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, 7-11, 13-16; new claim 20; canceled claim: 3, 12; the rest is unchanged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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 in view of Oishi et al. (US 2019/0169711 A1; pub. Jun. 6, 2019).
Regarding claim 1, Connolly et al. disclose: A corrosion analysis assembly comprising: a computed tomography scanner positioned relative to a component (pg.1076 Abstract & Intro.) positioned on an aircraft (pg.1084 col.2 1st para.) the computed tomography scanner configured to non-destructively scan a section of the component to obtain a three-dimensional image of the section (pg.1076 Abstract & Intro.) wherein the component comprises at least one of aluminum, titanium, steel or nickel (pg.1077 col.1 1st para.), a processor configured to: identify corrosion sites in the three-dimensional image (pg.1076 Abstract & Intro.); determine a depth of each of the corrosion sites in the three-dimensional image to provide a corrosion data set (pg.1083), wherein the depth of each corrosion site is determined by its orientation towards a plane, where the plane determines perforation under pressure (pg.1083 fig.7).
Connolly et al. are silent about: partition the corrosion data set into a plurality of subsets each subset corresponding to an area of the image; select a subset from the plurality of subsets; filter out shallow corrosion sites from the subset.
In a similar field of endeavor Oishi et al. disclose: partition the corrosion data set into a plurality of subsets each subset corresponding to an area of the image; select a subset from the plurality of subsets; filter out shallow corrosion sites from the subset (fig.2, para. [0283]-[0284], [0293]) motivated by the benefits for a more accurate non-destructive corrosion testing.
In light of the benefits for a more accurate non-destructive corrosion testing, 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 Connolly et al. with the teachings of Oishi et al.
Regarding claim 2, Connolly et al. and Oishi 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, Connolly et al. and Oishi 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, Connolly et al. and Oishi 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, Connolly et al. and Oishi 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, Connolly et al. and Oishi 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 obtain a three-dimensional image of the section in a first identifying corrosion sites in the three-dimensional image; determining a depth of each of the corrosion sites in the three-dimensional image to provide a corrosion data set, wherein the depth of each corrosion site is determined by its orientation towards a plane, where the plane determines perforation under pressure; partition the corrosion data set into a plurality of subsets each subset corresponding to an area of the three-dimensional image; selecting a subset from the plurality of subsets; filtering out shallow corrosion sites from the subset; determining a component life or probability of failure of the component based on the depth of a corrosion site remaining in the subset after the filtering (the claim contains the same substantive limitations as claim 1, the claim is therefore rejected on the same basis).
Regarding claim 8, Connolly et al. and Oishi et al. disclose: scanning one section of the component to identify corrosion sites and measuring 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, Connolly et al. and Oishi et al. disclose: scanning a plurality of zones of the section of the component each zone of the plurality of zones having equal areas (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 7).
Regarding claim 10, Connolly et al. and Oishi et al. disclose: measuring 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, Connolly et al. and Oishi et al. disclose: 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, Connolly et al. and Oishi et al. disclose: 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, Connolly et al. and Oishi et al. disclose: analyzing the first subset of the first corrosion data set 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 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 in view of Oishi et al. (US 2019/0169711 A1; pub. Jun. 6, 2019) 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, Connolly et al. and Oishi et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 14 (see rejection of claim 7) except for: a most severe corrosion site within each area to provide a first subset of most severe corrosion sites within the three-dimensional volume image, further comprising analyzing the first corrosion data set with extreme value statistics.
In a similar field of endeavor Ahmad et al. disclose: a most severe corrosion site within each area to provide a first subset of most severe corrosion sites within the three-dimensional volume image, further comprising analyzing the first corrosion data set 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 Connolly et al. and Oishi et al. with the teachings of Ahmad et al.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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 in view of Oishi et al. (US 2019/0169711 A1; pub. Jun. 6, 2019) 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, Connolly et al. and Oishi et al. disclose: A method for non-destructive testing and measurement of corrosion sites on a component of an aircraft, comprising: performing a first scan of the component, wherein the first scan comprises imaging a portion of the component non-destructively to obtain a three-dimensional image, wherein the component is corroded with a plurality of corrosion sites and wherein the component comprises at least one of aluminum, titanium, or nickel; and identifying corrosion sites within the three-dimensional image; measuring a depth for each identified corrosion site to provide a first corrosion data set, 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 filtering out shallow corrosion sites from the first subset; performing an analysis on the filtered first subset measuring a depth for each identified corrosion site to provide a second corrosion data set, 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 second subset of the second corrosion data set corresponding to a first subset; and filtering out shallow corrosion sites from the second subset; performing an analysis on the filtered second subset; and determining a component life or probability of failure of the component based on the filtered first subset and the filtered second subset (see rejection of claim 1).
Connolly et al. and Oishi 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 to obtain a new three-dimensional; and identifying corrosion sites within the new three-dimensional image.
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 to obtain a new three-dimensional; and identifying corrosion sites within the new three-dimensional image (pg.1 Abstract, 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 Connolly et al. and Oishi et al. with the teachings of Ignasi 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, Connolly et al., Oishi 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, Connolly et al., Oishi 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, Connolly et al., Oishi 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).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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 in view of Oishi et al. (US 2019/0169711 A1; pub. Jun. 6, 2019) and further in view of Mayberry et al. (US 2022/0297248 A1; pub. Sep. 22, 2022).
Regarding claim 20, Connolly et al. and Oishi et al. are silent about: the component is a heat exchanger of the aircraft and the section is a parting sheet of the heat exchanger.
In a similar field of endeavor Mayberry et al. disclose: the component is a heat exchanger of the aircraft and the section is a parting sheet of the heat exchanger (para. [0048], [0062]) motivated by the benefits for improved quality control.
In light of the benefits for improved quality control, 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 Connolly et al. and Oishi et al. with the teachings of Mayberry et al.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights