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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Oath/Declaration
Oath/Declaration as file 10/24/2023 is noted by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 13-15 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Born et al. US 6,275,050 (Hereinafter Born).
Regarding claim 1, Born teaches a method for nondestructively detecting corrosion (Fig. 2; Claim 1; “Apparatus to detect corrosion in a metal-to-metal junction…”) of an object (Col. 4, lines 53-59; “This technique is particularly suited for signal injection and pickup in metal structures and electrical cables/connectors…”), comprising:
applying an electronic signal (Figs. 2, 4; signal generator, 300) to a device under test (DUT) (Col. 6, lines 14-35; device under test) including said object (Figs. 2, 4; signal generator, 300);
measuring signal-transmission characteristics of said object (Figs. 2, 4; Col. 7, lines 26-32; Claim 1; detector); and
determining the corrosion (Figs. 2, 4; Col. 6, lines 56-61; computer-controlled; Claim 1; “Apparatus to detect corrosion in a metal-to-metal junction…”) of the object (Col. 4, lines 53-59; “This technique is particularly suited for signal injection and pickup in metal structures and electrical cables/connectors…”) based on the measured signal-transmission characteristics of said object (Figs. 2, 4; Col. 6, lines 56-61; computer-controlled; Claim 1; “Apparatus to detect corrosion in a metal-to-metal junction…”).
Regarding claim 2, Born further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said object includes a metallic cable or wire (Col. 4, line 66 to Col. 5, line 12; Col. 5, line 59 to Col. 6, line 35; cable, wires).
Regarding claim 3, Born further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the electronic signal varies in frequency in a range of 9 kHz-3 GHz (Col. 6, lines 14-35; 10 MHz to 34 MHz).
Regarding claim 13, Born teaches a device for nondestructively detecting corrosion (Fig. 2; Claim 1; “Apparatus to detect corrosion in a metal-to-metal junction…”) of an object (Col. 4, lines 53-59; “This technique is particularly suited for signal injection and pickup in metal structures and electrical cables/connectors…”), comprising:
a signal source (Figs. 2, 4; signal generator, 300) for generating an electronic signal operably applied to a device under test (DUT) (Col. 6, lines 14-35; device under test) including said object (Figs. 2, 4; signal generator, 300);
a detector (Figs. 2, 4; Col. 7, lines 26-32; Claim 1; detector) configured to measure signal-transmission characteristics of said object (Figs. 2, 4; Col. 7, lines 26-32; Claim 1; detector); and
a processor (Figs. 2, 4; Col. 6, lines 56-61; computer-controlled) configured to determine the corrosion (Fig. 2; Claim 1; “Apparatus to detect corrosion in a metal-to-metal junction…”) of the object (Col. 4, lines 53-59; “This technique is particularly suited for signal injection and pickup in metal structures and electrical cables/connectors…”) based on the measured signal-transmission characteristics of said object (Figs. 2, 4; Col. 6, lines 56-61; computer-controlled).
Regarding claim 14, Born further teaches the device of claim 13, wherein said object includes a metallic cable or wire (Col. 4, line 66 to Col. 5, line 12; Col. 5, line 59 to Col. 6, line 35; cable, wires).
Regarding claim 15, Born further teaches the device of claim 13, wherein the electronic signal varies in frequency in a range of 9 kHz-3 GHz (Col. 6, lines 14-35; 10 MHz to 34 MHz).
Regarding claim 25, Born further teaches the device of claim 13, wherein the signal source comprises a signal generator (Figs. 2, 4; signal generator, 300).
Regarding claim 26, Born further teaches the device of claim 13, wherein the detector comprises one or more receivers coupled to input and output ports of the DUT (Fig. 2; Claim 1; signal receiver, 330).
Regarding claim 27, Born further teaches the device of claim 13, being a network analyzer (Figs. 2, 4; spectrum analyzer).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 4-12 and 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Born in view of Kleinert US 2010/0199770 (Hereinafter Kleinert).
Regarding claim 4, Born teaches the method of claim 3, but not specifically wherein the signal-transmission characteristics comprises one or more of S-parameter signals at different frequencies, wherein the S-parameter signals include an input impedance, S11, an output match/impedance, S12, a forward gain/loss, S21, and a reverse gain/loss, S22, of the object.
However, Kleinert does teach wherein the signal-transmission characteristics comprises one or more of S-parameter signals at different frequencies, wherein the S-parameter signals include an input impedance, S11, an output match/impedance, S12, a forward gain/loss, S21, and a reverse gain/loss, S22, of the object (Fig. 5; [0002, 0003, 0063-0069]; structural characteristic, data for corrosion feature).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus to detect corrosion in metal junctions of Born by implementing the teachings of Kleinert regarding wherein the signal-transmission characteristics comprises one or more of S-parameter signals at different frequencies, wherein the S-parameter signals include an input impedance, S11, an output match/impedance, S12, a forward gain/loss, S21, and a reverse gain/loss, S22, of the object; for the purpose of “nondestructive recording of a rotational movement, e.g. of a probe, on the surface of a specimen” (See Kleinert; Abstract).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Born and Kleinert teaches the method of claim 4, wherein Kleinert further teaches wherein a magnitude of interference in the S-parameter signals is proportional to an amount, area, and depth of corrosion spots on said object (Fig. 5; [0043, 0063-0069]; “FIG. 5: shows a diagram of a probe according to one or a plurality of embodiments of this invention which is used to determine a feature (in this example corrosion) of a test specimen”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Born and Kleinert teaches the method of claim 4, wherein Kleinert further teaches wherein the S-parameter signals at a frequency range of 10 MHz-1 GHZ are sensitive to the corrosion ([0059]; 1 MHz and 25 MHz).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Born and Kleinert teaches the method of claim 6, wherein Kleinert further teaches wherein the frequency range is preferably from 10 MHz to 100 MHz ([0059]; 1 MHz and 25 MHz).
Regarding claim 8, Born teaches the method of claim 1, but not specifically wherein said determining the corrosion of said object comprises: comparing the measured signal-transmission characteristics of said object with that of a known object in an uncorroded state to determine difference of the signal-transmission characteristics between said object and the known object.
However, Kleinert does teach wherein said determining the corrosion of said object comprises: comparing the measured signal-transmission characteristics of said object with that of a known object in an uncorroded state to determine difference of the signal-transmission characteristics between said object and the known object (Figs. 1, 5; [0057, 0058, 0063-0069]; information processing system, 114).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus to detect corrosion in metal junctions of Born by implementing the teachings of Kleinert regarding wherein said determining the corrosion of said object comprises: comparing the measured signal-transmission characteristics of said object with that of a known object in an uncorroded state to determine difference of the signal-transmission characteristics between said object and the known object; for the purpose of “nondestructive recording of a rotational movement, e.g. of a probe, on the surface of a specimen” (See Kleinert; Abstract).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Born and Kleinert teaches the method of claim 8, wherein Kleinert further teaches wherein the known object is corresponding to said object in an uncorroded state (Fig. 5; [0043, 0063-0069]; “FIG. 5: shows a diagram of a probe according to one or a plurality of embodiments of this invention which is used to determine a feature (in this example corrosion) of a test specimen”).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Born and Kleinert teaches the method of claim 8, wherein Kleinert further teaches wherein the signal-transmission characteristics of the known object is measured in-situ, or pre-measured (Fig. 5; [0043, 0063-0069]; “FIG. 5: shows a diagram of a probe according to one or a plurality of embodiments of this invention which is used to determine a feature (in this example corrosion) of a test specimen”).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Born and Kleinert teaches the method of claim 4, wherein Kleinert further teaches wherein said determining the corrosion of said object comprises: characterizing a roughness in the S-parameter signals (Figs. 1, 5; [0057, 0058, 0063-0069]; information processing system, 114); and determining the corrosion of said object based on the roughness in the S-parameter signals (Figs. 1, 5; [0057, 0058, 0063-0069]; information processing system, 114).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Born and Kleinert teaches the method of claim 11, wherein Kleinert further teaches wherein the roughness in the S-parameter signals increases as the corrosion time point increases (Fig. 5; [0043, 0063-0069]; “FIG. 5: shows a diagram of a probe according to one or a plurality of embodiments of this invention which is used to determine a feature (in this example corrosion) of a test specimen”).
Regarding claim 16, Born teaches the device of claim 15, but not specifically wherein the signal-transmission characteristics comprises one or more of S-parameter signals at different frequencies, wherein the S-parameter signals include an input impedance, S11, an output match/impedance, S12, a forward gain/loss, S21, and a reverse gain/loss, S22, of the object.
However, Kleinert does teach wherein the signal-transmission characteristics comprises one or more of S-parameter signals at different frequencies, wherein the S-parameter signals include an input impedance, S11, an output match/impedance, S12, a forward gain/loss, S21, and a reverse gain/loss, S22, of the object (Fig. 5; [0002, 0003, 0063-0069]; structural characteristic, data for corrosion feature).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus to detect corrosion in metal junctions of Born by implementing the teachings of Kleinert regarding wherein the signal-transmission characteristics comprises one or more of S-parameter signals at different frequencies, wherein the S-parameter signals include an input impedance, S11, an output match/impedance, S12, a forward gain/loss, S21, and a reverse gain/loss, S22, of the object; for the purpose of “nondestructive recording of a rotational movement, e.g. of a probe, on the surface of a specimen” (See Kleinert; Abstract).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Born and Kleinert teaches the device of claim 16, wherein Kleinert further teaches wherein a magnitude of interference in the S-parameter signals is proportional to an amount, area, and depth of corrosion spots on the object (Fig. 5; [0043, 0063-0069]; “FIG. 5: shows a diagram of a probe according to one or a plurality of embodiments of this invention which is used to determine a feature (in this example corrosion) of a test specimen”).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Born and Kleinert teaches the device of claim 16, wherein Kleinert further teaches wherein the S-parameter signals at a frequency range of 10 MHz-1 GHZ are sensitive to the corrosion ([0059]; 1 MHz and 25 MHz).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Born and Kleinert teaches the device of claim 18, wherein Kleinert further teaches wherein the frequency range is preferably from 10 MHz to 100 MHz ([0059]; 1 MHz and 25 MHz).
Regarding claim 20, Born teaches the device of claim 13, but not specifically wherein the processor is configured to: compare the measured signal-transmission characteristics of said object with that of a known object to determine difference of the signal-transmission characteristics between said object and the known object so as to determine the corrosion of said object.
However, Kleinert does teach wherein the processor (Figs. 1, 5; [0057, 0058, 0063-0069]; information processing system, 114) is configured to: compare the measured signal-transmission characteristics of said object with that of a known object to determine difference of the signal-transmission characteristics between said object and the known object so as to determine the corrosion of said object (Figs. 1, 5; [0057, 0058, 0063-0069]; information processing system, 114).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus to detect corrosion in metal junctions of Born by implementing the teachings of Kleinert regarding wherein the processor is configured to: compare the measured signal-transmission characteristics of said object with that of a known object to determine difference of the signal-transmission characteristics between said object and the known object so as to determine the corrosion of said object; for the purpose of “nondestructive recording of a rotational movement, e.g. of a probe, on the surface of a specimen” (See Kleinert; Abstract).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Born and Kleinert teaches the device of claim 20, wherein Kleinert further teaches wherein the known object is corresponding to said object in an uncorroded state (Fig. 5; [0043, 0063-0069]; “FIG. 5: shows a diagram of a probe according to one or a plurality of embodiments of this invention which is used to determine a feature (in this example corrosion) of a test specimen”).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Born and Kleinert teaches the device of claim 21, wherein Kleinert further teaches wherein the signal-transmission characteristics of the known object is measured in-situ, or pre-measured (Fig. 5; [0043, 0063-0069]; “FIG. 5: shows a diagram of a probe according to one or a plurality of embodiments of this invention which is used to determine a feature (in this example corrosion) of a test specimen”).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Born and Kleinert teaches the device of claim 16, wherein Kleinert further teaches wherein the processor is configured to: characterize a roughness in the S-parameter signals (Figs. 1, 5; [0057, 0058, 0063-0069]; information processing system, 114); and determine the corrosion of said object based on the roughness in the S-parameter signals (Figs. 1, 5; [0057, 0058, 0063-0069]; information processing system, 114).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Born and Kleinert teaches the device of claim 23, wherein Kleinert further teaches wherein the roughness in the S-parameter signals increases as the corrosion time point increases (Fig. 5; [0043, 0063-0069]; “FIG. 5: shows a diagram of a probe according to one or a plurality of embodiments of this invention which is used to determine a feature (in this example corrosion) of a test specimen”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Burkhardt et al. US 2004/0117134 - The invention provides an electronic circuit means for injecting virtual flaw signals into the signal path between a NDT test instrument and an associated probe.
Goodbread et al. US 2018/0120217 - A method of measuring the amount of corrosion of a target material caused exposure to a fluid, over a period of time, utilizing a corrosion measuring device, including a resonator having a first surface area made of a material having a corrosion profile like that of the target material and having a second surface area made of material having a corrosion profile unlike that of the target material.
Bray et al. US 2003/0132760 - Corrosion, mold and/or moisture can be detected under outer layers of structures, such as surfaces associated with vessels and/or buildings using the present Nondestructive evaluation (NDE) systems and methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL J RIOS RUSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-3459. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 10am-6pm, EST.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/RAUL J RIOS RUSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 2858