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 .
ALUMINUM POUCH FILM FOR SECONDARY BATTERY AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME
Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 18/274,792 Art Unit: 1727 June 23, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response filed on May 20, 2026 has been received. Claims 1 and 3-6 are currently pending. Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 2 has been canceled.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites an intended use for an aluminum pouch film. The courts have held that “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation"). See MPEP 2111.02.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang and Dou on claims 1-2 and 4 are maintained.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 204998064; as found in IDS dated 04/21/2025 and using machine translation for citation purposes) in view of Dou et al. (CN 107226472; as found in IDS dated 04/21/2025 and using machine translation for citation purposes).
As to Claims 1 and 4, Zhang discloses an aluminum pouch film (and method of manufacturing), comprising: an aluminum layer 3; an outer resin layer 5 (nylon and PE, PP, PET, PVC) formed on a first surface of said aluminum layer; a first adhesive layer 4 (dual component polyurethane adhesive) for bonding the aluminum layer to the outer resin layer; an inner resin layer 1 (PE or PP) formed on a second surface of the aluminum layer; a second adhesive layer 2 (EVA or PVB materials) for bonding the aluminum layer with the inner resin layer; and a heat dissipation layer 6 comprising carbon nanotubes provided on an outer side of the outer resin layer 5 (Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0019, 0028-0029 and 0031]). Zhang does not specifically disclose wherein the heat dissipation layer comprises boron carbide nanotubes.
However, Dou teaches of a boron carbide nanotubes that possess thermoelectric properties, such as thermal conductivity (Abstract, paragraphs [0002 and 0005]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the heat dissipation layer of Zhang to comprise boron carbide nanotubes because Dou teaches that such a material exhibits good thermal conductivity and a high purity product with controllable particle size distribution can be obtained (Abstract and paragraph [0005]).
In addition, Zhang teaches wherein the heat dissipation layer comprises water-based polyurethane, a curing agent, and carbon nanotubes, wherein the carbon nanotubes are provided for a functional filler with a heat dissipation component (paragraph [0031]). Zhang does not specifically teach the amount of carbon nanotubes. However, Zhang recognizes the heat dissipating filler (and intrinsically the amount thereof) as a result-effective variable for providing rapid dissipation of heat (paragraph [0031]).
Furthermore, Dou teaches of using boron carbide nanotubes as a good thermally conductive material. Therefore, the courts have held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, see MPEP 2144.05, II, B. In addition, the courts have held that generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical, see MPEP 2144.05, II, A. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount of boron carbide nanotubes in the heat dissipation layer of Zhang to read on the claims because modified Zhang teaches that adding such a material to the heat dissipation layer provides for rapid dissipation of heat (paragraph [0031]) and Dou teaches that such a material (boron carbide nanotube) exhibits good thermal conductivity and a high purity product with controllable particle size distribution can be obtained (Abstract and paragraph [0005]).
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang, Dou and Ujiie on claims 3 and 5 are maintained.
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 204998064; as found in IDS dated 04/21/2025 and using machine translation for citation purposes) in view of Dou et al. (CN 107226472; as found in IDS dated 04/21/2025 and using machine translation for citation purposes) as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and in further view of Ujiie et al (JP 2019-172936 A; as found in IDS dated 07/28/2023 and using machine translation for citation purposes).
As to Claims 3 and 5, modified Zhang does not specifically disclose the claimed functional groups or the method of forming them.
However, Ujiie teaches of a heat dissipation component used in packing materials, comprising boron carbide with a functional group attached thereto such as hydroxy or amino groups formed by a plasma treatment (reads on dry plasma treatment) (paragraphs [0001-0002, 0011, 0017, 0115, 0117-0118]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the boron carbide of modified Zhang to comprise the claimed functional group formed by the claimed method because Ujiie teaches that improved thermal conductivity (dissipation) is provided (paragraph [0007 and 0013]).
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang, Dou, Ujiie and Jin on claim 6 is maintained.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 204998064; as found in IDS dated 04/21/2025 and using machine translation for citation purposes) in view of Dou et al. (CN 107226472; as found in IDS dated 04/21/2025 and using machine translation for citation purposes) and Ujiie et al (JP 2019-172936 A; as found in IDS dated 07/28/2023 and using machine translation for citation purposes) as applied to claims 1-5 above, and in further view of Jin et al. (US 2016/0345434 A1).
As to Claim 6, modified Zhang does not specifically disclose the claimed amounts of oxygen and argon.
However, Jin teaches of a dry plasma treatment method comprising argon and oxygen to form a film (paragraph [0076]). Jin does not specifically teach the ratio of oxygen to argon. However, the courts have held that generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical, see MPEP 2144.05, II, A. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount of oxygen and argon for the plasma treatment of modified Zhang because Jin teaches that argon and oxygen are used for a dry plasma treatment method of forming a nanowire film (paragraph [0076]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principle arguments are:
a) The prior arts do not teach the claimed amount of boron nitride nanotubes (claim 1).
b) The claimed amount of boron nitride nanotubes provides for unexpected results (claim 1).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
a) The prior arts render the limitations obvious as discussed above.
b) The results are not persuasive. The claims are not fully commensurate in scope with the results. The results do not show data for the claimed lower or upper limits. In addition, the only comparative data shown does not provide plasma treatment and Examples 1-7 does. Furthermore, there is no comparative data for amounts of boron carbide nanotubes outside of the claimed ranges.
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 ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is (571)270-5116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5 ET.
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.
/ADAM A ARCIERO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights