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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Note that dependent claims will have the deficiencies of base and intervening claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention:
a) claim 5 requires
PNG
media_image1.png
80
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The phrase “a target land” appears to be unique to Applicant in the corrosion measurement arts. Applicant is requested to clarify the scope of this phrase. If Applicant is being his own lexicographer, please heed MPEP 2173.05(a).
b) claim 5 requires
PNG
media_image2.png
170
730
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The term “damping function” appears to be unique to Applicant in the corrosion measurement arts. Applicant’s only example of a damping function is as set forth in claim 7, which is also in Applicant’s originally filed specification paragraph [0044],
PNG
media_image3.png
236
722
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It is not clear how this example damping function is “representing” any sort of ratio. Applicant is requested to clarify the scope of the term “damping function” and how he is using the word “representing”. If Applicant is being his own lexicographer, please heed MPEP 2173.05(a).
c) claim 5 requires
PNG
media_image4.png
102
708
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The word ratio, as a noun, is conventionally understood as follows
PNG
media_image5.png
442
812
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Excerpted from the Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, underlining added.
So, the ratio in claim 5 is incomplete as there is no indication as to what mathematical expression or quantity “an area wetted with water on a surface of a metal structure buried in the target land based the water content measured in the measurement step” is in mathematical relationship (ratio) to or what the other expression of the (ratio) quotient is. If Applicant is being his own lexicographer, please heed MPEP 2173.05(a).
d) claim 5 requires
PNG
media_image6.png
134
686
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The limitation “a second processing step of estimating a rate increase function that increases an estimated corrosion rate of the metal structure, . . . .” is very vague. Does this processing step encompass increasing any estimated corrosion rate of the metal structure by any amount.
e) claim 5 requires
PNG
media_image7.png
140
670
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim 8 recites
PNG
media_image8.png
244
702
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It is not possible for the rate increase function of claim 8 to increase an estimated corrosion rate of the metal structure as there is no term representing an estimated corrosion rate of the metal structure in this function (“t” represents time, see claim 7). Applicant is requested to clarify how the second processing step of claim 5 is to be understood in light of claim 8.
f) claim 5 recites
PNG
media_image9.png
380
748
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It is not clear how Applicant is using the word “estimating” in regard to estimating the highlighted functions above. For example, what makes the damping function presented in claim 7 an estimated damping function?
g) claim 6 requires
PNG
media_image10.png
144
730
media_image10.png
Greyscale
This fourth processing step is inconsistent with underlying claim 5 as the second and third processing step require
PNG
media_image11.png
202
696
media_image11.png
Greyscale
That is, as best understood by the Examiner, while the fourth processing step obtains the estimated corrosion rate of the metal structure based on the temporal change function, the proceeding steps obtains the temporal change function based on the estimated corrosion rate. Put another way, how can the corrosion rate of the metal structure be estimated based on the temporal change function when the temporal change function is itself based on the estimated corrosion rate?
h) claim 7 requires
PNG
media_image12.png
242
726
media_image12.png
Greyscale
It is not clear how the word “presented” is being used in this claim, particularly in contrast to “is”.
i) claim 8 requires
PNG
media_image13.png
240
740
media_image13.png
Greyscale
It is not clear how the word “represented” is being used in this claim, particularly in contrast to “is”.
j) claim 9 requires
PNG
media_image14.png
234
730
media_image14.png
Greyscale
It is not clear how the word “represented” is being used in this claim, particularly in contrast to “is”.
k) claim 10 requires
PNG
media_image15.png
80
612
media_image15.png
Greyscale
The phrase “a target land” appears to be unique to Applicant in the corrosion measurement arts. Applicant is requested to clarify the scope of this phrase. If Applicant is being his own lexicographer, please heed MPEP 2173.05(a).
l) claim 10 requires
PNG
media_image16.png
104
694
media_image16.png
Greyscale
The term “damping function” appears to be unique to Applicant in the corrosion measurement arts. Applicant’s only example of a damping function is as set forth in claim 12, which is also in Applicant’s originally filed specification paragraph [0044],
PNG
media_image17.png
218
730
media_image17.png
Greyscale
It is not clear how this example damping function is “representing” any sort of ratio. Applicant is requested to clarify the scope of the term “damping function” and how he is using the word “representing”. If Applicant is being his own lexicographer, please heed MPEP 2173.05(a).
m) claim 10 requires
PNG
media_image18.png
104
694
media_image18.png
Greyscale
The word ratio, as a noun, is conventionally understood as follows
PNG
media_image5.png
442
812
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Excerpted from the Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, underlining added.
So, the ratio in claim 10 is incomplete as there is no indication as to what mathematical expression or quantity “an area wetted with water on a surface of a metal structure buried in the target land based the water content measured in the measurement step” is in mathematical relationship to. If Applicant is being his own lexicographer, please heed MPEP 2173.05(a).
n) claim 10 requires
PNG
media_image19.png
110
700
media_image19.png
Greyscale
The limitation “estimate a rate increase function that increases an estimated corrosion rate of the metal structure, . . . .” is very vague. Does this processing step encompass increasing any estimated corrosion rate of the metal structure by any amount.
o) claim 10 requires
PNG
media_image20.png
110
700
media_image20.png
Greyscale
Claim 13 recites
PNG
media_image21.png
230
724
media_image21.png
Greyscale
It is not possible for the rate increase function of claim 13 to increase an estimated corrosion rate of the metal structure as there is no term representing an estimated corrosion rate of the metal structure in this function (“t” represents time, see claim 12). Applicant is requested to clarify how the second instruction of
claim 10 (”estimate a rate increase function”) is to be understood in light of claim 13.
p) claim 10 recites
PNG
media_image22.png
448
740
media_image22.png
Greyscale
It is not clear how Applicant is using the word “estimate” in regard to estimating the highlighted functions above. For example, what makes the damping function presented in claim 12 an estimated damping function?
q) claim 11 requires
PNG
media_image23.png
154
714
media_image23.png
Greyscale
This instruction is inconsistent with underlying claim 10 as the previous instructions require
PNG
media_image24.png
174
742
media_image24.png
Greyscale
That is, as best understood by the Examiner, while the additional instruction of claim 11 obtains the estimated corrosion rate of the metal structure based on the temporal change function, the proceeding instructions in claim 10 obtain the temporal change function based on the estimated corrosion rate. Put another way, how can the corrosion rate of the metal structure be estimated based on the temporal change function when the temporal change function is itself based on the estimated corrosion rate?
r) claim 12 requires
PNG
media_image25.png
220
676
media_image25.png
Greyscale
It is not clear how the word “presented” is being used in this claim, particularly in contrast to “is”.
s) claim 13 requires
PNG
media_image26.png
232
704
media_image26.png
Greyscale
It is not clear how the word “represented” is being used in this claim, particularly in contrast to “is”.
t) claim 14 requires
PNG
media_image27.png
220
650
media_image27.png
Greyscale
It is not clear how the word “represented” is being used in this claim, particularly in contrast to “is”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 6-9 and 11-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
a) in claim 5 the combination of limitations requires the following underlined features
PNG
media_image28.png
382
694
media_image28.png
Greyscale
a)(i) the International Search Report for international application no. PCT/JP2021/039982 cites only “A” documents.
a)(ii) the Written Opinion for international application no. PCT/JP2021/039982, based on a English language translation, deems claim s1-4 of that application to have both novelty and an inventive step.
a)(iii) Dang et al., “On the Use of Voltammetry to Estimate the Effectiveness
of Cathodic Protection of Buried Steel Structures,” JMEPEG (2019) 28:6042–6052 (hereafter ‘Dang”) discloses a corrosion estimation method that involves measuring a parameter (S’) linked to the wet area of buried steel structure, which is the surface of the metal in contact with the soil electrolyte, as Dang recognizes that the corrosion rate is affected by the wet area. This parameter is used in a ratio to correct a previously determined corrosion rate. See in Dang the abstract, 1. Introduction, Figure 7, and the last paragraph in the left column on page 6050, continuing into the right column on the same page.
However, in contrast to the method of Applicant’s claim 5, even if would have been obvious to “estimate” a rate increase function to, perhaps, predict the remaining useful life of the buried steel structure, there is no suggestion of having this function be based in part on a thickness of a water film formed on the surface of the metal structure.
b) claims 6-9 depend directly or indirectly from allowable claim 5.
c) in independent claim 10 the combination of limitations requires the following underlined features
PNG
media_image29.png
448
710
media_image29.png
Greyscale
The discussion above regarding the allowability of claim 5 applies to claim 10 also.
d) claims 11-14 depend directly or indirectly from allowable claim 10.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER STEPHAN NOGUEROLA whose telephone number is (571)272-1343. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00AM-5:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Luan Van can be reached on 571 272-8521. 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 Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER S NOGUEROLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights