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, 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/14/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-10, 12 and 16-17 are canceled.
Claims 11 and 18 are amended.
Claims 13-15 and 19-20 are as previously presented.
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.
Claims 11, 13-15, and 18-20 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. Claim 11 recites “the corrosion rate being gathered by an on-aircraft corrosion rate sensor and the temperature and humidity being gathered by other on-aircraft sensors;” (emphasis added) however, the specification recites Par. 41 “In this example, data sets 25 from two primary sources are used including a data set 25a of sensor measurements”, Par. 45 “One example includes the calculation of the absolute humidity at the measurement point from the relative humidity, temperature, and pressure”, Par. 44 “One example includes determining an on-aircraft external temperature based on known surface ground temperature measurements” and Par. 36 “Specific examples of sensors that can supply data include but are not limited to Luna Innovations L2SA sensors and Luna Innovations Acuity sensors which measure corrosion rate as well as surrounding environmental parameters”. From this it is clear that the on-aircraft sensors detect all of the corrosion rate sensor and the temperature and humidity rather than separate sensors as claimed.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 19 and 20 recite “The method of claim 18” however claim 18 is “A non-transitory computer readable medium”. Thus, claims 19-20 should be directed to the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 11, 13-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under step 1, claim 1 belongs to a statutory category of a method.
Under Step 2A prong 1, the claims as a whole are identified as being directed to a judicial exception as claim 11 recites “a method of estimating corrosion of a material”, “determining a date, time, and geographic location of the corrosion data; determining additional data points from weather data gathered from a remote data source for the date, time, and geographic location when the corrosion data was observed by performing interpolation in time and geographic interpolation on weather measurements in the weather data to determine interpolated estimates for the weather measurements at the date, time, and geographic location of the data points in the corrosion data, as the additional data points; aggregating the corrosion data and the additional data into a trained data model wherein the trained data model is a KNN nonlinear regression model;”, “filtering the trained data model and generating remaining data points by removing the data points unrelated to the date, time, and geographic location of the one or more environmental parameters and unrelated to the material parameters of the material;” and “determining a distance between the remaining data points and the one or more environmental parameters, using the filtered trained data model; selecting a group of the remaining data points that are nearest to the one or more environmental parameters; based on the group of the remaining data points, determining a corrosion estimate by applying KNN nonlinear regression and determining the distance between the remaining data points and the one or more environmental parameters inputted for the corrosion estimation, and computing a statistical value based on the distances;” which are directed to mathematical concepts and/or mental processes.
Under Step 2A prong 2, evaluating whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “in a model training phase: receiving corrosion data comprising data points of measurement data of environmental parameters including temperature and humidity measured during corrosion of a material having defined material parameters for substrate and finish, and observational data of a corrosion rate of the material, the corrosion rate being gathered by an on-aircraft corrosion rate sensor and the temperature and humidity being gathered by other on-aircraft sensors different from the corrosion rate sensor;”, “in a corrosion estimation phase: receiving from a user device one or more environmental parameters for corrosion estimation in an estimation process;” and “and transmitting an output display of the corrosion estimate for to the user device:” are considered to be data gathering or output steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. The elements of “at processing circuitry of a computing device” are considered to be generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The additional element(s) of using generic AI/ML technology, i.e. “a trained data model, wherein the trained data model is a KNN nonlinear regression model;” and “applying KNN nonlinear regression”, to perform data evaluations or calculations, as identified under Prong 1 above. The claims do not recite any details regarding how the AI/ML algorithm or model functions or is trained. Instead, the claims are found to utilize the AI/ML algorithm as a tool that provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under Step 2B, evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept both individually and in combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “in a model training phase: receiving corrosion data comprising data points of measurement data of environmental parameters including temperature and humidity measured during corrosion of a material having defined material parameters for substrate and finish, and observational data of a corrosion rate of the material, the corrosion rate being gathered by an on-aircraft corrosion rate sensor and the temperature and humidity being gathered by other on-aircraft sensors;”, “in a corrosion estimation phase: receiving from a user device one or more environmental parameters for corrosion estimation in an estimation process;” and “and transmitting an output display of the corrosion estimate for to the user device:” are considered to be adding nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g), well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known per MPEP 2106.05(d)(I, iv). The elements of “at processing circuitry of a computing device” are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). Additionally, the use of the “a trained data model, wherein the trained data model is a KNN nonlinear regression model;” and “applying KNN nonlinear regression” merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the use of “a trained data model, wherein the trained data model is a KNN nonlinear regression model;” and “applying KNN nonlinear regression” to perform steps that are otherwise abstract does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence; and Example 47, ineligible claim 2.
Claims 13-15, and 19-20 are considered to further describe the abstract ideas and/or the data itself collected in the data gathering steps and are rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 18 the elements of “a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processing circuitry of the computing device, configure the computing device to perform the method of claim 11” is not integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because they are considered to be generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and re well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Examiner Note with regards to Prior Art of Record
Claims 11, 13-15, and 18-20 are distinguished over the prior art of record based on the reasons below.
In claim 11, the claim differs from the closest prior arts of record, US 20220164681 A1, US 20210063336 A1, US 8185326 B2, in that it fails to anticipate or render obvious “aggregating the corrosion data and the additional data into a trained data model, wherein the trained data model is a KNN nonlinear regression model; in a corrosion estimation” and “filtering the trained data model and generating remaining data points by removing the data points unrelated to the date, time, and geographic location of the one or more environmental parameters and unrelated to the material parameters of the material: determining a distance between the remaining data points and the one or more environmental parameters, using the filtered trained data model; selecting a group of the remaining data points that are nearest to the one or more environmental parameters, using the filtered trained data model; based on the group of the remaining data points, determining a corrosion estimate by applying KNN nonlinear regression and determining the distance between the remaining data points and the one or more environmental parameters inputted for the corrosion estimation, and computing a statistical value based on the distances” in combination with all the other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The 112 rejection is maintained as no evidence has been provided. In regards to applicant’s 101 arguments the examiner respectfully disagrees. As recited and expanded upon in the rejection above, the additional elements and the claims as a whole do not is not integrated into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 8185326 B2 Corrosion Detection And Monitoring System; US 6144026 A Fiber Optic Grating Corrosion And Chemical Sensor, and US 20180346151 A1 ADVANCED ANALYTIC METHODS AND SYSTEMS UTILIZING TRUST-WEIGHTED MACHINE LEARNING MODELS.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON J BECKER whose telephone number is (571)431-0689. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/B.J.B/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857