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
Claims 1-19 are pending. Claims 16-19 are withdrawn. Claims 1-15 are examined below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 7/16/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, lines 7-10, state an intended use that one of the vertical solar arrays can send collected energy to another vertical solar array. There is insufficient infrastructure to perform the intended use as applicant provides no infrastructure that can perform the necessary decision making to send power, e.g., no controller with an algorithm. Therefore, an intended use without infrastructure to perform the intended use renders the claim is indefinite. Claims 2-15 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Claim Interpretation
Payload is interpreted as items carried on the landing vehicle and not a structural limitation of the landing vehicle.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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:201
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Criswell et al. (US 5,019,768) in view of Francis et al. (US 2021/0013830), and Sercel et al. (US 10,989443).
Regarding claim 1, Criswell discloses a lunar power grid assembly for deployment on a lunar surface having a pair of preselected lunar sites consisting of a first lunar site (50) and a second lunar site (50) (shown in figs. 2 and 3, see col. 5, lines 5-10 and col. 8, lines 39-47), the lunar power grid assembly comprising:
a pair of solar arrays consisting of a first solar array positioned at the first lunar site (50) to collect solar energy and a second solar array positioned at the second lunar site (also 50) to collect solar energy (fig. 3, col. 5, lines 39-47);
a cable for transmitting power between the first vertical solar array and the second vertical solar array, therefore the arrays being interconnected (see col. 9, lines 56-61 and col. 16, lines 34-38, specifically the solar arrays are interconnected by wires that transmit power to the receiver, wherein wires reads on cables and wires to and from receiver which also reads on between solar arrays as the wire connects all components together; see also col. 16, i.e. “[p]ower is brought by a grid of underground electrical wires from each ridge in a plot 50 to a collection of many solid state microwave transmission elements 54 at the center of each plot");
a power storage device for receiving solar energy from the first vertical solar array and the second vertical solar array (see col. 7, lines 47-50, i.e., “the power stations may include suitable energy storage devices to permit power to be stored during daylight periods for transmission during periods of darkness").
In regards to the newly added limitation that solar arrays are solar arrays having charging systems, interpreting “charging system” in view of the specification (see applicant’s specification para [0036] and [0057]), the examiner interprets the “charging system” to comprise 1) the power storage device as disclosed by Criswell and 2) a charging interface addressed below. The examiner notes Criswell discloses the power storage device is connected to the solar arrays by cable (see discussion above). The statement “for transmitting power to one another” is intended use. Criswell is capable of performing the intended use.
Crisswell does not disclose wherein:
the solar arrays are vertical solar arrays; and each vertical solar array are vertical solar array technology generators;
a charging interface and for distributing energy to one or more lunar devices on the lunar surface; and
a landing vehicle having a payload thereon.
Francis and Sercel are analogous art to Criswell as Francis and Sercel are directed to lunar solar arrays (see Francis para [0035] and Sercel col. 2, lines 30-37).
Francis discloses wherein the solar array can be vertical or horizontal (see fig. 6, para [0056]). VSAT is NASA’s acronym for a vertical solar array technology, which is hoisted on a mast currently being developed by NASA. Applicant has not provided a special definition of VSAT and it is the examiner’s position that the vertical solar array hoisted on a mast as disclosed by Francis (see figs. 2-4, para [0040]-[0046]) meets the definition of VSAT.
The court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute one known device (i.e., vertical solar array as taught by Frances) for another known device (i.e., horizontal solar array as taught by Frances and Criswell), wherein the results are predictable (i.e., a lunar solar array).
Further, Francis and Sercel disclose a landing vehicle (601) having a payload thereon (see Francis fig. 6, para [0056] and Sercel fig. 5, col. 5, lines 10-12). A landing vehicle is functional to transfer the payload to the surface of the moon (see Francis para [0035] and [0056] and Sercel col. 4, lines 8-12).
Therefore, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the assembly of Criswell to include a landing vehicle that carries a payload as a known method of transferring the assembly to the moon’s surface.
Sercel also discloses a charging interface for distributing energy to one or more lunar devices on the lunar surface in the background section as known prior art (see col. 1, line 67 through col. 2, line 5).
The court has held it would be obvious to combine prior art elements (i.e., the power station of Criswell and the charging interface of Sercel) according to known methods (disclosed by Criswell and Sercel) wherein the result is predictable. See MPEP § 2143.
The limitation that the cable transmits power “so that one of the vertical solar arrays can send collected energy to other vertical solar array, when the other vertical solar array is not collecting energy, to maintain the temperature of the other vertical solar array” is intended use. The intended use is given weight to the extent that the prior art is able to perform the intended use. As the arrays send power to the energy storage, the array may receive power back, which would be coming from the functioning solar array. Therefore, modified Criswell is able to perform the intended use.
The limitation that the charging interface is for “distributing energy to one or more lunar devices on the lunar surface” is intended use and is given weight to the extent the prior art is able to perform the intended use. Criswell as modified by Sercel discloses the intended use.
The limitation that a landing vehicle having a payload thereon “for carrying at least one of the pair of interconnected vertical solar arrays, the cable, the power storage device, and the charging interface” is intended use and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is able to perform the intended use. Criswell as modified by Sercel and Francis discloses the intended use, i.e., transferring the entire assembly to the lunar surface.
Regarding claim 2, modified Criswell discloses a lunar power grid assembly of claim 1. The limitation wherein the payload includes the pair of interconnected vertical solar arrays, the cable, the power storage device, and the charging interface is a product by process limitation and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is able to be produced by the process recited. The prior art is able to be produced by having the items of the assembly be a payload on a landing vehicle to be transferred to the lunar surface. See rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, modified Criswell discloses a lunar power grid assembly of claim 2, but does not disclose wherein the landing vehicle includes a braking stage.
A braking state is a well-known expedient in the art for lunar landing vehicles as the braking is required for a safe lunar landing. See MPEP § 2144.03.
Therefore, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the landing vehicle of modified Criswell to include a braking stage to deliver the assembly safely to the lunar surface.
Regarding claim 11, modified Criswell disclose a lunar power grid assembly of claim 1, wherein the charging interface can provide power to lunar devices selected from the group consisting of mobile charging outlets, scientific instruments, tools, surface rovers, communication antenna, and mining equipment (see Sercel col. 1, line 67 through col. 2, line 5).
Regarding claim 12, modified Criswell discloses a lunar power grid assembly of claim 1, wherein the first vertical solar array and the second vertical solar array are vertical solar array technology generators (see Francis fig. 6, para [0056]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Criswell discloses a lunar power grid assembly of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the first lunar site and the second lunar site have landing surfaces that have slopes that are less than about ten degrees. The terrain is a known variable when choosing a landing site (see Sercel col. 3, lines 29-42).
The court has held that absent criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a result effective variable for the intended use of the device. Differences in said result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. “[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). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 14, modified Criswell discloses a lunar power grid assembly of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the first lunar site and the second lunar site have shared illumination that exceeds 95% over 365 days. Illumination or solar flux is a known result effective variable for solar modules (see MPEP § 2144.03).
The court has held that absent criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a result effective variable for the intended use of the device. Differences in said result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. “[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). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 15, modified Criswell discloses a lunar power grid assembly of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the power storage device is a battery. A battery is a well-known expedient in the art (see non-cited prior art). See MPEP § 2144.03.
The court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute one known device (i.e., a battery as known in the art) for another known device (i.e., the energy storage device of Criswell), wherein the results are predictable (i.e., energy storage).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Criswell et al., Francis et al. and Sercel et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishida et al. (A mobility System for Lunar Rough Terrain).
Regarding claim 3, modified Criswell discloses a lunar power grid assembly of claim 2, but does not disclose a lunar vehicle.
Nishida is analogous art to Criswell as Nishida discloses a solar array assembly on the lunar surface (see page 4717, section 4.1, see “a power generation tower that generates large amounts of electric power from sunlight and a regenerative type of fuel cell will be essential. The rover can receive electric power from the power generation system with cable connection for survival during night.”). Further, Nishida discloses a lunar rover vehicle for use on the lunar surface, to navigate the terrain (see pages 4716 through 4717).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the assembly of modified Criswell in include a lunar rover (mobile vehicle) to traverse the moon’s surface.
The limitation “wherein the second vertical solar array is mounted on a lunar vehicle, wherein the landing vehicle can land on the first lunar site to position the first vertical solar array thereon, and wherein the lunar vehicle can transport the second vertical solar array to the second lunar site” is product by process and is given weight to the extent the prior art is able to be formed by the recited process. It is the examiner’s position that the assembly components of modified Criswell is able to be payload on a lunar landing vehicle and a lunar vehicle mobile on the moon’s surface and therefore is able to be formed by the recited process.
Regarding claim 4, modified Criswell discloses a lunar power grid assembly of claim 3, wherein the lunar vehicle is an autonomous self-driving (i.e., robot, see Nishida Introduction, page 4716 and page 4720, section 6.1), wherein the rover carries a payload (see Nishida abstract page 4716 and section 6.3, page 4721), as it carries a payload, reads on trailer.
Alternatively, the shape of a trailer and/or a trailer is a well-known expedient in the art (see MPEP 2144.03).
The court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art elements (i.e., the robotic lunar vehicle carrying a payload and a trailer to carry a payload known in the art) according to known methods (carrying a payload as disclosed by Nishida), wherein the result is predictable, i.e., carrying a payload. See MPEP § 2143.
Regarding claim 5, modified Criswell discloses a lunar power grid assembly of claim 4, wherein the payload includes a plurality of mobile charging interfaces (see Sercel col. 1, line 67 through col. 2, line 5, and Nishida page 4717, section 4.1).
Modified Criswell does not disclose wherein the charging interface is an outlet. Charging outlets are a well-known expedient for use as a charging interface in the art.
The court has held it would be obvious to combine prior art elements (i.e., the charging interface of Sercel) according to known methods (i.e., outlets known in the art) wherein the result is predictable. See MPEP § 2143.
Regarding claim 6, modified Criswell discloses a lunar power grid assembly of claim 5.
The limitation “wherein the plurality of mobile charging outlets is stored on the autonomous self-driving trailer before the landing vehicle lands on the first lunar site” is a product by process limitation and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is able to be formed by the recited process. It is the examiner’s position that the charging interface, including the obvious interface of a plurality of charging outlets, are able to be formed by the recited process.
Regarding claim 10, modified Criswell discloses a lunar power grid assembly of claim 1, further comprising at least one surface vehicle selected from the group consisting of a lunar vehicle, a mobile charging outlet, and rover (see rejections of claim 3-8).
Modified Criswell does not specifically disclose wherein the landing vehicle is one of a pair of landing vehicles consisting of a first landing vehicle and a second landing vehicle; wherein the first landing vehicle is located on a first lunar site and the second landing vehicle lands is located on a second lunar site to position. Adding a second landing vehicle would be a duplication of parts, while landing on a first site and a second site is inherent. See MPEP § 2112.
The court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify a prior art element (i.e., the landing vehicle of modified Criswell) by mere duplication unless there is an unexpected result. Here the expected result would be carrying additional payload and landing in two locations.
The limitations that (1) with the first vertical solar array being carried on the first landing vehicle and the second vertical solar array being carried on the second landing vehicle;
(2) wherein the first landing vehicle lands on the first lunar site to position the first vertical solar array thereon and the second landing vehicle lands on the second lunar site to position the second vertical solar array thereon; and
(3) wherein the surface vehicle can carry transport one of the cable across the lunar surface from one of the vertical solar array to the other vertical solar array to connect the pair of vertical solar arrays to one another, are product by process limitations and are given weight to the extent the prior art is able to be formed by the process recited. It is the examiner’s position that the assembly of modified Criswell is able to be formed by the recited process.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Criswell et al., Francis et al., Sercel et al. as applied to claims 1-5 above, and further in view of Stone et al. (US 9,090,315).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, modified Criswell discloses a lunar power grid assembly of claim 5, but does not disclose wherein each of the plurality of mobile charging outlets are lunar rovers nor wherein the lunar vehicle is tethered to the landing vehicle.
Stone is analogous art to Criswell as Stone is directed to power on a planet other than earth (see para [0020]). Stone discloses a tethered mobile charging interface (see fig. 6 para [0020], [0056], [0083] and [0144]), where the interface is an outlet (see obviousness discussion of claim 5). Mobile power allows power to places where it is impractical to have a power station (see para [0020] and [0056]). Mobile vehicle capable of operating on the moon surface as disclosed by Stone reads on rover.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the assembly of Criswell to include a mobile charging outlet (i.e., rover) as a mobile outlet allows to locate power in remote areas.
Further, Stone discloses the spooling fiber may be located on a vehicle (see para [0083]).
The court has held it would be obvious to combine prior art elements (i.e., the assembly of modified Criswell including a lunar vehicle (see discussion of claim 3) and the mobile charging outlet of Stone) according to known methods (disclosed by Criswell and Stone) wherein the result is predictable. See MPEP § 2143.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments re rejection over 35 USC 112:
Applicant’s amendment does not resolve 35 USC 112 issue. Simply having a charging system does not transfer power between those two structures. See rejection regarding decision making capability.
Applicant argues Criswell in view of Francis and Sercel does not disclose the structural limitation “a cable for transmitting power between the first vertical solar array and the second vertical solar array”. The examiner disagrees. First, the argument regarding two nodes is moot as the applicant is not rejected over the two nodes, but rather the applicant is rejected over a single power station as shown in fig. 3A.
Second, in regards to applicant’s argument that the “there is no discussion of lining the two lunar nodes or transmitting power between the solar arrays”, examiner disagrees. Again, transmission between “nodes” is immaterial as applicant is rejected over the power station as shown in fig. 3A. Each ridge represents a solar array (as shown in fig. 5 and 9, alternatively fig. 6). Leads (44 and 42 shown in fig. 5) are connected to the power grid, i.e., power grid is connected to each solar array, reading on “a cable for transmitting power between the first solar array and the second solar array”. As to Criswell not disclosing a “vertical solar array” is moot as Francis is used to modify the solar array of Criswell to a “vertical solar array”.
Regarding applicant’s arguments “the linked solar arrays are all at the same site” and Criswell does not “achieve the goal of transmitting power from an illuminated solar array to a solar array in darkness” is arguing limitations not claimed. There are no limitations specifying a size or distance between solar arrays. Each section 50 is a different site. Further, there are no limitations specifying one location is in light and one in darkness,
Regarding applicant’s last argument that “the discussion of independent multi-day power storage at each node to overcome power interruptions teaches away” is moot as again, the applicant is rejected over the power station as shown in fig. 3A.
Regarding Applicant’s statement that Criswell does not teach the intended use “so that one of the vertical solar arrays can send collected energy to other vertical solar array, when the other vertical solar array is not collecting energy, to maintain the temperature of the other vertical solar array”, examiner only asserts the power grid of Criswell is capable of performing the intended use of sending “collected energy” to other solar arrays.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Song et al. (US 2024/0278981).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 JAYNE L MERSHON whose telephone number is (571)270-7869. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 to 6:00 M-F.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
JAYNE L. MERSHON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1721
/JAYNE L MERSHON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721