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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 15-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 6 and 15, line 2 recite ‘power’ instead of -powder-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a separator in claim 1, line 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, it is unclear the regolith intake processes lunar regolith. The “regolith intake” does not invoke 112f because it does not have a nonce word. Described In the application, the intake system that has multiple elements, but the claim is only for an intake and not an intake system
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gibson et al (USP 4,948,477).
Regarding claim 1, Gibson discloses a system for extracting water from ice-regolith powder, comprising: a regolith intake configured to collect and process lunar regolith and pass a mixture of ice-regolith powder (col. 6, lines 53+ and col. 7, lines 1-17; a front shovel that digs out material and delivery to a beneficiation plant); a heater configured to receive and heat the ice-regolith powder and vaporize any layer of ice in at least a continuous, non- filling ice-regolith relationship (col. 10, lines 5-12 where the bed is heated); and a separator configured to receive the ice-regolith powder and split the ice-regolith powder into split streams of different sized lithic fragments and ice particles per the ratio of inertial force and aerodynamic drag force of the lithic fragments and ice particles (elements 32, 33, and 34).
Regarding claim 2, Gibson discloses the heater is positioned before or integrated with the separator (see Fig. 4 where the reactor includes separators 32, 33, and 34).
Regarding claim 3, Gibson discloses the heater is configured to heat the ice-regolith powder and vaporize ice in an adhering, bridging, an adhering, non-bridging or a continuous filling ice-regolith relationship (col. 10, lines 5-12).
Regarding claim 4, Gibson discloses the separator includes an output having a gas dryer or cold plate configured to remove water vapor (element 41).
Regarding claim 6, Gibson discloses the separator splits the ice-regolith power into split streams of lower, mid and upper diameter sized lithic fragments and ice particles (elements 32, 33, and 34).
Regarding claim 7, Gibson discloses each split stream includes at least one of a magnetic separator and tribocharger/electrostatic separator (elements 15 and 19).
Regarding claim 8, Gibson discloses each split stream includes a magnetic separator and tribocharger/electrostatic separator connected thereto (see Fig. 3; elements 15 and 19).
Regarding claim 10, Gibson discloses a system for extracting water from ice-regolith powder, comprising: a regolith intake configured to collect and process lunar regolith and pass a mixture of ice-regolith powder (col. 6, lines 53+ and col. 7, lines 1-17; a front shovel that digs out material and delivery to a beneficiation plant); a heater configured to receive ice-regolith powder having ice grains that are 10-100 microns (col. 3, lines 50-59) and heat the ice- regolith powder and vaporize any layer of ice in at least a continuous, non-filling ice-regolith relationship (col. 10, lines 5-12 where the bed is heated); and a separator configured to receive the ice-regolith powder and split the ice-regolith powder into split streams of different sized lithic fragments and ice particles per the ratio of inertial force and aerodynamic drag force of the lithic fragments and ice particles (elements 32, 33, and 34).
Regarding claim 11, Gibson discloses the heater is positioned before or integrated with the separator (see Fig. 4 where the reactor includes separators 32, 33, and 34).
Regarding claim 12, Gibson discloses the heater is configured to heat the ice-regolith powder and vaporize ice in an adhering, bridging, an adhering, non-bridging or a continuous filling ice-regolith relationship (col. 10, lines 5-12).
Regarding claim 13, Gibson discloses the separator includes an output having a gas dryer or cold plate configured to remove water vapor (element 41).
Regarding claim 15, Gibson discloses the separator splits the ice-regolith power into split streams of lower, mid and upper diameter sized lithic fragments and ice particles (elements 32, 33, and 34).
Regarding claim 16, Gibson discloses each split stream includes at least one of a magnetic separator and tribocharger/electrostatic separator (elements 15 and 19).
Regarding claim 17, Gibson discloses each split stream includes a magnetic separator and tribocharger/electrostatic separator connected thereto (see Fig. 3; elements 15 and 19).
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 5, 9, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibson in view of Design Choice.
Regarding claim 5, Gibson does not explicitly disclose the split streams of different sized lithic fragments and ice particles are based upon splits of 20-40 microns and 600-800 microns for lithic fragments. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to separating by size. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Gibson, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either size split because both separation systems would perform the same function of separating particles for the purpose of obtaining particles of a desired size.
Regarding claim 9, Gibson ‘946 does not explicitly disclose each tribocharger/electrostatic separator is configured to produce 100 to 10,000 times the acceleration of ice particles versus lithic fragments of the same diameter size. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to separate particles. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Gibson, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either electrostatic acceleration because both electrostatic separators would perform the same function of particles for the purpose of producing at least two different fractions of particles.
Regarding claim 14, Gibson does not explicitly disclose the split streams of different sized lithic fragments and ice particles are based upon splits of 20-40 microns and 600-800 microns for lithic fragments. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to separating by size. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Gibson, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either size split because both separation system would perform the same function of separating particles for the purpose of obtaining particles of a desired size.
Regarding claim 18, Gibson ‘946 does not explicitly disclose each tribocharger/electrostatic separator is configured to produce 100 to 10,000 times the acceleration of ice particles versus lithic fragments of the same diameter size. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to separate particles. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Gibson, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either electrostatic acceleration because both electrostatic separators would perform the same function of particles for the purpose of producing at least two different fractions of particles.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Objection
Regarding claims 6 and 15, line 2 recite ‘power’ instead of -powder-. Appropriate correction is required.
Rejection under USC 102
Regarding Applicant’s argument,” Gibson is substantially different from the claimed invention that includes the regolith intake because Gibson is directed to a manufacturing plant and process that produces oxygen on the moon where regolith is mined and then delivered to a processing plant. There is no regolith intake since the manufacturing plant is configured to receive mined regolith. The mining process uses a front shovel and bucket-wheel excavator. FIG. 1 and FIG. 2 in Gibson show the lunar regolith is surface-mined using a combination of front shovel and haul truck machines with a mining depth of about 2 meters. The mined regolith is transported in haul trucks to a beneficiation and processing area. This type of process teaches against any use of a regolith intake and is contrary to the manufacturing system in Gibson using the front shovel, haul truck machines and the haul trucks,” the Examiner disagrees. The Examiner asserts that Gibson discloses the limitation ‘regolith intake being configured to collect and process regolith’ as the front shovel disclosed collects and transports material for further processing (col. 6, lines 53+ and col. 7, lines 1-17; a front shovel that digs out material and delivery to a beneficiation plant).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Kalyanavenkateshware Kumar whose telephone number is (571)272-8102. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 08:00-16:30.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached on 571-272-7805. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3653
/MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3653
