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 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. Claim s 4 , 6, 9 and 11 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. Regarding claim 4 , 6, 9 and 11 , the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). 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 following is a section from the MPEP 2144.05 concerning the obviousness of ranges: In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner , 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The following is a section from MPEP 2144.05 - Part II. OPTIMIZATION OF RANGES: Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) Claims 1- 7 and 10- 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toshihiro et al. (JP 2018-160419 A, cited in IDS, see attached machine translation). In regard to claim 1 , Toshihiro et al. teach a storage battery (see figures) including phase-change microcapsule, comprising: a core and an insulative heat-conducting wall material (hollow capsule of organic resin and inorganic material – see bottom of page 6 of attached translation) wrapped around the core, wherein the core comprises a first phase-change component and a second phase-change component, the first phase-change component is paraffin (see tap of page 6) with a melting point of 3 0 °C to 4 0 °C, the second phase-change component is paraffin with a melting point of 40 °C to 7 0 °C (middle of page 6) , and a melting point of the insulative heat-conducting wall material is greater than 75 °C (ceramic or metal materials described on pages 6 and 7) ; and a mass ratio between the first phase-change component and the second phase-change component is determined based on the desired melting point of the heat storage material depending on the temperature range of the storage battery (pages 5-7 of machine translation most relevant). The prior art teaches materials which overlap the claimed ranges of melting temperatures, and optimizing their compositional ratio depending on the desired operating range of the storage battery would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2144.05 sections above). In regard to claim 2, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the ability to select paraffin carbon number (composition) based on the desired melting temperature. In regard to claim 3, in the phase-change microcapsule, a mass ratio between the wall material and the core is preferably low such that the maximum amount of heat storage material is enclosed (see middle of page 7) in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05). In regard to claim 4 , the insulative heat-conducting wall material comprises a substrate and ceramic (inorganic material and/or filler) particles dispersed in the substrate, and the substrate is a polymer (such as a thermosetting resin - bottom of page 6). In regard to claim 5 , in the phase-change microcapsule, the inorganic material/filler content is desirably 10-30% by weight of the hollow capsule (top of page 7) which overlaps or is close enough to the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05). In regard to claim 6 , the ceramic particles comprise a silicon dioxide particle (silica inorganic material or silica filler – pages 6 and 7). In regard to claim 7 , a particle diameter of the phase-change microcapsule is 10 μm (page 7) which is close enough the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05) as the same properties are expected . In any event, changes to size and shape of the prior art particles are an obvious modification absent evidence to the contrary (see MPEP 2144.04 Part IV). In regard to claim 10 and 11, Toshihiro et al. teach an electrode plate (tab, external terminals 12, 13, 23 – figures, pages 8 and 9 of machine translation) , wherein the electrode plate comprises a current collector and a tab connected to each other, a heat transfer coefficient of the tab is greater than or equal to 380 W/m·k (a person of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that at least one of copper or aluminum are the most common tab materials in the battery described) , at least one side of the tab is coated with a coating layer (phase change material in battery case – figures – all of the materials within the battery case are considered coated with the phase change material) , and the coating layer contains the phase-change microcapsule according to claim 1 , where the properties of the layer is determined based on the thermal properties desired (paragraph [027-033]) therefore, changes to size and shape of the prior art coating layer are an obvious modification absent evidence to the contrary (see MPEP 2144.04 Part IV). In regard to claim 12 and 14 , Toshihiro et al. teach a n electric device and battery (see figures) , comprising a separator and an electrode plate (necessarily part of battery) , wherein the electrode plate comprises a current collector and a tab (output terminals 12, 13, 23) connected to each other; a coating layer (phase change material above) is applied between the tab and the separator (within case) , and the coating layer is formed on the tab and/or formed on the separator; and the coating layer contains the phase-change microcapsule according to claim 1 (see figure 1, pages 4-7) . In regard to claim 13 , while the prior art does not teach a thickness of the coating layer between the separator and the tab , changes to size and shape of the prior art coating layer are an obvious modification absent evidence to the contrary (see MPEP 2144.04 Part IV). Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. ( CN 105355824 A, cited in IDS, see attached machine translation). In regard to claim 1 , Wang et al. teach a storage battery (see title ) including phase-change microcapsule, comprising: a core and an insulative heat-conducting wall material ( shell layer of polymer and ceramic – see paragraph [006] of attached translation) wrapped around the core, wherein the core comprises a first phase-change component and a second phase-change component, the first and second phase-change component is paraffin ( paraffin and a chlorinated paraffin - paragraphs [007-010] ) with melting various point s from 25 °C to 62 °C (C 12 to C 25 paraffins) , and a melting point of the insulative heat-conducting wall material is greater than 75 °C ( silica – paragraph [010] ) ; and a mass ratio between the first phase-change component and the second phase-change component is determined based on the desired melting point of the heat storage material depending on the temperature range of the storage battery (pa ragraph [020-027 – “use of several phase change material described above can improve high temperature resistance”) . The prior art teaches materials which overlap the claimed ranges of melting temperatures, and optimizing their compositional ratio depending on the desired operating range of the storage battery would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2144.05 sections above). In regard to claim 2, a structural formula of the paraffin used as the first phase-change component is: C 12 to C 25 paraffins (paragraph [010, 027] a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the ability to select paraffin carbon number (composition) based on the desired melting temperature. In regard to claim 3, in the phase-change microcapsule, a mass ratio between the wall material (such as 3 parts ceramic) and the core (9 parts phase change material) overlaps the changed ranges (see paragraph [007] ) in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05). In regard to claim 4 , the insulative heat-conducting wall material comprises a substrate and ceramic (inorganic material and/or filler) particles dispersed in the substrate, and the substrate is a polymer ( paragraph [006, 032] ). In regard to claim 5 , in the phase-change microcapsule, the substrate polymer is 2 to 6 parts by weight, inorganic material/ ceramic is 0.5 to 3 parts by weight and the phase change material is 6 to 10 parts by weight (paragraph [006, 032]) which overlaps or is close enough to the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05). In regard to claim 6 , the ceramic particles comprise a silicon dioxide particle (silica - paragraph [010]) ). In regard to claim 7 , a particle diameter of the phase-change microcapsule is determined based on the thermal properties desired ( paragraph [027-033] ) therefore, changes to size and shape of the prior art phase change particle are an obvious modification absent evidence to the contrary (see MPEP 2144.04 Part IV). In regard to claim 8 and 9, Wang et al. teach a separator (translated as diaphragm body) , wherein an edge of the separator is coated with a coating layer, and the coating layer contains the phase-change microcapsule according to claim 1 (paragraph [041]) where the properties of the layer is determined based on the thermal properties desired (paragraph [027-033]) therefore, changes to size and shape of the prior art coating layer are an obvious modification absent evidence to the contrary (see MPEP 2144.04 Part IV). In regard to claim 10 and 11 , Wang et al. teach an electrode plate, wherein the electrode plate comprises a current collector and a tab connected to each other, a heat transfer coefficient of the tab is greater than or equal to 380 W/m·k (a person of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that copper or aluminum are the most commonly used tab materials) , at least one side of the tab is coated with a coating layer (coating layer on separator is laminated with electrode plates in battery) , and the coating layer contains the phase-change microcapsule according to claim 1 , where the properties of the layer is determined based on the thermal properties desired (paragraph [027-033]) therefore, changes to size and shape of the prior art coating layer are an obvious modification absent evidence to the contrary (see MPEP 2144.04 Part IV). In regard to claim 12 and 14, Wang et al. teach an electric device and battery (see title and background technique section ) , comprising a separator and an electrode plate (necessarily part of battery) , wherein the electrode plate comprises a current collector and a tab connected to each other; a coating layer (phase change material above) is applied between the tab and the separator ( a layer on the separator or “diaphragm body” ) , and the coating layer is formed on the tab and/or formed on the separator; and the coating layer contains the phase-change microcapsule according to claim 1 (see paragraphs [006-041] ) . In regard to claim 13 , while the prior art does not teach a thickness of the coating layer between the separator and the tab , changes to size and shape of the prior art coating layer are an obvious modification absent evidence to the contrary (see MPEP 2144.04 Part IV) to arrive at desired properties . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Choi et al. (US Pub 2012/0135281 newly cited) teaches a similar encapsulated phase change material applied as a layer on internal elements for battery applications . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3635 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Tong Guo can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-3066 . 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. /NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723