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 . Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the language is unclear as to what the difference between “ serving as the main component ” and “ being the main component ” of the heat storage material is . Examiner suggests deleting “that serves” in Line 2. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the language “to melt” is written in the passive voice . Examiner suggests reciting “ by melting ” in Lines 3-4 in place of “to melt”. Appropriate correction is required. 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 4-5 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 4 recites the limitation "the heat of the battery" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, dependent Claim 5 is rejected a result of its dependence on indefinite Claim 4 , as it includes all the limitations of Claim 4 , and does not resolve the issues identified in rejections set forth above. 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. Claims 1- 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun (CN-106753259A ; see machine translation used for citation purposes ). Regarding Claim 1 , Sun discloses a heat storage material (see P3, 2 nd paragraph: “low-phase transition temperature heat storage material”) comprising: sodium acetate trihydrate that serves as a main component (see P3, 2 nd paragraph: 63 ppw of sodium acetate trihydrate); and a melting point adjuster that is any one of potassium nitrate, potassium chloride or sodium nitrate (see P3, 2 nd paragraph: “temperature regulator” & P3, 3 rd paragraph: temperature regulator is potassium nitrate), the content of the melting point adjuster being equal to or greater than 10% by weight (see P3, 2 nd paragraph: 26 ppw of temperature regulator). Regarding Claim 2, Sun discloses all the limitation of the heat storage material of Claim 1. Sun further discloses wherein the melting point adjuster is potassium nitrate ( see P3, 2 nd paragraph: “temperature regulator” & P3, 3 rd paragraph: temperature regulator is potassium nitrate) . Regarding Claim 3, Sun discloses all the limitations of the heat storage material of Claim 2 . Sun further discloses that the content of the potassium nitrate is equal to or greater than 20% by weight ( see P3, 2 nd paragraph: 26 ppw of temperature regulator ) Note that a specific example in the prior art which is within the claimed range anticipates the range ( see MPEP 2131.03.I). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (CN-106753259A; see machine translation used for citation purposes) in view of Yoshiyuki (JP-2017168281A; see machine translation used for citation purposes) . Regarding Claims 4 and 5, Sun discloses all the limitations of the heat storage material of Claim 1. Sun further discloses a heat storage material that absorbs the heat to melt, thereby storing latent heat and suppressing an increase in a temperature (see P2, 1 st paragraph: p hase change material is mainly used in the occurrence of solid - solid, solid - liquid changes in the process of rapid release of energy or absorption to achieve the purpose of regulating the temperature changes outside the system (note since the temperature adsorption includes a phase change, it inherently will be absorbing latent heat; this is also described on P3, 12 th paragraph: The phase transition temperature of the phase change heat storage material of the invention is adjustable from 35 to 56 ° C, and the latent heat of change is 200 to 280 kJ / kg)). While Sun does not disclose “ wherein the heat storage material is a battery temperature rise suppression material ” it is submitted that the limitations directed to “a battery” (“that absorbs the heat of a battery” and “wherein the battery is a lithium-ion battery that includes a liquid electrolyte”) are merely describing intended use of the claimed heat storage material. The recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997).” Yoshiyuki discloses a lithium-ion battery with a liquid electrolyte (paragraph [0062: a solid nonaqueous electrolyte in which a lithium salt electrolyte and a polymer material are combined). Yoshiyuki further discloses using sodium acetate trihydrate as a heat storage material (paragraph [0087]). Sun and Yoshiyuki are analogous art to the claimed invention as they all are in the same field of endeavor of heat storage materials as the claimed invention. As it is well know that sodium acetate trihydrate heat storage material can be used as a battery temperature rise suppression material (see Yoshiyuki [0087]) and that said material can be used in a lithium-ion battery with a liquid electrolyte (see Yoshiyuki [0062]) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the heat storage material of Sun as a battery temperature rise suppression material in a battery as doing so would amount to nothing more than a use of a known material for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result (see MPEP 2144.07) Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BRENNAN M STEWART whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2134 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Basia Ridley can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1453 . 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.M.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 1725 /BASIA A RIDLEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725