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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-4) in the reply filed on 06/01/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/01/2026.
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 1-4 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “the first surface” and “the second surface” in lines 4 and 8, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Thus, it is unclear what these limitations are referring to. For examination purposes, “the first surface” in line 4 and “the second surface” in line 8 will be read as “a first surface” and “a second surface,” respectively.
Claims 2-4 are also rejected due to their dependence upon rejected claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required in order to overcome the indefiniteness rejections. Suggested corrections are bolded and underlined for emphasis only.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 204998064 U with English Machine Translation) in view of Dou (CN 107226472 with English Machine Translation) (of record) and Douke et al. (US 2015/0372263) (Douke) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses an aluminum pouch film for a secondary battery (title; abstract), comprising: an aluminum layer (3); an outer resin layer (5) (nylon with PE, PP, PET, and/or PVC) formed on a first surface of the aluminum layer (3) (see Fig. 1; [0023]; [0029]); a first adhesive layer (4) for bonding the aluminum layer and the outer resin layer (5) (see Fig. 1; [0023]; [0028]); an inner resin layer (1) (modified polypropylene layer) formed on a second surface of the aluminum layer (3) (see Fig. 1; [0023]); and a second adhesive layer (2) for bonding the aluminum layer (3) and the inner resin layer (1) (see Fig. 1; [0023]; [0026]), wherein a heat dissipation layer (6) is formed on one side of the outer resin layer (5) (see Fig. 1; [0023]). Zhang further discloses that the heat dissipation layer (6) contains carbon nanotubes ([0031]). However, Zhang fails to explicitly disclose that the heat dissipation layer (6) contains boron carbide nanotubes.
However, boron carbide nanotubes are known in the art to have advantageous properties. For instance, Dou teaches a method of producing boron carbide nanotubes (title; abstract), wherein the boron carbide nanotubes have good thermal conductivity, high purity, and controllable particle size distribution (abstract; [0005]-[0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the heat dissipation layer disclosed by Zhang to have the boron carbide nanotubes taught by Dou because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so could increase the heat dissipation properties of the heat dissipation layer while also contributing to higher purity and controllable particle size distribution of the nanotubes.
Modified Zhang further discloses that the inner resin layer (Zhang: 1) is a modified polypropylene layer (Zhang: [0023]). However, modified Zhang fails to explicitly disclose that the inner resin layer (Zhang: 1) comprises a compound formed by chemically bonding a fluoropolymer resin, a polyolefin, and a functional resin.
However, this composition is known in the art. For instance, Douke teaches a similar battery packaging material (title) in which an inner resin layer (4) formed on a second surface of an aluminum layer (3) can comprise a combination of acid-modified polyolefins (corresponding to the claimed functional resin), polyester resins, polyolefins, and fluorine-based resins (corresponding to the claimed fluoropolymer resin) (see Fig. 1; [0070]; [0096]; [0105]; [0110]). Douke further teaches that his inner resin layer (4) has improved adhesive strength and helps to prevent interlayer delamination after heat-sealing ([0112]; [0080]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inner resin layer disclosed by modified Zhang to have the claimed inner resin layer, as taught by Douke, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would improve adhesive strength and help to prevent interlayer delamination after heat-sealing. Thus, modified Zhang satisfies all of the limitations in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, modified Zhang discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Douke further teaches that inner resin layer (Douke: 4) can contain 10 to 95% by weight of the fluorine-based resin based on the total weight of the inner resin layer (Douke: 4) (Douke: [0109]), overlapping the claimed range of 3 to 18% by weight. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Zhang to have satisfied the claimed range based on the overlapping range taught by Douke.
Regarding claim 4, modified Zhang discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Douke further teaches that the fluoropolymer resin can be polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) or tetrafluoroethylene (Teflon) (Douke: [0108]). Therefore, since modified Zhang includes the teachings from Douke regarding the composition of the inner resin layer, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Zhang to have satisfied all of the limitations in claim 4.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 204998064 U with English Machine Translation) in view of Dou (CN 107226472 with English Machine Translation) (of record) and Douke et al. (US 2015/0372263) (Douke) (of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2014/0234689) (Kim) (of record).
Regarding claim 2, modified Zhang discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Modified Zhang fails to explicitly disclose, however, a specific content of the boron carbide nanotubes in the heat dissipation layer (Zhang: 6).
Kim teaches a similar packaging material for a battery (title) in which a heat dissipation layer (11) formed as an outermost layer comprises carbon nanotubes (see Fig. 1; [0027]; [0053]). Kim further teaches that a content of the carbon nanotubes is 1 to 40% by weight based on a total composition of a heat dissipation layer to which the carbon nanotubes are added ([0016]), overlapping the claimed range of 0.05 to 10%. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Kim further teaches that configuring the composition of the nanotubes in this way allows for the heat transfer function of the nanotubes to be obtained ([0016]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the heat dissipation layer disclosed by modified Zhang to have the claimed boron carbide nanotube composition, as suggested by Kim, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would allow for the heat transfer function of the nanotubes to be obtained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDON C DARBY whose telephone number is (571)272-1225. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at (571) 270-5545. 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.
/B.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights