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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 5/13/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the unity of invention is satisfied and that even if not, that Aoki does not teach the reducing unit and water extraction units are independent structures as disclosed in the claim. This is not found persuasive because there is no requirement that the water extraction unit and reduction unit can’t reside in the same structure or housing of the plant.
As to the argument of the satisfying the unity of invention, as the special technical feature between Groups I and II does not contribute over the prior art of record, the unity of invention is not met.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2019-14855 of Aoki et al (machine translation provided on 3/17/2026) in view of US 2019/0271228 of Sowers, JR. et al.
As to claim 1, Aoki teaches a plant on a lunar surface for generating resources from soil on the lunar surface, (Aoki, [0006] – [0007]), the plant comprising:
a water extraction unit (Aoki, [0012] – [0015], [0021], [0031]);
an electrolysis unit (Aoki, [0036], [0025]);
a reducing unit (Aoki, [0025]); and
a water storage unit (Aoki, [0017])
wherein a reducing device and extraction device are common in configuration to perform heating by focused sunlight (Aoki, [0031], [0044] – [0045] and Figs. 1-3).
PNG
media_image1.png
316
392
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
316
374
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As seen in Figures 1 and 2, there is a water storage unit (5), a water extraction unit (components 1, 2, 3 and 6), an electrolyzer (not show but generating “G” as hydrogen gas being blown into the lunar soil from the water in the storage unit (5) and reducing unit (cover 4) such that hydrogen mixes with the dried fluidized soil. It is noted that the lunar soil can be heated within the plant by both focused solar irradiation or a heater (electric heat) such that a reducing device and extraction device have common configurations.
Aoki does not teach specific oxygen and hydrogen storage units.
Sowers teaches of extracting frozen water from regolith (i.e. lunar soil) (Sowers, Abstract).
Sowers teaches that the collected water can be electrolyzed into hydrogen and oxygen gases that can then be stored in containers for later use (Sowers, [0104]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aoki as per Sowers so as to utilize separate hydrogen and oxygen storage tanks to store the generated gases and allow further use of said gases as desired.
As to claim 3, Aoki in view of Sowers teaches to the plant of claim 1.
Aoki additionally teaches a power generation facility (Aoki, [0014]).
As to claims 4 and 6, Aoki in view of Sowers teaches to the plant of claim 1.
Aoki teaches the plant is controlled in relation to the amount of hydrogen that is used to reduce the metal oxide in the soil and the amount of hydrogen used to generate water (i.e. hydrogen reacting with oxygen) (Aoki, [0025], [0036]).
As to claims 4 and 7, Aoki in view of Sowers teaches to the plant of claim 1.
Aoki does not teach a specific controller in relation to the water amount.
Sowers teaches of extracting frozen water from regolith (i.e. lunar soil) (Sowers, Abstract).
Sowers additionally teaches the system includes measuring a concentration of water in the soil and moving the enclosure when the water concentration is below a threshold, thus disclosing a controller configured to control the plant based on a supply amount of water (Sowers, [0030]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aoki as per Sowers so as to utilize a desired control system to be capable of controlling the plant to obtain the water when the concentration of water present in the soil is high enough for collection.
In specific to claim 7, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to refill the water tank when empty and use the water when the tank has a sufficient amount of water, otherwise the system would not function as hydrogen would not be available as the heated gas and water could not be collected as per Aoki.
Claims 2, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki in view of Sowers as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP H0526230A of Iwase et al, published 1993.
As to claim 2, Aoki in view of Sowers teaches to the plant of claim 1.
Aoki in view of Sowers do not teach the plant further comprises a fuel cell.
However, Aoki teaches the system requires a power source (Aoki, [0014]).
Iwase teaches of a closed living environment on a lunar surface that includes water electrolysis and resources on the lunar surface (Iwase, p. 1 lines 4-7, p. 2 lines 25-33).
Iwase additionally teaches that a fuel cell is used to generate electricity for use by the system (Iwase, p. 2 lines 14-33, p. 3 lines 1-9).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aoki in view of Sowers as per Iwase so as to utilize a fuel cell as a power source for suppling power to the plant as a predictable result.
As to claim 5 (and thus 4), Aoki in view of Sowers teaches to the plant of claim 1.
Aoki in view of Sowers does not teach a specific controller in relation to the oxygen amount.
Iwase teaches of a closed living environment on a lunar surface that includes water electrolysis and resources on the lunar surface (Iwase, p. 1 lines 4-7, p. 2 lines 25-33).
Iwase additionally teaches that the electrolysis unit in relation to the amount of oxygen used to make power and oxygen to support life within the system (Iwase, p. 4 lines 9-18, p. 5 lines 1-9).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aoki in view of Sowers as per Iwase so as to control the plant in relation to the oxygen content to control power and life support on a lunar surface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W COHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7961. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 am to 5 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
BRIAN W. COHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/BRIAN W COHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights