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 .
Status of Claims and Application
This non-final action on the merits is in response to the election of invention received by the office on 13 January 2026. Claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 11-20 are cancelled.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 13 January 2026 is acknowledged.
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 (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.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0231826 to Snyder et al. (‘826 hereafter) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0247447 to Angel et al. (‘447 hereafter) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0299290 to Kuhns et al. (‘290 hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, ‘826 teaches a method comprising: causing a scoop structure to extract particulate from the portion of the worksite to form extracted particulate (Fig 1, Fig. 7 item 706); filtering the extracted particulate to generate source particulate (paragraph 0041); dispensing a first portion of the source particulate at a target portion of the worksite to form a first layer (paragraph 0045). ‘826 does not teach a sensor on the end effector, or directed energy melting of the material.
In the related field of endeavor, space and extra-planetary sensing, ‘447 teaches a spectroscope suitable for mounting on a robot arm (paragraph 0055) for the benefit of extraplanetary or exoplanetary prospecting (paragraph 0007). It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘826 with those of ‘447 for the benefit of enabling remote autonomous sorting, classification and characterization of raw material in situ. The combination of ‘826 with ‘447 does not teach directed energy melting.
In the related art of additive manufacturing, ‘290 teaches a method of applying a directed energy at a first level to the first layer to transition to a molten state (paragraph 0005); and forming a first solid layer from the first layer in the molten state with which to form a three- dimensional ("3D") structure (paragraph 0005) for the benefit of forming a body with controlled porosity. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘826 in view of ‘447 with those of ‘290 for the benefit of forming bodies with controlled porosity out of materials located and identified in situ remotely and autonomously.
Regarding claim 2, ‘826 teaches the method wherein the particulate includes at least a portion of regolith particles and the source particulate includes at least a portion of source regolith (paragraph 0041).
Regarding claim 3, ‘290 teaches the method wherein applying the directed energy further comprises: activating one or more lasers to cause the first portion of source particulate to absorb laser energy and increase a temperature to a first temperature (paragraph 0005) for the benefit of forming articles of controlled porosity. It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of ‘826, ‘447, and ‘290 for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 4, ‘290 teaches the method wherein applying the directed energy further comprises: activating one or more lasers to direct laser energy through a space in a vacuum (paragraph 0045) for the benefit of forming articles of controlled porosity. It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of ‘826, ‘447, and ‘290 for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 5, ‘826 teaches the method wherein the space is unenclosed (paragraph 0012).
Regarding claim 7, ‘290 teaches the method further comprising: dispensing a second portion of the source particulate upon the first solid layer at the target portion of the worksite to form a second layer (paragraph 0014) for the benefit of forming articles of controlled porosity. It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of ‘826, ‘447, and ‘290 for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 9, ‘290 teaches the method further comprising: activating the one or more lasers to cause the second portion of source particulate in the second layer to absorb laser energy to increase a temperature to a second temperature (paragraph 0014) for the benefit of forming articles of controlled porosity. It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of ‘826, ‘447, and ‘290 for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 10, ‘826 teaches the method further comprising: activating one or more sensors to scan the worksite to identify an object other than the particulate; and removing the object from the worksite (0041).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘826 in view of ‘447 in view of ‘290 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0337229 to Madinger et al. (‘229 hereafter).
Regarding claim 6, ‘826 in view of ‘447 in view of ‘290 does not teach compression.
In the related art of additive manufacturing, ‘229 teaches the method wherein dispensing the portion of the first source particulate at the target portion of the worksite comprises: compressing the first portion of the source particulate associated with the target portion of the worksite (paragraph 0024) for the benefit of improving the article made. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘826 in view of ‘447 in view of ‘290 with those of ‘229 for the benefit of improving part quality.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘826 in view of ‘447 in view of ‘290 as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of “Additive manufacturing by laser powder bed fusion and thermal post-treatment of the lunar-regolith-based glass-ceramics for in-situ resource utilization” by Wang et al. (WANG hereafter).
Regarding claim 8, ‘826 in view of ‘447 in view of ‘290 does not teach a second heating step. In the related art of regolith-based additive manufacturing, WANG teaches the method comprising: applying a second level of directed energy to the first layer to cause the first portion of the source particulate in the first layer to transition to a crystallization state (ABSTRACT) for the benefit of increasing compressive strength. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘826 in view of ‘447 in view of ‘290 with those of WANG for the benefit of remotely and autonomously forming strong articles out of materials identified in situ.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wang et al. "Prototype Raman Spectroscopic Sensor for in Situ Mineral Characterization on Planetary Surfaces" teaches that it is known to use Raman spectroscopy to characterize regolith on exoplanets.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John P Robitaille whose telephone number is (571)270-7006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. 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.
/JPR/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743