CTNF 18/095,116 CTNF 93799 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restrictions 08-06 AIA Claim s 19 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 28, 2026 . Claims 1-15 are allowable. The restriction requirement between Group I and Group II, as set forth in the Office action mailed on March 3, 2026, has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is maintained because the nonelected claims do not require all the limitations of an allowable claim . Drawings 06-22-07 AIA The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 116 in Figure 6. Examiner notes that Paragraph 0074 uses the reference number 16 regarding Figure 6. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the perforations with irregular shapes as claimed in claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 should read “the voltage difference applied to between” for the purpose of grammatical accuracy and clarity. Line 4 should read “ a the detected polarity” for the purpose of consistency as the polarity was detected and introduced in claim 2 from which claim 3 depends . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 should read “ the a polarity of the voltage difference” for the purpose of consistency as the polarity of the voltage difference has not yet been introduced in claims 1 or 2 from which claim 4 depends. Line 2 should read “the voltage difference applied to between” for the purpose of grammatical accuracy and clarity . Appropriate correction is required. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation Claim 10 recites “wherein at least a portion of the multiple perforations have irregular shapes” which examiner interprets to mean at least one, as one would be considered a portion, has an irregular shape. Irregular shape being described in Paragraph 0057 as “without geometric edges”. However, examiner notes that the mathematical definition of an irregular shape is “a shape [[that]] does not have all sides equal in length and all angles equal in measure. An irregular polygon has sides or angles that differ from one another.” (Mathwords, NPL 3). Additionally, a geometric edge is defined as “the straight path between two vertices” (Edge, NPL 2). A circle is considered a regular shape (CompleteEra, NPL 1). Therefore, according to applicant’s definition of an irregular shape having no geometric edges, the definition of geometric edges being a straight path between two vertices, and the general and accepted understanding that a circle is a regular shape, examiner interprets “irregular shape” to mean a shape without any straight edges or vertices, but that is not a circle as circles are considered regular. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Steward Jr., hereinafter referred to as Steward, (US 2024/0075770 A1) . In regards to claim 16: Steward teaches a chassis (Shown generally in Figure 1, Paragraph 0029: “The vehicle mounts may be used to physically couple the drive axle 210 to an underside of the vehicle, for example.”) capable of being used on a lunar rover comprising: at least two wheels (Right and left 104 and 114); and at least one axle assembly coupled between the at least two wheels (102 and 112), the at least one axle assembly comprising: an inner axle (212, 214) coupled with the at least two wheels, the inner axle configured to rotate to drive rotation of the at least two wheels (Paragraph 0028: “the first axle shaft 212 may be positioned to rotate within the first axle tube 202. The second axle shaft 214 may be positioned to rotate within the second axle tube 204. […] In this way, the first axle shaft 212 may provide a first rotational speed to the first hub 220 and a wheel mounted thereon and the second axle shaft 214 may provide a second rotational speed, different or equal to the first rotational speed, to the second axle shaft 222 and a wheel mounted thereon.”); and an outer wall (202, 204, and 230) surrounding the inner axle, the outer wall including an inner wall surface and an outer wall surface (See Figures 2 and 3A, Paragraph 0027: “Further, each of the first axle tube 202 and the second axle tube 204 includes a wall thickness between an inner surface defining the central cavity and the outer surface.” See also inner and outer walls of central body portion 230), and the outer wall surface including multiple perforations (334 and 336). In regards to claim 18: The chassis of claim 16 is taught by Steward. Steward further teaches at least one of an insulative material and an air gap between the inner axle and the outer wall (Paragraph 0028, not directly shown in Figure 2, examiner notes that if the shaft is contained and rotates within tubes 202 and 204, the shafts being 212 and 214, the diameter of which can be seen at the ends of Figure 2 connected to hubs 220 and 222, an air gap would exist between the outer wall of the tube and the shaft. Additionally, the entire thickness of the tube (discussed in Paragraph 0027 quoted above) would exist between the outer wall and the inner axle. Examiner notes that all materials including air have insulative properties) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steward. The chassis of claim 16 is taught by Steward. Steward further teaches wherein each of the multiple perforations defines a circular shape (See Figure 3A). Steward is silent as to the diameter of the perforations. However, In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (See MPEP 2144.04 Paragraph IV A). Additionally, the instant specification does not provide any reasoning for criticality of the claimed range of the diameter of the perforation and states that the range can be scaled (Paragraph 0039). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the perforation diameters be in a range of 0.5 to 2.5cm, which they appear to be though Steward is silent, so as to allow for the right amount of lubricant to be added or expelled from the fittings (Paragraph 0036 of Steward) thereby creating a more secure and effective fit for the axle housing . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-07 AIA 07-97 12-51-07 Claim s 1-2 and 5-15 are allowed. Claims 3 and 4 are objected to. 07-43-03 AIA As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). Claim 1 recites a lunar rover chassis with an axle assembly that has an inner axle and outer wall. A power supply connects surfaces of both the inner axle and outer wall and applies a voltage difference to attract or repel lunar regolith. While axle housings are generally known in the art, no prior art was found to teach or suggest a charged axle assembly capable of either attracting or repelling dust/regolith due to a voltage difference between the inner axle and outer wall. Claims 2-15 depend from claim 1 and are also found to be allowable should the objections regarding claims 3 and 4, and the drawing objection regarding claim 10 be overcome. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Metzger (US 2023/0265759 A1) teaches a system for extracting water from lunar regolith involving an electrostatic separator. Grady (US 2013/0229092 A1) teaches an axle assembly for a vehicle with a hollow tube and a shaft that rotates inside of the tube with a magnet arrangement that generates electricity when the shaft is rotated . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL R HYMEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0389. The examiner can normally be reached Generally M-F 7:30-4:30. 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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571)272-6265. 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. /A.R.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611 Application/Control Number: 18/095,116 Page 2 Art Unit: 3611 Application/Control Number: 18/095,116 Page 3 Art Unit: 3611 Application/Control Number: 18/095,116 Page 4 Art Unit: 3611 Application/Control Number: 18/095,116 Page 5 Art Unit: 3611 Application/Control Number: 18/095,116 Page 6 Art Unit: 3611 Application/Control Number: 18/095,116 Page 7 Art Unit: 3611 Application/Control Number: 18/095,116 Page 8 Art Unit: 3611 Application/Control Number: 18/095,116 Page 9 Art Unit: 3611
Prosecution Insights