DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 35-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more, as set forth below.
The following analysis is performed in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter 2019 PEG), as set forth in MPEP § 2106.
Step 1
Step 1 of the 2019 PEG asks whether the claim is to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 35-46 are directed to an apparatus.
Claims 47-54 are directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong One
Step 2A Prong One of the 2019 PEG asks whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
The examiner has identified the following judicial exceptions in the claims:
Claim 35 recites:
identifying a corrosion risk of a mechanical assembly
(a) receive a set of design data that represents the mechanical assembly, wherein the set of design data comprises data for a plurality of parts of the mechanical assembly, at least one material associated with each of the plurality of parts, and at least one environment associated with each of the plurality of parts;
(b) receive a set of corrosion data that is associated with the set of design data;
(c) determine a corrosion risk associated with the mechanical assembly based on the set of design data and the set of corrosion data, wherein the corrosion risk comprises a general corrosion risk and a galvanic corrosion risk; and
(d) provide a description of the corrosion risk;
(i) determine the general corrosion risk for each of the plurality of parts based on the at least one material and the at least one environment associated with that part;
(ii) determine a plurality of part pairs based on the set of design data, where each of the plurality of part pairs comprises a first part and a second part that are joined by a conductive connection;
(iv) for each part pair of the plurality of part pairs:
(A) determine if there is a complete galvanic circuit for the first part and the second part; and
(B) determine the galvanic corrosion risk based on a galvanic potential difference between the at least one material of the first part and the second part, and whether the complete galvanic circuit exists.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 35 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 36 recites:
when determining if the complete galvanic circuit exists for the first part and the second part:
(i) determine, based on the plurality of part pairs, whether a direct return path exists between the first part and the second part, wherein the direct return path comprises a single conductive connection between the first part and the second part;
(ii) determine, based on the plurality of part pairs, whether an indirect return path exists between the first part and the second part, wherein the indirect return path comprises two or more sequential conductive connections between the first part and the second part.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 36 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 37 recites:
wherein the single conductive connection and the two or more sequential conductive connections comprise a part of the plurality of parts other than the first part and the second part, an environment other than a common environment shared by the first part and the second part, or both.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 37 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 38 recites:
prior to determining the corrosion risk, discard from the plurality of part pairs each part pair where:
(i) the first part and the second part share a common set of associated materials;
(ii) the first part or the second part is non-conductive; or (iii) the first part and the second part do not share a common environment.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 38 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 39 recites:
after receiving the set of design data as a structured output file:
(i) identify a plurality of materials referenced in the structured output file, and map each of the plurality of materials to a reference material in the set of corrosion data;
(ii) identify the plurality of parts referenced in the structured output file, and store the plurality of parts in a part table; and
(iii) use the environment table and the part table as the set of design data.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 39 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 40 recites:
wherein the part table comprises, for each of the plurality of parts, a part identifier, one or more materials of the plurality of materials, one or more mapped reference materials, one or more conductive connections, and one or more environments of the plurality of environments.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 40 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 41 recites:
prior to determining the corrosion risk, for any part that is non-conductive based on the one or more mapped reference materials:
(i) discard, from the part table, the one or more conductive connections for that part;
(ii) mark, in the part table, the one or more environments for that part so that they are excluded when determining the galvanic corrosion risk, but still used when determining the general corrosion risk.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 41 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 42 recites:
wherein the one or more environments are stored in the part table as numerical environment identifiers, and wherein the one or more environments for that part are marked for exclusion when determining galvanic corrosion risk by modifying the numerical environment identifiers to a negative value.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 42 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 43 recites:
cause a corrosion risk report to be displayed.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 43 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 44 recites:
wherein the corrosion risk report comprises:
(i) a description of the general corrosion risk that includes a first set of corroded parts, a summary of the potential corrosion problem for each of the first set of corroded parts, anda risk rating for each of the first set of corroded parts; and
(ii) a description of the galvanic corrosion risk that includes a second set of corroded parts, a summary of the potential corrosion problem for each of the second set of corroded parts,and a risk rating for each of the second set of corroded parts.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 44 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 45 recites:
a case database configured to store a plurality of cases, wherein each case of the plurality of cases comprises one or more case materials, one or
more case environments, a case diagram, and a case description, wherein the corrosion risk report comprises:
(i) the description of the corrosion risk; and
(ii) a case link interface element that is configured to be selected to cause the corrosion risk report to display a matching case from the case database.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 45 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 46 recites:
wherein the corrosion risk report comprises, for each corroded part of a set of corroded parts, a first description of the galvanic corrosion risk that is based on that corroded part being associated with a complete galvanic circuit, and a second description of the galvanic corrosion risk that is based on that corroded part being associated with an incomplete galvanic circuit.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 46 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 47 recites:
(a) receiving a set of design data that represents the mechanical assembly, wherein the set of design data comprises data for a plurality of parts of the mechanical assembly, at least one material associated with each of the plurality of parts, and at least one environment associated with each of the plurality of parts;
(b) receiving a set of corrosion data that is associated with the set of design data;
(c) determining a corrosion risk associated with the mechanical assembly based on the set of design data and the set of corrosion data, wherein the corrosion risk comprises a general corrosion risk and a galvanic corrosion risk; and
(d) providing a description of the corrosion risk;
the method further comprising, when determining the corrosion risk:
(i) determining the general corrosion risk for each of the plurality of parts based on the at least one material and the at least one environment associated with that part;
(ii) determining a plurality of part pairs based on the set of design data, where each of the plurality of part pairs comprises a first part and a second part that are joined by a conductive connection;
(iv) for each part pair of the plurality of part pairs:(A) determining if there is a complete galvanic circuit for the first part and the second part; and
(B) determining the galvanic corrosion risk based on a galvanic potential difference between the at least one material of the first part and the second part, and whether the complete galvanic circuit exists.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 47 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 48 recites:
when determining if the complete galvanic circuit exists for the first part and the second part:
(i) determining, based on the plurality of part pairs, whether a direct return path exists between the first part and the second part, wherein the direct return path comprises a single conductive connection between the first part and the second part;
(ii) determining, based on the plurality of part pairs, whether an indirect return path exists between the first part and the second part, wherein the indirect return path comprises two or more sequential conductive connections between the first part and the second part.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 48 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 49 recites:
prior to determining the corrosion risk, discarding from the plurality of part pairs each part pair that is not a galvanic risk based on the associated at least one material and at least one environment.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 49 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 50 recites:
causing a corrosion risk report to be displayed.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 50 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 51 recites:
wherein the corrosion risk report comprises descriptions, based on the general corrosion risk and galvanic corrosion risk, that include for each of a set of corroded parts a summary of the potential corrosion problem and a risk rating.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 51 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 52 recites:
wherein the corrosion risk report comprises:
(i) the description of the corrosion risk; and
(ii) a case link interface element that is configured to be selected to cause the corrosion risk report to display a matching case from a case database;
wherein the case database is configured to store a plurality of cases, and wherein each case of the plurality of cases comprises one or more case materials, one or more case environments, a case diagram, and a case description.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 52 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 53 recites:
wherein the corrosion risk report comprises, for each corroded part of a set of corroded parts, a first description of the galvanic corrosion risk that is based on that corroded part being associated with a complete galvanic circuit, and a second description of
the galvanic corrosion risk that is based on that corroded part being associated with an incomplete galvanic circuit.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 53 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 54 recites:
A method for identifying a corrosion risk of a mechanical assembly comprising:
(a) providing a set of design data that represents the mechanical assembly to a corrosion risk assessment computer, wherein the set of design data comprises data for a plurality of parts of the mechanical assembly, at least one material associated with each of the plurality of parts, and at least one environment associated with each of the plurality of parts;
(b) receiving a corrosion risk dataset from the corrosion risk assessment computer, and displaying a corrosion risk report based on the corrosion risk dataset;
wherein the corrosion risk dataset comprises:
(i) a general corrosion risk for each of the plurality of parts that is determined based on the at least one material and the at least one environment associated with that part; and
(ii) a galvanic corrosion risk for each of the plurality of parts that is determined based on:(A) a grouping of the plurality of parts into a plurality of part pairs based on the set of design data, wherein each of the plurality of part pairs comprises a first part and a second part that are joined by a conductive connection; and
(B) for each part pair of the plurality of part pairs:
(I) a determination of whether there is a complete galvanic circuit for the first part and the second part; and
(II) a determination of the galvanic corrosion risk based on a galvanic potential difference between the at least one material of the first part and the second part, and whether the complete galvanic circuit exists.
These claim limitations are abstract ideas of mental processes, as discussed in MPEP §2016.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the mental processes cover performance of the limitations in the mind, and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components that are used merely as a tool to implement the abstract ideas. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Claim 54 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two
Step 2A Prong Two of the 2019 PEG asks whether a claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 35-46 recite the additional elements of:
one or more processor performing processor functions;
a display.
The processor and display are nothing more than a generic computer performing generic computer functions of processing and outputting to implement the abstract ideas on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Accordingly, the additional element of a processor does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Whether considered individually, or as an ordered combination with other claim elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application under any of the indicia set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(d), or improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field as set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Therefore, claims 35-46 are directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas.
Claims 47-53 recite the additional elements of:
one or more processors performing processor functions;
a display.
The processor and display are nothing more than a generic computer performing generic computer functions of processing and outputting to implement the abstract ideas on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Accordingly, the additional element of a processor does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Whether considered individually, or as an ordered combination with other claim elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application under any of the indicia set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(d), or improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field as set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Therefore, claims 47-53 are directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas.
Claim 54 recite the additional elements of:
one or more processors performing processor functions;
a display.
The processor and display are nothing more than a generic computer performing generic computer functions of processing and outputting to implement the abstract ideas on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Accordingly, the additional element of a processor does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Whether considered individually, or as an ordered combination with other claim elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application under any of the indicia set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(d), or improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field as set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Therefore, claim 54 is directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas.
Step 2B
Step 2B of the 2019 PEG asks whether the claim provide an inventive concept, i.e., whether the claim recites additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim.
Regarding claims 35-46, as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements of the processor and display amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A, or provide an inventive concept to make the claim amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions in Step 2B.
Whether considered individually, or as an ordered combination with other claim elements, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept that makes the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
For these reasons, there are no inventive concepts in claims 35-46 and claims 35-46 are therefore ineligible as being directed to judicial exceptions of abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 47-53, as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements of the processor and display amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A, or provide an inventive concept to make the claim amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions in Step 2B.
Whether considered individually, or as an ordered combination with other claim elements, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept that makes the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
For these reasons, there are no inventive concepts in claims 47-53 and claims 47-53 are therefore ineligible as being directed to judicial exceptions of abstract ideas.
Regarding claim 54, as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements of the processor and display amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A, or provide an inventive concept to make the claim amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions in Step 2B.
Whether considered individually, or as an ordered combination with other claim elements, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept that makes the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
For these reasons, there are no inventive concepts in claim 54 and claim 54 is therefore ineligible as being directed to judicial exceptions of abstract ideas.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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 CFR 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.
Claims 35-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rutka, US 2009/0287336 A1 (hereinafter Rutka) in view of Schweitzer, "Fundamentals of Metallic Corrosion, Atmospheric and Media Corrosion of Metals," (hereinafter Schweitzer).
Regarding claim 35:
Rutka teaches a system for identifying a corrosion risk of a mechanical assembly, the system comprising one or more processors (“It will be noted that the various aforementioned algorithms can be part of one or more computer programs which can be loaded on a data processing system, for example, a workstation or a PC,” ¶ 0367) configured to:
(a) receive a set of design data that represents the mechanical assembly, wherein the set of design data comprises data for a plurality of parts of the mechanical assembly (“determination of the parts of the assembly that are in mechanical contact with each other,” col. 9, lines 55-56, Figs. 1-3), at least one material associated with each of the plurality of parts (“determine, for each of the parts of the assembly, the material of which they are made,” col. 13, lines 41-42), and at least one environment associated with each of the plurality of parts (“possibly taking into account geometrical constraints such as a geometrical volume or a spatial interaction with a given environment,” ¶ 0180; “One can thus verify, for example, whether the assembly or a portion thereof is tight to one or more fluids (water, air, etc.),” ¶ 0024);
(c) determine a corrosion risk associated with the mechanical assembly based on the set of design data and the set of corrosion data, wherein the corrosion risk a galvanic corrosion risk (“one can determine such an incompatibility for the galvanic pairs,” col. 21, lines 34-35); and
(d) provide a description of the corrosion risk (“one can determine such an incompatibility for the galvanic pairs,” col. 21, lines 34-35; “At the end of the calculations performed by the interference calculation engine, one obtains results in a file in the form of a list of pairs of parts in contact,” ¶ 0165);
wherein the one or more processors are configured to, when determining the corrosion risk: (ii) determine a plurality of part pairs based on the set of design data, where each of the plurality of part pairs comprises a first part and a second part that are joined by a conductive connection (“a matrix or table of two dimensions making it possible to identify, in the form of second pairs of parts, the parts of the assembly that are in electrical contact with each other,” ¶ 0180);
(iv) for each part pair of the plurality of part pairs: (A) determine if there is a complete galvanic circuit for the first part and the second part (“one can determine such an incompatibility for the galvanic pairs,” col. 21, lines 34-35); and
(B) determine the galvanic corrosion risk based on a galvanic potential difference between the at least one material of the first part and the second part, and whether the complete galvanic circuit exists (“one can determine such an incompatibility for the galvanic pairs,” col. 21, lines 34-35).
Rutka does not teach (b) receive a set of corrosion data that is associated with the set of design data;
(c) determine a corrosion risk associated with the mechanical assembly based on the set of corrosion data, wherein the corrosion risk comprises a general corrosion risk;
(i) determine the general corrosion risk for each of the plurality of parts based on the at least one material and the at least one environment associated with that part.
Schweitzer teaches a set of corrosion data that is associated with the set of design data (“[u]nder normal circumstances, iron and steel corrode in the presence of both oxygen and water,” p. 1; Table 1-2, p. 8, is a set of corrosion data in the form of a Galvanic Series of Metals and Alloys
determine a corrosion risk associated with the mechanical assembly based on the set of corrosion data, wherein the corrosion risk comprises a general corrosion risk (“[u]nder normal circumstances, iron and steel corrode in the presence of both oxygen and water,” p. 1);
that based on the at least one material of a part and the at least one environment associated with that part, one can determine a general corrosion risk for a part (“[u]nder normal circumstances, iron and steel corrode in the presence of both oxygen and water,” p. 1); and
that premature failure of bridges or structures due to corrosion, or failure of operating equipment, can result in human injury or even loss of life (p. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rutka check whether the galvanically dissimilar metals in contact with each other are also in contact with an electrolytic environment, as taught by Schweitzer, and to check for a general corrosion risk, as taught by Schweitzer, because corrosion can result in human injury or even loss of life, thereby resulting in (b) receive a set of corrosion data that is associated with the set of design data; (c) determine a corrosion risk associated with the mechanical assembly based on the set of corrosion data, wherein the corrosion risk comprises a general corrosion risk; (i) determine the general corrosion risk for each of the plurality of parts based on the at least one material and the at least one environment associated with that part.
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Rutka and Schweitzer teaches the invention of claim 35, as set forth in the rejection of claim 35 above. The combination of Rutka and Schweitzer also teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to, when determining if the complete galvanic circuit exists for the first part and the second part: (i) determine, based on the plurality of part pairs, whether a direct return path exists between the first part and the second part, wherein the direct return path comprises a single conductive connection between the first part and the second part; (ii) determine, based on the plurality of part pairs, whether an indirect return path exists between the first part and the second part, wherein the indirect return path comprises two or more sequential conductive connections between the first part and the second part (Rutka: “The information as to the electrical conductivity of the materials making up the parts of the assembly and, in particular, the parts of the first pairs of parts, is obtained by the algorithm of FIG. 5, which will be described hereafter,” ¶ 0192).
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Rutka and Schweitzer teaches the invention of claim 36, as set forth in the rejection of claim 36 above. The combination of Rutka and Schweitzer also teaches wherein the single conductive connection and the two or more sequential conductive connections comprise a part of the plurality of parts other than the first part and the second part, an environment other than a common environment shared by the first part and the second part, or both (Rutka: “According to one characteristic, the method involves a preliminary step of determination of the materials which are conductive for the flow and those which are not conductive for the flow based on the materials making up the different parts of the assembly.,” ¶ 0092; “The description of the following sample embodiment makes it possible to verify the electrical conductivity of the structure before its fabrication, and thus to be able to modify the structure at less expense in the event of a lack of electrical conductivity, for example, between parts A and F,” ¶ 0139).
Regarding claim 38, the combination of Rutka and Schweitzer teaches the invention of claim 35, as set forth in the rejection of claim 35 above. The combination of Rutka and Schweitzer also teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to, prior to determining the corrosion risk, discard from the plurality of part pairs each part pair where: (i) the first part and the second part share a common set of associated materials (Rutka: “one can determine such an incompatibility for the galvanic pairs, that is, the pairs of materials which, in the presence of one another, are the site of a corrosion phenomenon. One such example of a galvanic pair is illustrated by the aluminum-titanium pair,” ¶¶ 0350-0351 – if the materials of two parts are the same, there is no material incompatibility, and thus, no need to determine a galvanic incompatibility).
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Rutka and Schweitzer teaches the invention of claim 35, as set forth in the rejection of claim 35 above. The combination of Rutka and Schweitzer also teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to, after receiving the set of design data as a structured output file: (i) identify a plurality of materials referenced in the structured output file, and map each of the plurality of materials to a reference material in the set of corrosion data; (ii) identify the plurality of parts referenced in the structured output file, and store the plurality of parts in a part table; and (iii) use the environment table and the part table as the set of design data (Rutka: “one can determine such an incompatibility for the galvanic pairs, that is, the pairs of materials which, in the presence of one another, are the site of a corrosion phenomenon,” ¶ 0350 – this determination is supplemented by the data contained in the galvanic chart of Schweitzer).
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Rutka and Schweitzer teaches the invention of claim 39, as set forth in the rejection of claim 39 above. The combination of Rutka and Schweitzer also teaches wherein the part table comprises, for each of the plurality of parts, a part identifier (Rutka: “identification of the parts of the assembly and determination of first and second pairs of parts,” ¶ 0054), one or more materials of the plurality of materials, one or more mapped reference materials, one or more conductive connections (Rutka: “This table, illustrated below, makes it possible to identify for each of the parts of the assembly the material used for the fabrication of this part and its nature as an electrical conductor or not,” ¶ 0223), and one or more environments of the plurality of environments (Rutka: “possibly taking into account geometrical constraints such as a geometrical volume or a spatial interaction with a given environment,” ¶ 0180).
Regarding claim 41, the combination of Rutka and Schweitzer teaches the invention of claim 40, as set forth in the rejection of claim 40 above. The combination of Rutka and Schweitzer also teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to, prior to determining the corrosion risk, for any part that is non-conductive based on the one or more mapped reference materials: (i) discard, from the part table, the one or more conductive connections for that part; (ii) mark, in the part table, the one or more environments for that part so that they are excluded when determining the galvanic corrosion risk, but still used when determining the general corrosion risk (Rutka: “one can determine such an incompatibility for the galvanic pairs,” col. 21, lines 34-35 – implicit in determining an incompatibility is also determining that the incompatibility is a compatibility).
Regarding claim 42, the combination of Rutka and Schweitzer teaches the invention of claim 41, as set forth in the rejection of claim 41 above. The combination of Rutka and Schweitzer also teaches wherein the one or more environments are stored in the part table as numerical environment identifiers, and wherein the one or more environments for that part are marked for exclusion when determining galvanic corrosion risk by modifying the numerical environment identifiers to a negative value (Rutka: “one can determine such an incompatibility for the galvanic pairs,” col. 21, lines 34-35 – an environment will be negatively marked when it is not capable of creating an incompatible galvanic pair).
Regarding claim 43, the combination of Rutka and Schweitzer teaches the invention of claim 35, as set forth in the rejection of claim 35 above. The combination of Rutka and Schweitzer also teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to, when providing the description of the corrosion risk, cause a corrosion risk report (Rutka: “At the end of the calculations performed by the interference calculation engine, one obtains results in a file in the form of a list of pairs of parts in contact,” ¶ 0165) to be displayed on a display (Rutka: galvanic incompatibility would be displayed as, for example, in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 44, the combination of Rutka and Schweitzer teaches the invention of claim 43, as set forth in the rejection of claim 43 above. The combination of Rutka and Schweitzer also teaches wherein the corrosion risk report comprises: (i) a description of the general corrosion risk that includes a first set of corroded parts, a summary of the potential corrosion problem for each of the first set of corroded parts, and a risk rating for each of the first set of corroded parts; and (ii) a description of the galvanic corrosion risk that includes a second set of corroded parts, a summary of the potential corrosion problem for each of the second set of corroded parts, and a risk rating for each of the second set of corroded parts (Rutka: “one can determine such an incompatibility for the galvanic pairs,” col. 21, lines 34-35 – determination of incompatibility needs to be made for each and every pair of parts to ensure no galvanic incompatibility is overlooked).
Regarding claim 45, the combination of Rutka and Schweitzer teaches the invention of claim 43, as set forth in the rejection of claim 43 above. The combination of Rutka and Schweitzer also teaches a case database configured to store a plurality of cases, wherein each case of the plurality of cases comprises one or more case materials, one or more case environments, a case diagram, and a case description, wherein the corrosion risk report comprises: (i) the description of the corrosion risk (Rutka: “This matrix is stored in memory to be used later on, particularly in connection with FIG. 4,” – storing results would be efficient, to reduce future duplicative analysis efforts); and
(ii) a case link interface element that is configured to be selected to cause the corrosion risk report to display a matching case from the case database (Rutka: linking to previous analyses via hyperlinks and/or file links is an inherent function of modern computer-based analysis systems).
Regarding claim 46, the combination of Rutka and Schweitzer teaches the invention of claim 43, as set forth in the rejection of claim 43 above. The combination of Rutka and Schweitzer also teaches wherein the corrosion risk report comprises, for each corroded part of a set of corroded parts, a first description of the galvanic corrosion risk that is based on that corroded part being associated with a complete galvanic circuit, and a second description of the galvanic corrosion risk that is based on that corroded part being associated with an incomplete galvanic circuit (Rutka: “one can determine such an incompatibility for the galvanic pairs,” col. 21, lines 34-35 – determination of incompatibility needs to be made for each and every pair of parts to ensure no galvanic incompatibility is overlooked, and a complete and thorough analysis would include reasons why a galvanic incompatibility for connecting parts was not found, including a lack of galvanic circuit between two parts).
Regarding claim 47:
Rutka teaches a method for identifying a corrosion risk of a mechanical assembly, by one or more processors (“It will be noted that the various aforementioned algorithms can be part of one or more computer programs which can be loaded on a data processing system, for example, a workstation or a PC,” ¶ 0367):
(a) receiving a set of design data that represents the mechanical assembly, wherein the set of design data comprises data for a plurality of parts of the mechanical assembly (“determination of the parts of the assembly that are in mechanical contact with each other,” col. 9, lines 55-56, Figs. 1-3), at least one material associated with each of the plurality of parts (“determine, for each of the parts of the assembly, the material of which they are made,” col. 13, lines 41-42), and at least one environment associated with each of the plurality of parts (“possibly taking into account geometrical constraints such as a geometrical volume or a spatial interaction with a given environment,” ¶ 0180; “One can thus verify, for example, whether the assembly or a portion thereof is tight to one or more fluids (water, air, etc.),” ¶ 0024);
(c) determining a corrosion risk associated with the mechanical assembly based on the set of design data and the set of corrosion data, wherein the corrosion risk a galvanic corrosion risk (“one can determine such an incompatibility for the galvanic pairs,” col. 21, lines 34-35); and
(d) providing a description of the corrosion risk (“one can determine such an incompatibility for the galvanic pairs,” col. 21, lines 34-35; “At the end of the calculations performed by the interference calculation engine, one obtains results in a file in the form of a list of pairs of parts in contact,” ¶ 0165);
wherein the one or more processors are configured to, when determining the corrosion risk: (ii) determining a plurality of part pairs based on the set of design data, where each of the plurality of part pairs comprises a first part and a second part that are joined by a conductive connection (“a matrix or table of two dimensions making it possible to identify, in the form of second pairs of parts, the parts of the assembly that are in electrical contact with each other,” ¶ 0180);
(iv) for each part pair of the plurality of part pairs: (A) determine if there is a complete galvanic circuit for the first part and the second part (“one can determine such an incompatibility for the galvanic pairs,” col. 21, lines 34-35); and
(B) determining the galvanic corrosion risk based on a galvanic potential difference between the at least one material of the first part and the second part, and whether the complete galvanic circuit exists (“one can determine such an incompatibility for the galvanic pairs,” col. 21, lines 34-35).
Rutka does not teach (b) receiving a set of corrosion data that is associated with the set of design data;
(c) determining a corrosion risk associated with the mechanical assembly based on the set of corrosion data, wherein the corrosion risk comprises a general corrosion risk;
(i) determining the general corrosion risk for each of the plurality of parts based on the at least one material and the at least one environment associated with that part.
Schweitzer teaches a set of corrosion data that is associated with the set of design data (“[u]nder normal circumstances, iron and steel corrode in the presence of both oxygen and water,” p. 1; Table 1-2, p. 8, is a set of corrosion data in the form of a Galvanic Series of Metals and Alloys
determining a corrosion risk associated with the mechanical assembly based on the set of corrosion data, wherein the corrosion risk comprises a general corrosion risk (“[u]nder normal circumstances, iron and steel corrode in the presence of both oxygen and water,” p. 1);
that based on the at least one material of a part and the at least one environment associated with that part, one can determine a general corrosion risk for a part (“[u]nder normal circumstances, iron and steel corrode in the presence of both oxygen and water,” p. 1); and
that premature failure of bridges or structures due to corrosion, or failure of operating equipment, can result in human injury or even loss of life (p. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rutka check whether the galvanically dissimilar metals in contact with each other are also in contact with an electrolytic environment, as taught by Schweitzer, and to check for a general corrosion risk, as taught by Schweitzer, because corrosion can result in human injury or even loss of life, thereby resulting in (b) receive a set of corrosion data that is associated with the set of design data; (c) determine a corrosion risk associated with the mechanical assembly based on the set of corrosion data, wherein the corrosion risk comprises a general corrosion risk; (i) determine the general corrosion risk for each of the plurality of parts based on the at least one material and the at least one environment associated with that part.
Regarding claim 48, the combination of Rutka and Schweitzer teaches the invention of claim 47, as set forth in the rejection of claim 47 above. The combination of Rutka and Schweitzer also teaches when determining if the complete galvanic circuit exists for the first part and the second part: (i) determine, based on the plurality of part pairs, whether a direct return path exists between the first part and the second part, wherein the direct return path comprises a single conductive connection between the first part and the second part; (ii) determine, based on the plurality of part pairs, whether an indirect return path exists between the first part and the second part, wherein the indirect return path comprises two or more sequential conductive connections between the first part and the second part (Rutka: “The information as to the electrical conductivity of the materials making up the parts of the assembly and, in particular, the parts of the first pairs of parts, is obtained by the algorithm of FIG. 5, which will be described hereafter,” ¶ 0192).
Regarding claim 49, the combination of Rutka and Schweitzer teaches the invention of claim 47, as set forth in the rejection of claim 47 above. The combination of Rutka and Schweitzer also teaches prior to determining the corrosion risk, discard from the plurality of part pairs each part pair where: (i) the first part and the second part share a common set of associated materials (Rutka: “one can determine such an incompatibility for the galvanic pairs, that is, the pairs of materials which, in the presence of one another, are the site of a corrosion phenomenon. One such example of a galvanic pair is illustrated by the aluminum-titanium pair,” ¶¶ 0350-0351 – if the materials of two parts are the same, there is no material incompatibility, and thus, no need to determine a galvanic incompatibility).
Regarding claim 50, the combination of Rutka and Schweitzer teaches the invention of claim 47, as set forth in the rejection of claim 47 above. The combination of Rutka and Schweitzer also teaches when providing the description of the corrosion risk, cause a corrosion risk report (Rutka: “At the end of the calculations performed by the interference calculation engine, one obtains results in a file in the form of a list of pairs of parts in contact,” ¶ 0165) to be displayed on a display (Rutka: galvanic incompatibility would be displayed as, for example, in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 51, the combination of Rutka and Schweitzer teaches the invention of claim 50, as set forth in the rejection of claim 50 above. The combination of Rutka and Schweitzer also teaches wherein the corrosion risk report comprises descriptions, based on the general corrosion risk and galvanic corrosion risk, that include for each of a set of corroded parts a summary of the potential corrosion problem and a risk rating (Rutka: “one can determine such an incompatibility for the galvanic pairs,” col. 21, lines 34-35 – determination of incompatibility needs to be made for each and every pair of parts to ensure no galvanic incompatibility is overlooked).
Regarding claim 52, the combination of Rutka and Schweitzer teaches the invention of claim 50, as set forth in the rejection of claim 50 above. The combination of Rutka and Schweitzer also teaches wherein the corrosion risk report comprises: (i) the description of the corrosion risk; and (ii) a case link interface element that is configured to be selected to cause the corrosion risk report to display a matching case from a case database; wherein the case database is configured to store a plurality of cases, and wherein each case of the plurality of cases comprises one or more case materials, one or more case environments, a case diagram, and a case description (Rutka: “This matrix is stored in memory to be used later on, particularly in connection with FIG. 4,” – storing results would be efficient, to reduce future duplicative analysis efforts; linking to previous analyses via hyperlinks and/or file links is an inherent function of modern computer-based analysis systems).
Regarding claim 53, the combination of Rutka and Schweitzer teaches the invention of claim 50, as set forth in the rejection of claim 50 above. The combination of Rutka and Schweitzer also teaches wherein the corrosion risk report comprises, for each corroded part of a set of corroded parts, a first description of the galvanic corrosion risk that is based on that corroded part being associated with a complete galvanic circuit, and a second description of the galvanic corrosion risk that is based on that corroded part being associated with an incomplete galvanic circuit (Rutka: “one can determine such an incompatibility for the galvanic pairs,” col. 21, lines 34-35 – determination of incompatibility needs to be made for each and every pair of parts to ensure no galvanic incompatibility is overlooked, and a complete and thorough analysis would include reasons why a galvanic incompatibility for connecting parts was not found, including a lack of galvanic circuit between two parts).
Regarding claim 54:
Rutka teaches a method for identifying a corrosion risk of a mechanical assembly comprising:
(a) providing a set of design data that represents the mechanical assembly (“determination of the parts of the assembly that are in mechanical contact with each other,” col. 9, lines 55-56, Figs. 1-3) to a corrosion risk assessment computer (“It will be noted that the various aforementioned algorithms can be part of one or more computer programs which can be loaded on a data processing system, for example, a workstation or a PC,” ¶ 0367), wherein the set of design data comprises data for a plurality of parts of the mechanical assembly, at least one material associated with each of the plurality of parts (“determine, for each of the parts of the assembly, the material of which they are made,” col. 13, lines 41-42), and at least one environment associated with each of the plurality of parts (“possibly taking into account geometrical constraints such as a geometrical volume or a spatial interaction with a given environment,” ¶ 0180; “One can thus verify, for example, whether the assembly or a portion thereof is tight to one or more fluids (water, air, etc.),” ¶ 0024);
(b) displaying a corrosion risk report on a display (“The visualization can be done on a monitor,” ¶ 0160; “one obtains results in a file in the form of a list of pairs of parts in contact,” ¶ 0165);
wherein the corrosion risk dataset comprises: (ii) a galvanic corrosion risk for each of the plurality of parts that is determined based on: (A) a grouping of the plurality of parts into a plurality of part pairs based on the set of design data, wherein each of the plurality of part pairs comprises a first part and a second part that are joined by a conductive connection; and
(B) for each part pair of the plurality of part pairs: (I) a determination of whether there is a complete galvanic circuit for the first part and the second part (“a matrix or table of two dimensions making it possible to identify, in the form of second pairs of parts, the parts of the assembly that are in electrical contact with each other,” ¶ 0180); and
(II) a determination of the galvanic corrosion risk based on a galvanic potential difference between the at least one material of the first part and the second part, and whether the complete galvanic circuit exists (“one can determine such an incompatibility for the galvanic pairs,” col. 21, lines 34-35).
Rutka does not teach (b) receiving a corrosion risk dataset from the corrosion risk assessment computer, and displaying a corrosion risk report on a display based on the corrosion risk dataset;
wherein the corrosion risk dataset comprises: (i) a general corrosion risk for each of the plurality of parts that is determined based on the at least one material and the at least one environment associated with that part.
Schweitzer teaches a set of corrosion data that is associated with the set of design data (“[u]nder normal circumstances, iron and steel corrode in the presence of both oxygen and water,” p. 1; Table 1-2, p. 8, is a set of corrosion data in the form of a Galvanic Series of Metals and Alloys
determine a corrosion risk associated with the mechanical assembly based on the set of corrosion data, wherein the corrosion risk comprises a general corrosion risk (“[u]nder normal circumstances, iron and steel corrode in the presence of both oxygen and water,” p. 1);
that based on the at least one material of a part and the at least one environment associated with that part, one can determine a general corrosion risk for a part (“[u]nder normal circumstances, iron and steel corrode in the presence of both oxygen and water,” p. 1); and
that premature failure of bridges or structures due to corrosion, or failure of operating equipment, can result in human injury or even loss of life (p. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rutka check whether the galvanically dissimilar metals in contact with each other are also in contact with an electrolytic environment, as taught by Schweitzer, and to check for a general corrosion risk, as taught by Schweitzer, because corrosion can result in human injury or even loss of life, thereby resulting (b) receiving a corrosion risk dataset from the corrosion risk assessment computer, and displaying a corrosion risk report on a display based on the corrosion risk dataset; wherein the corrosion risk dataset comprises: (i) a general corrosion risk for each of the plurality of parts that is determined based on the at least one material and the at least one environment associated with that part.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20100241300 A1 discloses a computer program identifies potential squeak concerns between vehicle component pairs. The program includes instructions for receiving CAD data. The program also includes instructions for identifying vehicle component pairs having components within a predetermined tolerance of each other. For each component pair, a material description to each of the components and a material compatibility value is assigned. Material compatibility values are then outputted to identify squeak concerns.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEO T HINZE whose telephone number is (571)272-2864. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-2.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached on (571)272-2149. 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.
/LEO T HINZE/
Patent Examiner
AU 2853
17 February 2026
/STEPHEN D MEIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853