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.
Claims 14-19 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.
Regarding claims 14-19, in claim 14, the recitation “the heat source” has insufficient antecedent basis in the claims; this would need to recite “a” as this is the first recitation.
Regarding claim 18, as per the rejection above, the recitation “further comprising a heat source” would need to recite “wherein the heat source” for antecedent basis agreement.
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:
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sowers, Jr et al (US 2019/0271228), hereinafter Sowers, taken in combination with Ethridge (US 2016/0024921) and Taylor et al (US 2008/0003133).
Regarding claim 1, Sowers teaches a system (thermal system 14) for extracting water from soil and or regolith on extraterrestrial bodies, including the Moon and Mars (see title, abstract, Figs 1-5, [0064-0068), comprising: a shielded internal environment (enclosure 16) defined within a cover (body 18) that rests atop granular soil (soil or regolith 2) (see Fig 3,[0064-0066]); the cover comprising cover body (body 18) extending from a rim (skirt 17) to a cover top (at top window 22) (see Fig 3, [0094-0098]); the shielded environment (inside of 16) is not in communication with an outside environment (outside of 16) via the cover body (body 18); a heat source (electric heater 42) disposed in the cover configured to heat the granular soil (2) (see Fig 4, [0099]); a gas collector in the internal environment 16 (“The enclosure 16 includes a container 24 to collect water released from the regolith” see Fig 3, [0070]), while not explicitly “in” cover 18, this makes obvious that it is a part of the enclosure, i.e. broadly understood to be “in” the environment as it is continuous with the interior volume of the cover via conduit26, the container 24 may be a cold trap, understood to be cooled, or have a radiator 25, to further cool the container 24 to allow collection/condensation of evaporated water in the regolith, (see Figs 3-3B, [0074-0081]).
However, Sowers does not teach a blade extending from the rim, wherein the blade is configured to penetrate the granular soil.
Ethridge teaches a system for extraction of volatiles from planetary bodies in a vacuum environment (see title, abstract), Ethridge teaches the system is for extracting volatiles by surrounding the body in a shield, microwave heating and condensing in a cold trap to recover volatiles (see Fig 1a, [0085-0091], i.e. for smaller asteroids), alternately for bigger planetary bodies a shield is deployed and microwave heating is done and product recovered (see Fig 3a, [0113-0122]), in a further embodiment, the valuable volatiles are located at depths below the surface, and therefore an auger blade 412 is needed to disrupt the regolith to liberate the volatiles so they can be heated and recovered (see Figs 4a-4b, [0048-0049], [0123-0125]).
Taylor teaches a system for in situ microwave consolidation of planetary materials (see title, abstract), Taylor teaches the vehicle 10 is provided with plow blade 16 (grading blade 16), mounted on frame 12 (see Fig 1, [0022]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Sowers to include a blade extending from the rim, wherein the blade is configured to penetrate the granular soil because in view of Ethridge, different planetary bodies require different ways to agitate, and evolve volatiles to extract resources from (see Ethridge embodiments above), including with an auger blade, and to mount the blade on the edge of the frame/rim as part of a moving rover was known as taught by Taylor, therefore this would achieve the agitation suggested by Ethridge.
Regarding claim 2, in the modification of claim 1 above, the environment would be connected to a rover, and Ethridge teaches vehicle 56 is associated with system (see Fig 2, [0069]).
Regarding claim 3, in modified Ethridge, Taylor teaches the blade 16 is a plow, which would push debris aside.
Regarding claim 4-9, Ethridge teaches there may be multiple heaters 42 (see Fig 4, [0099]), while not specifically teaching the locations as claimed, in modified Ethridge the skilled artisan would be expected to use constructional design choice and arrive at optimal locations of heaters and type of heaters as claimed through routine skill.
Regarding claim 10, in modified Ethridge, Taylor suggests a forward moving direction (see Fig 1, directional arrow, and the blade 16 moves forward with the vehicle 10 in the forward direction).
Regarding claim 11, Ethridge teaches two cooled containers 24 that may be cryogenically cooled via thermal system 14 as set forth above (see Ethridge Fig 3, [0076]).
Regarding claim 12, in modified Ethridge, Taylor teaches the blade 16 is a plow, which would serve to flip debris.
Regarding claim 13, in modified Ethridge as set forth above, including both blades of Taylor and Ethridge, and via a duplication or parts, the skilled artisan would modify the system with several rows without unexpected results to further first flatten and then agitate the regolith.
Regarding claim 14, Sowers teaches a system (thermal system 14) for extracting water from soil and or regolith on extraterrestrial bodies, including the Moon and Mars (see title, abstract, Figs 1-5, [0064-0068), comprising: a shielded internal environment (enclosure 16) defined within a cover (body 18) that rests atop granular soil (soil or regolith 2) (see Fig 3,[0064-0066]); the cover comprising cover body (body 18) extending from a rim (skirt 17) to a cover top (at top window 22) (see Fig 3, [0094-0098]); the shielded environment (inside of 16) is not in communication with an outside environment (outside of 16) via the cover body (body 18); a heat source (electric heater 42) disposed in the cover configured to heat the granular soil (2) (see Fig 4, [0099]); a gas collector in the internal environment 16 (“The enclosure 16 includes a container 24 to collect water released from the regolith” see Fig 3, [0070]), while not explicitly “in” cover 18, this makes obvious that it is a part of the enclosure, i.e. broadly understood to be “in” the environment as it is continuous with the interior volume of the cover via conduit26, the container 24 may be a cold trap, understood to be cooled, or have a radiator 25, to further cool the container 24 to allow collection/condensation of evaporated water in the regolith, (see Figs 3-3B, [0074-0081]) .
However, Sowers does not teach a blade extending from the rim, wherein the blade is configured to penetrate the granular soil nor the heat source as claimed.
Ethridge teaches a system for extraction of volatiles from planetary bodies in a vacuum environment (see title, abstract), Ethridge teaches the system is for extracting volatiles by surrounding the body in a shield, microwave heating and condensing in a cold trap to recover volatiles (see Fig 1a, [0085-0091], i.e. for smaller asteroids), alternately for bigger planetary bodies a shield is deployed and microwave heating is done and product recovered (see Fig 3a, [0113-0122]), in a further embodiment, the valuable volatiles are located at depths below the surface, and therefore an auger blade 412 is needed to disrupt the regolith to liberate the volatiles so they can be heated and recovered (see Figs 4a-4b, [0048-0049], [0123-0125]), Ethridge teaches there may be multiple heaters 42 (see Fig 4, [0099]),.
Taylor teaches a system for in situ microwave consolidation of planetary materials (see title, abstract), Taylor teaches the vehicle 10 is provided with plow blade 16 (grading blade 16), mounted on frame 12 (see Fig 1, [0022]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Sowers to include a blade extending from the rim in combination with heat source, wherein the blade is configured to penetrate the granular soil because in view of Ethridge, different planetary bodies require different ways to heat, agitate, and evolve volatiles to extract resources from (see Ethridge embodiments above), including with an auger blade, and to mount the blade on the edge of the frame/rim as part of a moving rover was known as taught by Taylor, therefore this would achieve the agitation suggested by Ethridge.
Regarding claims 15-16, in the modification of claim 1 above, the environment would be connected to a rover, and Ethridge teaches vehicle 56 is associated with system (see Fig 2, [0069]) and Taylor suggests a forward moving direction (see Fig 1, directional arrow, and the blade 16 moves forward with the vehicle 10 in the forward direction).
Regarding claim 17, in modified Ethridge, Taylor teaches the blade 16 is a plow, which would push debris aside.
Regarding claims 18-19, Ethridge has taught there may be multiple heaters 42 (see Fig 4, [0099]), while not specifically teaching the locations as claimed, in modified Ethridge the skilled artisan would be expected to use constructional design choice and arrive at optimal locations of heaters and type of heaters as claimed through routine skill.
Regarding claim 20, Sowers teaches a system (thermal system 14) for extracting water from soil and or regolith on extraterrestrial bodies, including the Moon and Mars (see title, abstract, Figs 1-5, [0064-0068), comprising: a shielded internal environment (enclosure 16) defined within a cover (body 18) that rests atop granular soil (soil or regolith 2) (see Fig 3,[0064-0066]); the cover comprising cover body (body 18) extending from a rim (skirt 17) to a cover top (at top window 22) (see Fig 3, [0094-0098]); the shielded environment (inside of 16) is not in communication with an outside environment (outside of 16) via the cover body (body 18); a heat source (electric heater 42) disposed in the cover configured to heat the granular soil (2) (see Fig 4, [0099]); a gas collector in the internal environment 16 (“The enclosure 16 includes a container 24 to collect water released from the regolith” see Fig 3, [0070]), while not explicitly “in” cover 18, this makes obvious that it is a part of the enclosure, i.e. broadly understood to be “in” the environment as it is continuous with the interior volume of the cover via conduit26, the container 24 may be a cold trap, understood to be cooled, or have a radiator 25, to further cool the container 24 to allow collection/condensation of evaporated water in the regolith, (see Figs 3-3B, [0074-0081]). While Sowers doesn’t explicitly teach the temperature is below 100 deg Kelvin, clearly this is deployed in the very cold environment of space/the moon, therefore would be expected to reach very low temperatures such as below 100 deg Kelvin, and further this is directed to method of operating which does not differentiate this system, see MPEP 2114 (II).
However, Sowers does not teach a blade extending from the rim, wherein the blade is configured to penetrate the granular soil.
Ethridge teaches a system for extraction of volatiles from planetary bodies in a vacuum environment (see title, abstract), Ethridge teaches the system is for extracting volatiles by surrounding the body in a shield, microwave heating and condensing in a cold trap to recover volatiles (see Fig 1a, [0085-0091], i.e. for smaller asteroids), alternately for bigger planetary bodies a shield is deployed and microwave heating is done and product recovered (see Fig 3a, [0113-0122]), in a further embodiment, the valuable volatiles are located at depths below the surface, and therefore an auger blade 412 is needed to disrupt the regolith to liberate the volatiles so they can be heated and recovered (see Figs 4a-4b, [0048-0049], [0123-0125]).
Taylor teaches a system for in situ microwave consolidation of planetary materials (see title, abstract), Taylor teaches the vehicle 10 is provided with plow blade 16 (grading blade 16), mounted on frame 12 (see Fig 1, [0022]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Sowers to include a blade extending from the rim, wherein the blade is configured to penetrate the granular soil because in view of Ethridge, different planetary bodies require different ways to agitate, and evolve volatiles to extract resources from (see Ethridge embodiments above), including with an auger blade, and to mount the blade on the edge of the frame/rim as part of a moving rover was known as taught by Taylor, therefore this would achieve the agitation suggested by Ethridge.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,044,126. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are the less limited invention compared with the ‘126 patent and it is held obvious to claim the less limited invention, while incorporating features of dependent claims without unexpected results.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,066,252. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are the less limited invention compared with the ‘252 patent and it is held obvious to claim the less limited invention, while incorporating features of dependent claims without unexpected results.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,091,973. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are the less limited invention compared with the ‘973 patent and it is held obvious to claim the less limited invention, while incorporating features of dependent claims without unexpected results.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Citations from the parent application are cited herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1603. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 5.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached on (571) 272-5954. 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.
/JONATHAN MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights