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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “203”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8, 10, 11-12, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zheng et al. (CN 103344451).
With regard to claim 1, Zheng discloses a system for in situ extraction of a material (figs. 1-2; para 0001), the system comprising: a deployable tube (air hose; para 0052) configured to direct a high pressure gas into the material to form a borehole and break up the material into smaller pieces of material (eg. para 0050); a deployable mast (14) configured to deploy into the borehole from a stowed configuration to a deployed configuration (para 0060); and a plurality of jets (15) supported at a free end of the deployable tube or a free end of the deployable mast (figs. 1-2) and configured to direct the smaller pieces of material through a channel of the deployable mast and into a reservoir (para 0051).
With regard to claim 3, Zheng further discloses the material is lunar regolith (para 0001).
With regard to claim 4, Zheng further discloses the deployable tube and the deployable mast are configured to deploy simultaneously (fig. 1).
With regard to claim 5, Zheng further discloses the plurality of jets are coupled with the free end of the deployable mast (figs. 1-2).
With regard to claim 6, Zheng further discloses a collection tube (17) coupling the deployable mast (fig. 1) and the reservoir (18), the plurality of jets configured to direct the smaller pieces of material through the collection tube and into the reservoir (para 0051).
With regard to claim 8, Zheng further discloses the system is configured to be coupled to a lander (paras 0001-0003).
With regard to claim 10, Zheng further discloses the deployable tube is coupled to the deployable mast (fig. 1).
With regard to method claims 11-12, 16, and 20 the claimed method of in-situ extraction of material would inherently be performed by the device to Zheng as taught above.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (CN 103344451) in view of Wen (2012/0216435).
With regard to claims 2 and 13, Zheng discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding a skirt configured to surround the deployable mast on a surface of the material, the skirt comprising an opening configured to define an area for formation of the borehole.
Wen discloses a system/method for extraction of material comprising a skirt (1) configured to surround the deployable mast on a surface of the material, the skirt comprising an opening configured to define an area for formation of the borehole (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zheng and utilize a skirt as taught in Wen, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure containment of the material.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (CN 103344451) in view of Barone (2010/0098520).
With regard to claim 7, Zheng discloses the invention substantially as claimed however the deployable tube is a metal tube, the metal tube configured to be stowed in a coiled configuration.
Barone discloses stowing a deployable tube in a coiled configuration (fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zheng and utilize a coiled material as taught in Barone, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce the size of the storage material.
With regard to the metal, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the tubing be any desired material, to include metal, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim(s) 14-15 and 17-18 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (CN 103344451).
With regard to claims 14-15, Zheng further discloses deploying a tube (13) downward toward the material and directing the high pressure gas through the tube (fig. 1; para 0052) wherein a free end of the metal tube is coupled with a free end of the mast (fig. 1).
Zheng fails to explicitly state the tube is metal. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the tubing be any desired material, to include metal, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
With regard to claim 17-18, Zheng discloses the invention substantially as claimed however fails to explicitly state borehole comprises a depth of at least 1 meter nor the borehole comprises a diameter of at least 100 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the borehole be any desired size to include a depth of at least 1 meter and a diameter of at least 100 mm based on the design conditions at hand and an artisan of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 9 and 19 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (CN 103344451) in view of Daton-Lovett (2014/0230949).
With regard to claims 9 and 19, Zheng discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding the deployable mast comprises an elongate band configured to deploy from a coiled shape in the stowed configuration to the deployed configuration with a helical, longitudinal shape.
Daton-Lovett discloses a deployable mast (para 0002) comprises an elongate band configured to deploy from a coiled shape in the stowed configuration to the deployed configuration with a helical, longitudinal shape (figs. 3-5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zheng and utilize a coiled material as taught in Daton-Lovett, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce the size of the storage material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN F FIORELLO whose telephone number is (571)270-7012. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at (571)270-5281. 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.
/BENJAMIN F FIORELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
BF
08/31/2026
Prosecution Insights