DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims status: amended claims: 1, 7, 16; canceled claim: 3, 12; the rest is unchanged.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior arts do not teach “measuring the one or more spatially resolved characteristic parameters for the corrosion sites comprises measuring the depth of each identified corrosion site, wherein the depth of each identified corrosion site is determined by its orientation towards a plane, where the plane determines perforation under pressure”, now added to claims 1, 7 & 16 and has previously claimed in claim 12. The examiner respectfully disagrees because Froom et al. teach in pg.29 L13-19 a location of the defect, measuring cracks as a volumetric measurement method, which allows identification of the length, width and depth of the cracks for engineering evaluation, a depth is measured/defined with respect to a pale. Pg.29 L3-5 teaches a crack due to pressure. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-11, 13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Froom et al. (WO 2013/103933 A1; pub. Jul. 11, 2013) in view of Connolly et al. “X-ray microtomography studies of localized corrosion and transitions to stress corrosion cracking”, Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining, Published by Maney on behalf of the Institute, Materials Science and Technology, 2006, Vol. 22 No.9, pg.1076 - 1085.
Regarding claim 1, Froom et al. disclose: A corrosion analysis assembly comprising:
a computed tomography scanner positioned relative to a component (pg.16 L1-12), the computed tomography scanner configured to non-destructively scan a section of the component to identify corrosion sites and measure spatially resolved characteristic parameters for the corrosion sites to provide a corrosion data set (pg.16 L1-12, pg.29 L16-19); wherein the component is positioned on an aircraft (pg.14 L9-14); wherein the component comprises at least one of aluminum, titanium, steel or nickel (pg.29 L8-24), wherein measuring the one or more spatially resolved characteristic parameters for the corrosion sites comprises measuring the depth of each identified corrosion site, wherein the depth of each identified corrosion site is determined by its orientation towards a plane, where the plane determines perforation under pressure (pg.29 L3-5 & L13-19).
Froom et al. are silent about: the corrosion data set is used to determine the component life or the probability of failure.
In a similar field of endeavor, Connolly et al. disclose: the corrosion data set is used to determine the component life or the probability of failure (pg.1076 Intro., pg.1083) motivated by the benefits for improved safety and increased reliability.
In light of the benefits for improved safety and increased reliability, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Froom et al. with the teachings of Connolly et al.
Regarding claim 2, Froom et al. and Connolly et al. disclose: the component comprises a metallic or a metal component (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Froom et al. and Connolly et al. disclose: the component is an intact unit, a partially intact unit, or a mock unit (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Froom et al. and Connolly et al. disclose: the computed tomography scanner is a micro-computed tomography scanner (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Froom et al. and Connolly et al. disclose: the computed tomography scanner is configured to measure a wall thickness at each corrosion site with an accuracy of about 0.001 inches (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 7, microtomography as taught by Connolly et al.).
Regarding claim 7, Froom et al. and Connolly et al. disclose: A method for non-destructively determining component life or probability of failure comprising: positioning a computed tomography scanner relative to a component; wherein the component is positioned on an aircraft; wherein the component comprises at least one of aluminum, titanium or nickel; scanning a section of the component via the computed tomography scanner to identify corrosion sites and to measure one or more spatially resolved characteristic parameters for the corrosion sites to provide a first corrosion data set, wherein measuring the one or more spatially resolved characteristic parameters for the corrosion sites comprises measuring the depth of each identified corrosion site, wherein the depth of each identified corrosion site is determined by its orientation towards a plane, where the plane determines perforation under pressure; selecting a first subset of the first corrosion data set; and performing an analysis on the first subset of the first corrosion data set to determine the component life or the probability of failure (the claim contains the same substantive limitations as claim 1, the claim is therefore rejected on the same basis).
Regarding claim 8, Froom et al. and Connolly et al. disclose: the computed tomography scanner only scans one section of the component to identify corrosion sites and measures one or more spatially resolved characteristic parameters for the corrosion sites (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 7).
Regarding claim 9, Froom et al. and Connolly et al. disclose: the computed tomography scanner is configured to scan a plurality of zones of the section of the component to identify corrosion sites and measures one or more spatially resolved characteristic parameters for the corrosion sites, each zone of the plurality of zones having equal areas (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 7).
Regarding claim 10, Froom et al. and Connolly et al. disclose: the computed tomography scanner is configured to measure a wall thickness at each corrosion site with an accuracy of about 0.001 inches (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 7, microtomography as taught by Connolly et al.).
Regarding claim 11, Froom et al. and Connolly et al. disclose: the analysis comprises modeling the probability of failure of the component and estimating the remaining life of the component (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 7).
Regarding claim 13, Froom et al. and Connolly et al. disclose: to measure one or more spatially resolved characteristic parameters for the corrosion sites comprises measuring the remaining wall thickness at each identified corrosion site (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 7, also pg.1084 col.1 of Connolly et al.).
Regarding claim 15, Froom et al. and Connolly et al. disclose: the analysis on the first subset of the first corrosion data set is performed with a mechanistic model, a statistical model, a machine-learning model, or a combination thereof (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 7, additionally see pg.1084 col.1 3rd para. of Connolly et al. Kondo’s model).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Froom et al. (WO 2013/103933 A1; pub. Jul. 11, 2013) in view of Connolly et al. “X-ray microtomography studies of localized corrosion and transitions to stress corrosion cracking”, Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining, Published by Maney on behalf of the Institute, Materials Science and Technology, 2006, Vol. 22 No.9, pg.1076 - 1085 and further in view Ahmad et al. “Characterization and Analysis of Porosities in High Pressure Die Cast Aluminum by Using Metallography, X-ray Radiography, and Micro-Computed Tomography”, www.mdpi.com/journal/materials, Materials 2020, 13, 3068, pg. 1 - 25.
Regarding claim 14, Froom et al. and Connolly et al. disclose: the scanning provides a three- dimensional volume image as the first corrosion data set; wherein the selecting of a first subset of the first corrosion data set comprises virtually positioning the three- dimensional volume image into zones with equal surface areas to provide sampling areas (see rejection of claim 7). Froom et al. and Connolly et al. are silent about: a most severe corrosion site within each sampling area is selected to provide a subset of the most severe corrosion sites within the three-dimensional volume image, and wherein the subset of the most severe corrosion sites is the first subset of the first corrosion data set, and wherein the first subset of the first corrosion data set is analyzed with extreme value statistics.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ahmad et al. disclose: a most severe corrosion site within each sampling area is selected to provide a subset of the most severe corrosion sites within the three-dimensional volume image, and wherein the subset of the most severe corrosion sites is the first subset of the first corrosion data set, and wherein the first subset of the first corrosion data set is analyzed with extreme value statistics (pg.1 Abstract, pg.3 2.) motivated by the benefits for improved safety and increased reliability.
In light of the benefits for improved safety and increased reliability, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Froom et al. and Connolly et al. with the teachings of Ahmad et al.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Froom et al. (WO 2013/103933 A1; pub. Jul. 11, 2013) in view of Connolly et al. “X-ray microtomography studies of localized corrosion and transitions to stress corrosion cracking”, Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining, Published by Maney on behalf of the Institute, Materials Science and Technology, 2006, Vol. 22 No.9, pg.1076 - 1085 and further in view of Ignasi et al. “Evaluation of corrosion level of naturally corroded bars using different cleaning methods, computed tomography, and 3D optical scanning”, CrossMark, Materials and Structures 51:78, 2018, pg.1-13.
Regarding claim 16, Froom et al. and Connolly et al. disclose: A method for non-destructive testing and measurement of corrosion sites on a component comprising: supplying a component, wherein the component is corroded with a plurality of corrosion sites; wherein the component is positioned on an aircraft; and wherein the component comprises at least one of aluminum, titanium or nickel; performing a first scan of the component, wherein the first scan comprises imaging a portion of the component non-destructively; and measuring one or more spatially resolved characteristic parameters for the corrosion sites to provide a first corrosion data set wherein measuring the one or more spatially resolved characteristic parameters for the corrosion sites comprises measuring the depth of each identified corrosion site, wherein the depth of each identified corrosion site is determined by its orientation towards a plane, where the plane determines perforation under pressure; selecting a first subset of the first corrosion data set corresponding to a subset of the corrosion sites; and performing an analysis on the first subset of the first corrosion data set (see rejection of claim 1).
Froom et al. and Connolly et al. are silent about: exposing the component to corrosive conditions to provide a re-exposed component and performing an additional scan of the re-exposed component, wherein the additional scan comprises imaging a portion of the re-exposed component non- destructively; and measuring one or more spatially resolved characteristic parameters of the corrosion sites for the subset of corrosion sites to provide a second corrosion data set; and performing an analysis on the second corrosion data set.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ignasi et al. disclose: exposing the component to corrosive conditions to provide a re-exposed component and performing an additional scan of the re-exposed component, wherein the additional scan comprises imaging a portion of the re-exposed component non- destructively and performing an analysis on the second corrosion data set (pg.6 col.2 3.1, fig.4) motivated by the benefits for improved safety and increased reliability.
In light of the benefits for improved safety and increased reliability, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Froom et al. and Connolly et al. with the teachings of Connolly et al. to measure one or more spatially resolved characteristic parameters of the corrosion sites for the subset of corrosion sites to provide a second corrosion data set
Regarding claim 17, Froom et al., Connolly et al. and Ignasi et al. disclose: the component is re-exposed to corrosive conditions for an additional scans of the component and generating n corrosion data sets for n sets of spatially resolved characteristic parameters for the corrosion sites, where n is an integer (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 16).
Regarding claim 18, Froom et al., Connolly et al. and Ignasi et al. disclose: the component is exposed to corrosive conditions and an additional scan of the component is performed for up to several additional scans (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 16). The combined references are silent about: an additional scan of the component is performed for up to 100 additional scans. However, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (C.C.P.A. 1977).
Regarding claim 19, Froom et al., Connolly et al. and Ignasi et al. disclose: the corrosive conditions comprise conditions of use (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 16).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-6PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884