modified does not expressly disclose the vehicle is an aircraft.
Frankel discloses inspection of a coating wherein a vehicle is an aircraft (Abstract, par. [0108]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the invention of Wolfe in view of the teachings of Frankel so that the vehicle is an aircraft.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage suggested by Rostami of detecting is a coating has been corroded (Rostami, Abstract).
Claim 10
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfe in view of Rostami, Rao, and Lopez as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Honda (US 2015/0369752 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Wolfe modified teaches the method of Claim 1, but does not expressly disclose indicating a performance indicator comprises providing a measurement based on the determined proportion to a user on a graphical user interface.
Honda discloses a defect inspection method (Abstract) wherein indicating a performance indicator comprises providing a measurement based on a defect determination result to a user on a graphical user interface (par. [0145], fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the invention of Wolfe in view of the teachings of Honda so that providing a performance indicator comprises indicating a measurement based on the determined proportion to a user on a graphical user interface.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage suggested by Honda of providing a convenient graphical means for displaying further information about the surface (Honda, par. [0145], fig. 11).
Regarding claims 16-18, Examiner refers to the rejection of claim 9 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 14
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfe in view of Rostami, Rao, and Lopez as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ghosh (US 2015/0276480 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Wolfe modified teaches the method of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising logic that, when executed by processing circuitry, causes the processing circuitry to perform the method.
Ghosh discloses a defect inspection method (Abstract) and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising logic that, when executed by processing circuitry, causes the processing circuitry to perform the method (par. [0111]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the invention of Wolfe in view of the teachings of Ghosh to make a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising logic that, when executed by processing circuitry, causes the processing circuitry to perform the method.
One would have been motivated to do so to gain an advantage of avoiding the need to manually perform the method each time it is needed.
Claim 21
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfe in view of Rostami, Rao, and Lopez as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ogasawara (US 2014/0169632 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Rostami modified teaches the method of Claim 1, but does not expressly disclose determining the proportion of the surface comprising the surface coating based on the measured fluorescence response comprises: determining, from a total number of pixels, a number of pixels exhibiting a fluorescent response; and dividing the number of pixels exhibiting the fluorescent response by the total number of pixels.
Ogasawara discloses determining a proportion of a surface based on a measured characteristic response (SAP-proper-quantity) comprises: determining, from a total number of pixels, a number of pixels exhibiting a characteristic response (SAP-proper-quantity); and dividing the number of pixels exhibiting the characteristic response by the total number of pixels (i.e., to make the pass/fail determination based on percentage of total area based on the number of pixels (par. [0103]-[0106]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the invention of Rostami in view of the teachings of Ogasawara so that determining the proportion of the surface comprising the surface coating based on the measured fluorescence response comprises: determining, from a total number of pixels, a number of pixels exhibiting a fluorescent response; and dividing the number of pixels exhibiting the fluorescent response by the total number of pixels.
One would have been motivated to do so to provide a relatively simple means of determining the proportion (i.e., by counting pixels and dividing by the total number of pixels) as compared to other means of determining the proportion (e.g., using the planar sizes of pixels such as disclosed in Ogasawara, par. [0103]-[0104]).
Claims 22-23
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfe in view of Rostami, Rao, and Lopez as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cheverton (US 2016/0097719 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Wolfe modified teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches using a plurality of luminescence pigments (Wolfe, par. [0044]).
Wolfe modified does not expressly disclose detecting light in a second predetermined frequency range within the visible light spectrum, wherein the surface further comprises a second surface coating and a second fluorescence layer, wherein the second fluorescence layer emits a fluorescence response in the second predetermined frequency range withing the visible light spectrum.
Cheverton discloses a method for monitoring coatings comprising illuminating a surface with ultraviolet light, wherein the surface comprises a first fluorescence layer (outer layer 24) which emits a fluorescence response in a first predetermined frequency range within the visible light spectrum and a second fluorescence layer (bond coat layer 14) which emits a fluorescence response in a second predetermined frequency range within the visible light spectrum (¶ 5, 21-23, 28, 34-38 fig. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the invention of Wolfe in view of the teachings of Cheverton to include detecting light in a second predetermined frequency range within the visible light spectrum, wherein the surface further comprises a second surface coating and a second fluorescence layer, wherein the second fluorescence layer emits a fluorescence response in the second predetermined frequency range withing the visible light spectrum.
One would have been motivated to do to gain an advantage suggested by Cheverton of being able to detect defects (erosion) based on multiple layers (Cheverton, ¶ 5).
Regarding claim 23, Wolfe modified teaches the method of claim 22, wherein the second surface coating and the second fluorescence layer are disposed below the surface coating (top coat in fig. 2 of Wolfe; see rejection of claims 1 and 22 above; for example, the intermediate layer and the primer of Wolfe, claim 21, are below the topcoat).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE RIDDICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1865. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th 6:30 am - 5:00 pm ET, with flexible scheduling.
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, David Makiya can be reached on 571-272-2273. 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.
Blake C. Riddick, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/BLAKE C RIDDICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884