DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 29, 31-32, 34-36 and 38-50 are pending, wherein claims 29, 31 and 34 are amended, and claims 48-50 are newly added. Claims 29, 31-32, 34-36 and 38-50 are being examined on the merits in this Office action.
Response to Amendments
A reply to the Applicant’s remarks/arguments/affidavit is presented after addressing the claims.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office Action and not repeated below.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. References cited in the current Office action can be found in a prior Office action. Reference not previously cited can be found per the attached PTO-892 for this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 29-32, 34-36 and 38-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 29 recites the limitations “implementing, while the spacecraft and the electrochemical cell equipped thereto are in the low earth orbit, a discharging …” and “implementing, while the spacecraft and the electrochemical cell equipped thereto are in the low earth orbit, a charging …”. However, these limitations are not supported by the specification as originally filed. The specification describes charging or discharging of a cell in a low earth orbit spacecraft was performed by simulation. In other words, the invention does not charge or discharge an electrochemical cell actually in a low earth orbit spacecraft. The specification does not disclose charging or discharging while the electrochemical cell is actually in the low earth orbit. For purposes of examination, the said limitation is interpreted as referring to charging or discharging an electrochemical cell to be used in a low earth orbit spacecraft. Note that a similar 112(a) rejection was already applied in the office actions mailed on Apr. 21, 2021 and on Aug. 20, 2025. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive (See also Response to Arguments, below) and the written-description 112(a) rejection is maintained in this office action.
The issue applies similarly to claims 35-36 and 38. New matters have been introduced. For instance, the invention does not really implement charging and discharging for 4383 days and 65000 cycles. In addition, “4383 consecutive days” (12 years?) is not supported by the specification (Applicant is invited to point out where the support is). In essence, the numbers of cycles of the discharging and discharging and days of cycling as claimed (4383 days, 65000 cycles, 15 cycles/day) are properly interpreted as relating to a characteristic, function, or property of the claimed electrochemical cell rather than a charging/discharging process. That is, the cell is capable of being charged/discharged for 4383 days and 65000 cycles.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 29-32, 34-36, 38-39, 42-46 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smart et al. (US 20090253046 A1, hereafter Smart) in view of Son et al. (US 20160181604 A1, hereafter Son).
Regarding claims 29, 31-32, 34, 39 and 42-46, Smart teaches a method of charging and discharging an electrochemical cell in low earth orbit, the method comprising:
equipping the electrochemical cell to a spacecraft configured for low earth orbit (See, e.g., [0008]: “low earth orbit (LEO) … satellites” and “lithium ion rechargeable batteries”); and
charging and discharging the electrochemical cell (See, e.g., [0067], lines 23-27; and upper portion of Fig. 34),
wherein said electrochemical cell comprises a positive electrode (See, e.g., [0067]: “cathode” comprising LiNi0.8Co0.2O2, which is the same as instantly disclosed), a negative electrode (e.g., “mesocarbon microbeads (MCMB)”, [0067]) and an electrolyte (e.g., “electrolytes”, [0067], line 7),
wherein said negative electrode comprises MCMB (above), but Smart also discloses that MCMB and Li4Ti5O12) are functional equivalents as anode active materials (See [0065], lines 12-15) in the charging/discharging experiments of the lithium ion cells ([0067]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily appreciated that Li4Ti5O12 can be employed as an alternative to replace MCMB for the charging/discharging experiments described in paragraph [0067], since the substitution of known equivalents for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.06). In addition, it is noted that Li4Ti5O12 is a well-known and commonly-used negative electrode material that is able to be lithiated in the battery field,
wherein said solvents include, for example, “EC + DEC + DMC” (See, in “(2)”, [0067], line 11; EC, i.e., ethylene carbonate, is a saturated cyclic carbonate, EMC, i.e., ethyl methyl carbonate, is a non-cyclic carbonate, and DMC, i.e., dimethyl carbonate, is a non-cyclic carbonate). All of EC, DEC and DMC are carbonate-based solvents (“all carbonate-based formulations”, [0067], lines 26-27).
Smart appears silent as to the claimed limitations related to discharging or charging. However, in the same field of endeavor, Son discloses charging or discharging an electrochemical cell, which comprises a similar positive electrode and a lithiated titanate oxide (LTO) negative electrode, is performed at a charge/discharge rate of 10 C at a depth of 100% (See, e.g., [0039], [0064], [0066], and [0069] on page 7, lines 16-28) to demonstrate excellent capacity retention and good electrical performance of the electrochemical cell (See, e.g., [0066], and [0069] on page 7, lines 16-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have incorporated the teachings of Son into Smart such that charging or discharging the electrochemical cell of Smart is performed at a charge/discharge rate of 10 C at a depth of 100%, for the benefit of demonstrating excellent capacity retention and good electrical performance of the electrochemical cell. In addition, in the absence of criticality or unexpected results, selecting a charging/discharging rate to operate (i.e., to charge/discharge) a battery cell is held to be unpatentable since it is matter of design choice and involves merely ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. As a result, 10C reads on the charging or discharging rates as claimed.
Regarding claims 35-36 and 38, Smart in view of Son teaches the method according to claim 29, and further, the limitations recited in claims 35-36 and 38 represent properties, functions, or characteristics of the electrochemical cell as claimed. In the instant case, Smart in view of Son teaches the same electrochemical cell as claimed (See at least the rejection of claim 29), the claimed properties, functions, or characteristics are reasonably expected to be present. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (See MPEP § 2112.01). See the 112(a) rejection above.
Regarding claim 47, Smart in view of Son teaches the method according to claim 29, and the instantly claimed limitation is general knowledge because the electrochemical cell to be equipped to a spacecraft means an already constructed body after combining together the positive electrode, the negative electrode and the electrolyte.
Regarding claim 50, Smart in view of Son teaches the method according to claim 29. The instantly claimed “during the discharging and the charging of the electrochemical cell, the cell is operated at an energy density of 70-80 Wh/kg” is reasonably expected to be present because Smart in view of Son teach the same method as well as the same structure and composition as claimed.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smart in view of Son, as applied to claim 39 above, and further in view of Hirose et al. (US 20080305391 A1, hereafter Hirose).
Regarding claim 40, Smart in view of Son teaches the method according to claim 39, but is silent about a mixed solvent not including EC. However, the instantly claimed solvents are well-known solvents in the art and are not patentably distinguishable. For instance, in the same field of endeavor, Hirose discloses that EC and propylene carbonate (PC) are functional equivalents as high-viscosity solvents in an electrolyte solution ([0091]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art to have replaced EC of Smart with PC of Hirose as a component of the mixed solvent of Smart, since the substitution of known equivalents for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.06).
As a result, the mixed solvent of PC, DEC and DMC reads on the solvent(s) as instantly claimed.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smart in view of Son, as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Endo et al. (US 20090127503 A1, hereafter Endo).
Regarding claim 41, Smart in view of Son teaches the method according to claim 29, but does not expressly teach the lithiated titanate oxide or the titanate oxide able to be lithiated is represented by the formulae of (a) to (h) as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, Endo discloses that a negative electrode active material represented by a substituted Li4Ti5O12, wherein a portion of Ti element of Li4Ti5O12 is substituted with a transition metal element such as Al (at least Abstract). The substituted Li4Ti5O12 is represented by Li[Li(1-x)/3AlxTi(5-2x)/3]O4, wherein 0<x<1 (Abstract). The lithium ion battery using this negative electrode active material has an excellent high rate charge and discharge performance (at least [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have employed Li[Li(1-x)/3AlxTi(5-2x)/3]O4 as a substitute of Li4Ti5O12 of Smart, in order to achieve an excellent high rate charge and discharge performance of the electrochemical cell employing the substituted Li4Ti5O12 (at least [0020], Endo).
As a result, Li[Li(1-x)/3AlxTi(5-2x)/3]O4, wherein 0<x<1, reads on the claimed Li4+yTi5-dM2dO12 as claimed.
Claims 48-49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smart in view of Son, as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Thackeray et al. (US 7314682 B2, hereafter Thackeray).
Regarding claims 48-49, Smart in view of Son teaches the method according to claim 29, wherein the lithiated titanate oxide or a titanate oxide able to be lithiuated is Li4Ti5O12 (See the art rejection of claim 29), which reads on the lithiated titanate oxide as claimed in claim 48. Moreover, it is well known in the art that both LiNi0.8Co0.2O2 and LiNi0.80Co0.15Al0.05O2 are functional equivalents as positive electrode active materials used in a lithium ion secondary battery (Thackeray: col. 4, lines 10-13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used LiNi0.80Co0.15Al0.05O2 as an alternative to LiNi0.8Co0.2O2 of Smart in view of Son, since the substitution of known equivalents for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06). LiNi0.80Co0.15Al0.05O2 reads on the formula of the positive electrode active material as claimed in claim 48.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Feb. 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1) In response to the argument with respect to the written-description 112(a) rejection, the specification as originally filed explicitly describes charging or discharging of a cell in a low earth orbit spacecraft was performed by simulation (See the term “simulated”, page 12, line 7, the instant specification. Thus, the specification as originally filed does not support the claimed limitation: “implementing, while the spacecraft and the electrochemical cell equipped thereto are in the low earth orbit, a discharging (or charging) …”. New matters have been introduced. See also the 112(a) rejection presented above.
2) Applicant argues that: “… Smart teaches at Figs. 31 and 32 that electrochemical cells used for low earth orbit are charged at a rate of C/5, which is lower than the claimed rate.
In response, it is noted that the rejection of the limitation is based on the combination of Smart and Son, rather than Smart itself. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (in this case, the Smart reference), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
3) Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
312
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In response, the Smart and Son references teach the same method as claimed, as well as compositional and structural limitations of the electrochemical cell as claimed, it is reasonably expected that the said cell of Smart in view of Son is capable of being used in a lower earth orbit. Note also that the primary reference Smart does disclose the application in low earth orbit ([0008]). It is iterated again that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
4) The response to the Declaration has been provided in the non-final office action mailed on Aug. 20, 2025.
5) Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image2.png
263
663
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In response, all the rationales relied on to reject the claimed limitations had/have been provided in the rejections. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
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 ZHONGQING WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-4809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ZHONGQING WEI/
ZHONGQING WEI, Ph.D.Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights