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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/30/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finley (GB2150300A), Smith (U.S. Publication 20180163308) and further in view of Cheng (U.S. Patent 5670115).
Regarding claim 1, Finley teaches a resistive probe for simultaneous measurement of the rate of corrosion causing material cavities and corrosion resulting from hydrogenation (fig. 7 (210) col. 2 lines 3-11 “an electrical resistance corrosion probe comprises a probe body, test means mounted on and extending away from the body and being arranged to be exposed to a corrosive environment, reference means mounted on the body and protected from the corrosive environment to which the test means are exposed, the test or reference means comprising first and second resistive elements”), the resistive elements being mechanically mounted in a common probe body (fig. 7 (216, 230, 230a mounted on 210)) and, during the measurement, have substantially the same temperature (“temperature characteristics are more readily matched to provide improved temperature when the test and reference elements are made from immediately adjoining sections of a single length of wire” page 2 lines 66-74), comprising a first resistive element and a second resistive element each configured to be exposed to corrosive agents and respective first reference resistive element and second reference resistive element each configured to be isolated from said corrosive agents and corresponding to said first resistive element and said second resistive element
And the resistive probe is configured for simultaneous measurement by the first resistive element and the second resistive element such that a level is determined based on a ratio of the rate of corrosion of the first resistive element and the second resistive element (determining corrosion rate by comparing, including by a ratio type comparison , the resistance of a resistive element exposed to corrosive agents with the resistance of a reference resistive element isolated from corrosive agents page 1 lines 14-29, corrosion progression is determined from changes in resistance of the exposed elements relative to reference element page3 lines 5-26). Because these require resistance values obtained under substantially the same conditions for proportional (ratio based) normalization, finely teaches simultaneous measurement of the test and reference resistances.
Finley further teaches resistive elements made of different material but does not explicitly teach the composition are made of non-alloy steel with carbon content not exceeding 0.002% by weight and manganese content not exceeding 0.05% by weight, whereas the second resistive element exposed to corrosive agents and the second reference resistive element are made of non-alloy steel with carbon content in range of 0.4 to 1% by weight and manganese content not exceeding 0.05% by weight.
However Smith thermal chemical vapor deposition processes and thermal chemical vapor deposition treated articles teaching made of non-alloy steel with carbon content not exceeding 0.002% by weight and manganese content not exceeding 0.05% by weight, whereas the second resistive element exposed to corrosive agents and the second reference resistive element are made of non-alloy steel with carbon content in range of 0.4 to 1% by weight and manganese content not exceeding 0.05% by weight (“The substrate 103 is any suitable material(s) compatible with the process 100. Suitable metal or metallic materials include, but are not limited to, ferrous-based alloys, non-ferrous-based alloys, nickel-based alloys, stainless steels (martensitic or austenitic), aluminum alloys, composite metals, or combinations”,., the substrate 103 is or includes a composition, by weight, of up to 0.08% carbon, up to 2% manganese [0039-0041]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the material composition of Smith in Finley to gain the advantage of effectively modifying the material composition of a device to control corrosion resistance to attain an improve device [Smith [0015]].
One of the ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to select the required composition of materials based on the design choice (Please see MPEP 2144 .04 VI.C.).
Finley teaches determination of corrosion rate from resistance measurements of an exposed resistive elements relative to a references resistive element. Smith teaches selection of different steel compositions having different responses to environmental exposure. However, they dot explicitly teach a level of hydrogenation is determined.
Cheng in a relevant art demonstrates that hydrogenation can be determined by comparing resistances of two resistive elements measured simultaneously (a two element hydrogen sensor wherein hydrogen content is determined based on a difference in resistance value between a hydrogen sensitive resistive element and a hydrogen insensitive resistive element measure simultaneously at substantially the same temperature [col. 7 lines 24-55]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the comparative resistance approach of Cheng to the corrosion probe of Finely as modified by Smith to gain the advantage of effectively determining hydrogenation effects in addition to corrosion rate.
PNG
media_image1.png
294
591
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Finley as modified further teaches all resistive elements are made of wire (fig. 7 A1), the length of the first resistive element exposed to corrosive agents is equal to the length of the first reference resistive element (fig. 7 (216, 214)), the cross- section area of the first resistive element exposed to corrosive agents is equal to the cross- section area of the first reference resistive element (fig. 7 (216, 214 inside probe body 210)), the length of the second resistive element exposed to corrosive agents is equal to the length of the second reference resistive element, while the cross-section area of the second resistive element
Regarding claim 3, Finley as modified further teaches wherein the cross- section areas of all resistive elements are the same (fig. 7 (216, 230, 230a all same)).
Regarding claim 4, Finley as modified further teaches wherein the lengths of all resistive elements (1, 2) are the same (fig. 7 (216, 230, 230a all same)).
Regarding claims 5, 6, Finley as modified further teaches the resistive elements are made of wire with a square cross-section (“The greater the initial thickness of the test element, the less its sensitivity. This is due to the fact that for a given corrosivity of the environment, the percentage change in test element cross sectional area (and therefore in resistance) for a given period of time is less for a larger cross sectional area than it is for a smaller cross sectional area. Therefore, for increased sensitivity, initial test element size is desirably small. However, an initially small sized probe test element reaches the end of its useful life in a significantly shorter period than an initially thicker test element having a greater cross sectional area” page 1 lines 86-100).
One of the ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to select the shape/size of wire based on the design choice (Please see MPEP 2144 .04 VI.C.)
Regarding claim 7, Finley as modified further teaches the first resistive element
Regarding claim 8, Finley as modified further teaches wherein in each of the first measuring electrode and the second measuring electrode, the resistive element exposed to corrosive agents has an elongated "U" shape (fig. 7 (216, 230 U shaped)), and thus comprises a first and second arm, while the reference resistive element has a form of a rectilinear section of wire being an elongation of the second arm of the resistive element exposed to corrosive agents (FIG. 7 (214, 214a)).
Regarding claim 9, Finley as modified further wherein both the first measuring
Regarding claim 10, Finley as modified further teaches wherein the first measuring electrode and the second measuring electrode are rotated relative to each other by ninety angular degrees (as explained the test elements can be arranged to attain as expected results performance page 5 lines 35-53).
One of the ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to select the shape/size of elements based on the design choice (Please see MPEP 2144 .04 VI.C.)
Regarding claim 11, Finley as modified further teaches wherein the probe body is formed by a cylindrical member with through holes for the first measuring electrode and the second measuring electrode (fig. 7 216 exposed to corrosive environment, and D1, F1 are two part, similarly 230 exposed to corrosive environment and D2 F2 are two parts) wherein both arms of each of the first measuring electrode and the second measuring electrode are located on one side of the cylindrical member (fig. 8 210, 216, 230), whereas the first reference resistive element and the second reference resistive element of the first measuring electrode and the second measuring electrode are located on the other side of the cylindrical member (fig. 7 (214, 214a)).
PNG
media_image2.png
206
407
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Finley as modified further teaches wherein both the first reference resistive element and the second reference resistive element are located inside the tubular member connected to the body, wherein a space between the first measuring electrode and the second measuring electrode and the inside of the tubular member and the inside of the through holes of the cylindrical member is filled with an agent resistant to corrosive agents (fig. 7 shows corrosive elements 216 outside the cylinder 210 and 214, 214a inside).
Regarding claim 13, Finley as modified wherein both arms of both the first measuring electrode and the second measuring electrode are located inside a perforated cover connected to the body (fig. 7 216 in 210).
Regarding claim 14, Finley as modified further teaches wherein the cylindrical member comprises a first, second, third and fourth through hole (fig. 7 where 216, 230, 230a connects to 210), which are arranged evenly around the axis of the cylindrical member, wherein a free end of the first arm of the first measuring electrode is located in the first through hole, while an end of the second arm of the first measuring electrode is located in the third through hole, whereas a free end of the first arm of the second measuring electrode is located in the second through hole, while an end of the second arm of the second measuring electrode is located in the fourth through hole (fig. 7 where both sides/arms of 216, 230, 230a connects to 210).
Conclusion
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Victor (U.S. Patent 4326164) discloses Electrical Resistance Corrosion Probe.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAQI R NASIR whose telephone number is (571)270-1425. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at (571) 270-5628. 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.
/TAQI R NASIR/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858