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 .
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 9 is 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. The recitation “wherein the electronics are configured to reverse the sequence” is indefinite as it is not clear if “the sequence” is referring to the successive energization introduced in line 9 of claim 1, the claim from which claim 9 depends; or if “the sequence” is referring to the recitation “wherein the electronics are configured to energize … sequentially” in lines 1-2 of claim 7. For the purposes of prior art rejections, “the sequence” is being interpreted to refer to the successive energization introduced in line 9 of claim 1.
However, it is respectfully noted that “successively” and “sequence” cannot be used interchangeably given their distinct definitions – where “successively” is defined as “immediately one after another” (“Successively.” Merriam-Webster.com, Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. June 2026), and “sequence” is defined as “a particular order in which related events, movements, or things follow each other” (“Sequence.” Merriam-Webster.com, Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. June 2026).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the primary reason for indicating claims 1, 10 and 15 as allowable is that the prior art fails to provide any teaching/suggestion/motivation or other rationale to arrive at the claimed electrostatic pump guiding a stream of charged particulate matter into a material fabricating region, wherein the material fabricating region is located at the output port of the vessel and is configured to facilitate a solidification of the stream of the charged particulate matter via an interaction between the stream of the charged particulate matter and a melding material or electromagnetic radiation of claim 1; the material fabrication system, wherein to fabricate the material, i) a dispenser at the output port to provide a melding material to the stream of the charged particulate matter or ii) a microwave emitter at the output port to radiate the stream of the charged particulate matter of claim 10; and the electrostatic pump for producing a jet of charged particulate matter, wherein individual electrodes of the series of electrodes are progressively longer in the direction from the input port to the output port, the increasing length of the individual electrodes corresponding to the acceleration of the charged particulate matter of claim 15.
Budsyn et al. (“Lunar Dust: Its Impact on Hardware and Mitigation Technologies,” Proceedings of the 46th Aerospace Mechanisms Symposium, Virtual, May 2022, pp. 287-300; of record) discloses: a configuration of an electrostatic handheld cleaning tool for spacesuits, where a standing wave of high voltage is applied to screen electrodes, capturing the dust on spacesuits, and the captured particles are transported by a traveling wave supplied to electrodes printed on a tube (Budsyn at Figure 10).
PNG
media_image1.png
402
790
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Barmatz et al. (“3D Microwave Print Head Approach for Processing Lunar and Mars Regolith,” 45th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, 2014) discloses: a 3D microwave print head concept in Fig. 4, which depicts powder regolith being fed into a feedstock hopper and subjected to a microwave heating process for forming a wall or paving a road (Barmatz at Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
606
924
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ballard et al. (US 2022/0009162) discloses: a rover mobility platform 70g shown in FIG. 14a can be tilted downward to scoop up or harvest material from the surface from the extraterrestrial body; the scooping apparatus 120 at the front end of bed 118 is open to the bed 118, and contains paddles or rotatable scoops that rotate the opposite direction in which mobility platform 70g moves via arrow 122; rotation of the scoops is shown by arrow 124; as the scoops or paddles rotate, the material is fed into one end of bed 118, as shown in FIG. 14a.; and once the materials are gathered, bed 118 can then pivot backward as shown in FIG. 14b so that material 126 is delivered at the back of bed 118, the delivery can occur via a print head, whereby material 126 is channeled into a print head (Ballard at [0094], FIG. 14a, FIG. 17).
Taylor et al. (US 2009/0071877) discloses: an apparatus and method for transporting lunar soil; a magnetic field is generated in a transport tube which attracts and moves the lunar soil through the tube; and the magnetic field may be generated by multiple electrically conductive coils that are positioned coaxially and along the length of the transport tube (Taylor at [0007], [0018]-[0021], FIGs. 1-2).
Binder et al. (US 2013/0180891) discloses: a tube separator for the electrostatic separation of differently electrically-charged particles of a valuable material mixture, e.g. of a mineral salt mixture, comprising a support tube, where the support tube indicates two field electrodes arranged opposite each other for the formation of an electric field (Binder at [0014], claim 1).
Though, Budsyn, Barmataz, Ballard, Taylor, and Binder, viewed either alone or in combination, fail to disclose the claimed electrostatic pump guiding a stream of charged particulate matter into a material fabricating region, wherein the material fabricating region is located at the output port of the vessel and is configured to facilitate a solidification of the stream of the charged particulate matter via an interaction between the stream of the charged particulate matter and a melding material or electromagnetic radiation of claim 1; the material fabrication system, wherein to fabricate the material, i) a dispenser at the output port to provide a melding material to the stream of the charged particulate matter or ii) a microwave emitter at the output port to radiate the stream of the charged particulate matter of claim 10; and the electrostatic pump for producing a jet of charged particulate matter, wherein individual electrodes of the series of electrodes are progressively longer in the direction from the input port to the output port, the increasing length of the individual electrodes corresponding to the acceleration of the charged particulate matter of claim 15.
Consequently, given the discussion above, it is the Examiner’s assessment that no reference viewed either alone or in combination teaches or reasonably suggests the claimed electrostatic pump meeting every limitation of independent claim 1, the claimed material fabrication system meeting every limitation of independent claim 10, or the claimed electrostatic pump meeting every limitation of independent claim 15. Claims 2-8 depend from claim 1, claims 11-14 depend from claim 10, and claims 16-20 depend from claim 15 and would therefore be allowable due to their dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAILEIGH K. DARNELL whose telephone number is (469)295-9287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, MST.
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 H. 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.
/BAILEIGH KATE DARNELL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights