CORROSION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM,
ESTIMATION METHOD, AND PROGRAM
FIRST OFFICE ACTION
This action takes into account the Applicant’s Preliminary Amendment of Dec. 19, 2023.
DRAWINGS
The drawings have been considered and approved.
TITLE
The title has been considered and approved.
ABSTRACT
The abstract has been considered and approved.
SPECIFICATION
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. The Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which the Applicant may become aware of in the specification.
CLAIMS
In the event that the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the rationale supporting the rejection would be the same.
35 U.S.C. § 112
In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the joint inventors regard as the invention.
Claim 3, line 3; the use of the term “it” is indefinite as to the specific reference thereof.
Claim 3 is indefinite as how the phrase “a corrosion initiation life is Tc” relates to the remainder of the claim.
Claim 4, line 5; the phrase “of past another structure” is indefinite as to the specific meaning thereof.
35 U.S.C. § 101
Under 35 U.S.C. 101, 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 1 - 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (ie. a judicial exception) without any additional elements being claimed that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 sets forth a corrosion management system comprising:
a measurement data acquisition unit that acquires measurement data indicating a corrosion state of a first portion of a structure which is an evaluation target; and
a corrosion estimation unit that estimates a corrosion state of a second portion of the evaluation target based on a relational expression between the corrosion state of the first portion and the corrosion state of the second portion, and the measurement data of the first portion.
Independent claim 1 is interpreted as being directed to an abstract idea because the entire process as set forth in the claim can be carried out mentally.
The first limitation of “a measurement data acquisition unit that acquires measurement data indicating a corrosion state of a first portion of a structure which is an evaluation target” can be accomplished by simple observation of the amount of corrosion present as well as basic data gathering.
The second and final limitation of “a corrosion estimation unit that estimates a corrosion state of a second portion of the evaluation target based on a relational expression between the corrosion state of the first portion and the corrosion state of the second portion, and the measurement data of the first portion” can be accomplished by simple observation and comparison as well as basic data gathering.
While the judicial exception may be determined as being integrated into a practical application, ie. indicating a corrosion state, the body of the claim does not tie the data gathering limitations to the practical application. In addition, nothing significantly more than the data gathering steps has been set forth.
Dependent claims 2 - 9 further define the data gathering steps of independent claim 1 and add nothing significantly more to the claims than those data gathering steps.
Independent claim 10 sets forth an estimation method comprising:
a step of acquiring measurement data indicating a corrosion state of a first portion of a
structure which is an evaluation target; and
a step of estimating a corrosion state of a second portion of the evaluation target based
on a relational expression between the corrosion state of the first portion and the corrosion state
of the second portion, and the measurement data of the first portion.
Independent claim 10 is interpreted as being directed to an abstract idea because the entire process as set forth in the claim can be carried out mentally.
The first limitation of “a step of acquiring measurement data indicating a corrosion state of a first portion of a structure which is an evaluation target” can be accomplished by simple observation of the amount of corrosion present as well as basic data gathering.
The second and final limitation of “a step of estimating a corrosion state of a second portion of the evaluation target based on a relational expression between the corrosion state of the first portion and the corrosion state of the second portion, and the measurement data of the first portion” can be accomplished by simple observation and comparison as well as basic data gathering.
While the judicial exception may be determined as being integrated into a practical application, ie. indicating a corrosion state, the body of the claim does not tie the data gathering limitations to the practical application. In addition, nothing significantly more than the data gathering steps has been set forth.
Independent claim 11 sets forth a program for a computer to execute a process comprising:
a step of acquiring measurement data indicating a corrosion state of a first portion of a structure which is an evaluation target; and
a step of estimating a corrosion state of a second portion of the evaluation target based on a relational expression between the corrosion state of the first portion and the corrosion state of the second portion, and the measurement data of the first portion.
Independent claim 11 is interpreted as being directed to an abstract idea because the entire process as set forth in the claim can be carried out mentally.
The first limitation of “a step of acquiring measurement data indicating a corrosion state of a first portion of a structure which is an evaluation target” can be accomplished by simple observation of the amount of corrosion present as well as basic data gathering.
The second and final limitation of “a step of estimating a corrosion state of a second portion of the evaluation target based on a relational expression between the corrosion state of the first portion and the corrosion state of the second portion, and the measurement data of the first portion” can be accomplished by simple observation and comparison as well as basic data gathering.
While the judicial exception may be determined as being integrated into a practical application, ie. indicating a corrosion state, the body of the claim does not tie the data gathering limitations to the practical application. In addition, nothing significantly more than the data gathering steps has been set forth.
35 U.S.C. § 102
In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), a person shall be entitled to a patent unless the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the Applicant’s cited prior art of Nippon Telegraph and Telephone (JP2016224000).
With respect to independent claim 1, Nippon sets forth a corrosion management system comprising:
a measurement data acquisition unit that acquires measurement data indicating a corrosion state of a first portion (above ground part) of a structure (metal structure) which is an evaluation target (paragraph 7); and
a corrosion estimation unit (122) that estimates a corrosion state of a second portion (underground part) of the evaluation target (metal structure) based on a relational expression (paragraph 27) between the corrosion state of the first portion (above ground part) and the corrosion state of the second portion (below ground part), and the measurement data of the first portion (paragraphs 18 - 24).
With respect to claim 2, Nippon sets forth a relational expression calculation unit that calculates the relational expression based on parameters analyzed from the measurement data of the first portion and the second portion of another different structure (paragraph 18).
With respect to independent claim 10, Nippon sets forth a estimation method comprising:
a step of acquiring measurement data indicating a corrosion state of a first portion (above ground part) of a structure (metal structure) which is an evaluation target (paragraph 7); and
a step of estimating (via 122) a corrosion state of a second portion (underground part) of the evaluation target (metal structure) based on a relational expression (paragraph 27) between the corrosion state of the first portion (above ground part) and the corrosion state of the second portion (below ground part), and the measurement data of the first portion (paragraphs 18 - 24).
With respect to independent claim 11, Nippon sets forth a process comprising:
a step of acquiring measurement data indicating a corrosion state of a first portion (above ground part) of a structure (metal structure) which is an evaluation target (paragraph 7); and
a step of estimating (via 122) a corrosion state of a second portion (underground part) of the evaluation target (metal structure) based on a relational expression (paragraph 27) between the corrosion state of the first portion (above ground part) and the corrosion state of the second portion (below ground part), and the measurement data of the first portion (paragraphs 18 - 24).
35 U.S.C. § 103
In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 103, a patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nippon Telegraph and Telephone (JP2016224000) in view of the Applicant’s cited prior art of Kubota (JP2003254892).
With respect to claim 3, Nippon fails to explicitly set forth the relationship Y = AXB of a corrosion progress amount wherein a corrosion initiation life is Tc, a corrosion amount is Y, and a time is X. However, Kubota suggests such a relationship (paragraphs 2 - 8).
As such, the use of the relationship to determine corrosion progress in Nippon would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
The motivation being that such a relationship is merely a mathematical relationship of variables already taught by Nippon and thus could be used to predict the degree of corrosion in the time to come.
Claims 4, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nippon Telegraph and Telephone (JP2016224000).
With respect to claim 4, Nippon fails to explicitly set forth a measurement data correction unit that corrects the measurement data of the first portion based on the measurement data at the first portion of another structure.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art armed with the Nippon teaching to have a correction unit that corrects the measurement data as claimed.
The motivation being to ensure that the measurement data accurately depicts that which is actually occurring.
With respect to claim 5, Nippon suggests that the relational expression is based on a multiplication rule and indicates that the amount indicating the corrosion state of the second portion is equal to an amount obtained by multiplying the amount indicating the corrosion state of the first portion (paragraph 28) by the correction amount (as per claim 4 comments above).
With respect to claim 8, Nippon fails to set forth a plan creation unit that creates a first maintenance plan for corrosion of the first portion and a second maintenance plan for corrosion of the second portion based on the corrosion state of the respective portions.
However it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to set forth maintenance plans base on the respective corrosion states.
The motivation being to avoid failure of the portions and the associated coasts therewith.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the Examiner should be directed to Eric S. McCall whose telephone number is 571-272-2183. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from the Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through the Patent Center for authorized users only.
For questions about access to the Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is advised to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at:
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Eric S. McCall/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855