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
2 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/14/2025 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature of “detecting corrosion penetration into a coating over an underlying structure due to corrosion of the surface of the underlying structure” in lines 1-2 of claim 6 is not shown in the figures. Figure 1 shows corrosion (corrosion layer) between the coating (coating layer) and the underlying structure (test structure) but does not show penetration into a coating. 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 CFR 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 CFR 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
3 Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Lines 1-2 of Claim 6 recites “A method of detecting corrosion penetration into a coating over an underlying structure due to corrosion of the surface of the underlying structure”.
Detecting the corrosion penetration into a coating over an underlying structure contradicts the disclosure, where the corrosion occurs beneath the coating and is undetectable from the coating surface, and therefore this limitation is new matter because it is not supported by the original disclosure.
Line 10 Claim 6 recites “calibrating the reference data for thickness of the coating using the measured thickness of the coating, thereby obtaining calibrated reference data”.
There is no disclosure of what algorithm the processor uses to calibrate the reference data.
While para [0030] of the specification discloses that the test system may be calibrated, the specification is silent on how the reference data is calibrated.
Line 17 Claim 6 recites “comparing the calibrated reference data with the measured data; and analyzing the results of the comparing step to determine if corrosion on the surface has penetrated into the coating, thereby determining if coating thickness loss exists.”.
The comparing and the analyzing are computer implemented functions without supporting algorithms given in the disclosure. The limitation “thereby determining if coating thickness loss exists” does not appear to be supported by the disclosure as originally filed.
Para [0030] of the specification states that the reference data and measured data are compared, but does not explain how they are compared, or how they are analyzed to determine if corrosion has penetrated into the coating.
Lines 8-9 Claim 6 recites “measuring the thickness of the coating using a liftoff sensor in multiple locations or during a scan of the surface, thereby obtaining a measured thickness of the coating.”.
The present specification teaches using a liftoff sensor placed in multiple locations, or scanning the surface (para [0033]). However, it is unclear how such measurements would result in a single measured coating thickness as claimed.
The above-cited features of amended claim 6 are not described in the specification as filed in a manner such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the inventor was in possession of the invention as currently claimed.
4 Claim 7 is rejected for the reasons above due to dependence on claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
6 Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Line 1 Claim 6 recites “A method of detecting corrosion penetration into a coating over an underlying structure due to corrosion of the surface of the underlying structure”.
Detecting the corrosion penetration into a coating over an underlying structure contradicts the disclosure, where the corrosion occurs beneath the coating and is undetectable from the coating surface, and therefore renders the claims unclear how “corrosion penetration” is determined or measured See para [0004].
In addition, there does not appear to be support in the disclosure as originally filed for detecting corrosion penetration into a coating. The disclosure only addresses corrosion under a coating See para [0004].
Because claim 6 as currently amended conflicts with the disclosure, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Line 6 Claim 6 recites “storing reference data (data without corrosion) representing a microwave signal transmitted into a like coating over a like surface having no corrosion and reflected from the like surface.”.
The metes and bounds of the “a like coating” and “a like surface” are unclear because it is not clear how to determine what coatings and what surfaces would qualify as “a like coating” and “a like surface”.
Regarding to claim 7, "the test surface" (line 1) lacks antecedent basis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT J ANDREWS whose telephone number is (571)272-6101. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-5pm.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-2258. 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.
/BRENT J ANDREWS/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/JUDY NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights