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 .
Preliminary Amendments
Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on May 9, 2024 is acknowledged. Claims 1-9 are currently pending.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng (D. Zheng, Modified AC-DC-AC method for evaluation of corrosion damage of acrylic varnish paint coating/Q215 steel system, Progress in Organic Coatings, 2021(159), 106401, pp. 1-15).
Regarding claim 1, Zheng teaches a method for evaluating the corrosion resistance of at least one surface (p. 3, col. 2, para. 3: in order to investigate the accelerated deterioration effect on the coating system, the acrylic varnish coating/Q124 system), the method comprising:
a) carrying out one or more sequences of n cyclic electrochemical test cycles on the at least one surface (p. 1, col. 2, para. 2: the alternating current-direct current-alternating current (AC-DC-AC) test is an electrochemically accelerated lab method, consisting of alternate DC acceleration and AC evaluation steps, to accelerate the degradation of a coating), wherein n is an integer greater than or equal to 1 (p. 3, col. 2, para. 3: repeated until coating damage was visualized), and wherein each cycle of the n cyclic electrochemical test cycles includes the following three successive steps:
a first step of measuring by electrochemical impedance spectroscopy one or more electrochemical quantities reflecting the corrosion resistance of the surface (p. 3, col. 2, para. 3: (1) EIS at the OCP; e.g., Fig. 3(a)-(e): impedance measurement);
a second step of cathodic polarisation carried out at a voltage (p. 3, col. 2, para. 3: (2) cathodic polarization at - 4 V vs. OCP for 30 min); and
a third potential relaxation step (p. 3, col. 2, para. 3: (3) relaxation at the OCP for 3 h until the system regain its stable state);
b) carrying out a visual inspection at the end of each cyclic electrochemical test sequence for detecting a degradation of the surface and, upon detection, by visual inspection, of the apparition of a degradation of the surface during a sequence, the cyclic electrochemical test cycles being stopped at the end of said sequence (p. 3, col. 2, para. 3: this cathodic A-DC-AC cycle was repeated until coating damage was visualized); and
c) evaluating the corrosion resistance of the surface based on the measured electrochemical quantities (Fig. 3(f): evolution of Rc with time for the acrylic vanish coating/Q215 steel system).
Zheng does not disclose the voltage for the second step of cathodic polarisation is between -5 V and -10 V.
However, Zheng teaches the cathodic polarization at - 4 V (p. 3, col. 2, para. 3: (2)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zheng by adjusting the voltage of cathodic polarization within the claimed range because they are suitable voltage for cathodic polarization for AC-DC-AC tests on the coating accelerated deterioration. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 2, Zheng teaches the method further comprising determining the cycle during which the degradation has appeared based on the electrochemical quantities measured during the lastly completed sequence (p. 3, col. 2, para. 3: repeated until coating damage was visualized; Fig. 1; p. 6, col. 1, para. 1: Rc was above 1010 Ω∙cm2 and then dropped below 109 Ω∙cm2, which was probably due to occurrence of the corrosion).
Regarding claim 3, Zheng teaches wherein the first step of measuring by electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (p. 3, col. 2, para. 3: EIS) comprises establishing an impedance modulus diagram (Fig. 3 (a)-(e):
Z
).
Regarding claim 4, Zheng teaches wherein the number n of cycles of a cyclic electrochemical test sequence is between 2 and 10 (e.g., Fig. 3(a): six cycles).
Regarding claim 5, Zheng teaches wherein the second step of cathodic polarisation is carried out for a time period between 10 min and 60 min (p. 3, col. 2, para. 3: (2) cathodic polarization for 30 min).
Regarding claim 7, Zheng teaches the method further comprising comparing the corrosion resistance among a plurality of surfaces (Fig. 4; p. 6, col. 2, para. 3: three obvious damaged areas appeared in the observed region; the central zone in region D is relatively higher than the other areas, corresponding to the cathodic blistering zone).
Regarding claim 8, Zheng teaches wherein upon detection, by visual inspection, of the apparition of a degradation of one of the surfaces during a sequence, the cyclic electrochemical test cycles of the plurality of surfaces being stopped at the end of said sequence (p. 3, col. 2, para. 3: this cathodic A-DC-AC cycle was repeated until coating damage was visualized).
Regarding claim 9, Zheng teaches the method further comprising a step of verifying an absence of defects in the surface prior to the completion of the sequences of n cyclic electrochemical test cycles (p. 3, col. 2, para. 3: this cathodic A-DC-AC cycle was repeated until coating damage was visualized; thus before the visually verifying the defects on the coating surface, the cycle would be repeated after the verification of absence of defects in the surface).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of Zhang (US 2015/0060273).
Regarding claim 6, Zheng discloses all limitations of claim 1, including evaluating the corrosion resistance of the surface (e.g., Fig. 2(d): more cracks were generated in the blistered area, resulting in a sudden drop in impedance from 109 Ω∙cm2 down to 107 Ω∙cm2).
Zheng does not teach the evaluating the corrosion resistance of the surface is the surface of at least one aircraft part.
However, Zhang teaches a corrosion resistance evaluation for evaluating corrosion resistance of coated metals substrate at an accelerated rate ([Abstract]), for example, an aircraft paint over the metal substrate, to determine the working life of a product (¶60). The methods primarily utilize electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) (¶4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zheng by applying its method to evaluating the corrosion resistance of a coating on an aircraft part surface as taught be Zhang because it would determine the working life of the aircraft based on the measured corrosion resistance by EIS. Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLYN M SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-6788. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am - 5:30pm.
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 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.
/C. SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795