DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This is a final office action in response to a communication filed on August 4, 2026. Claims 1-6 and 9 are pending in the application.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The rejection of claims 7-8 is obviated by Applicant’s cancellation.
All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 9 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the surfaces” in lines 2-3, 7, 12, 13, and 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to be “the plurality of surfaces” in all places.
All subsequent dependent claims 2-6 and 9 are rejected due to their dependencies on rejected base claim 1.
Claim 6 recites “the surface” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to be “the plurality of surfaces.”
Claim 9 recites “the surface” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to be “the plurality of surfaces.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 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 and comparing a corrosion resistance of a plurality of surfaces (p. 3, col. 2, para. 3: in order to investigate the accelerated deterioration effect on the coating system, the acrylic varnish coating/Q124 system; 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; here, the areas with different extents of damage are deemed to be different surfaces), the method comprising:
a) carrying out one or more sequences of n cyclic electrochemical test cycles on the surfaces (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 polarization 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 an end of each cyclic electrochemical test sequence for detecting a degradation of the surfaces and, upon detection, by visual inspection, of an apparition of a degradation of one of the surfaces during a sequence, the cyclic electrochemical test cycles being stopped at an 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). Further, Applicant is advised that "[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). In the instant application, there is no indication that the voltage range between -5 V and -10 V is critical to the invention, or any unexpected/surprising results have been obtained within this voltage range.
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 polarization 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 9, Zheng teaches the method further comprising a step of verifying an absence of defects in the surface prior to 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues Zheng does not teach the cathodic polarization step in its evaluation method is performed at a potential between -5 V and -10 V (Response, p. 5, para. 2). This argument is unpersuasive because Zheng teaches the cathodic polarization at - 4 V, which is close to the recited potential range, and thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the potential for cathodic polarization for AC-DC-AC tests on the coating accelerated deterioration. Here, Applicant is advised that "[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Further, in the instant application, there is no indication that the voltage range between -5 V and -10 V is critical to the invention, or any unexpected/surprising results have been obtained within this voltage range.
Applicant argues Zheng does not disclose a step involving visual inspection of surface degradation, performed periodically after the completion of each sequence of n electrochemical test cycle (p. 5, para. 2). This argument is unpersuasive because Zheng teaches this cathodic A-DC-AC cycle was repeated until coating damage was visualized (Zheng, p. 3, col. 2, para. 3) which includes the periodically visual inspection after each cycle until the damage becomes visualizable.
Applicant argues Zheng does not describe a method for evaluating the anti-corrosion capabilities of multiple surfaces prepared simultaneously (p. 5, para. 2). This argument is unpersuasive because the limitation “simultaneously” is either disclosed in the specification or recited in the claims. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the plurality of surfaces as recited can be interpreted as the surfaces of different areas having different extents of damage or the surfaces along the time of progressive corrosion.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 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
Prosecution Insights