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 Election/Restrictions Claim 7-8 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species B-F, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/12/2026 . Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-6 and 9-13 in the reply filed on 03/12/2026 is acknowledged. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 1- 6 and 9- 13 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 “ a plurality of ribs … the rib on a surface on a side that comes into contact with a positive electrode plate .” It is unclear if the rib recited is one of the plurality of ribs. Additionally, “ on a surface on a side that comes into contact with a positive electrode plate ” is unclear as to if this surface and side are a part of the porous backweb. Claim 9 recites the limitation " the plurality of broken ribs " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 recites the limitation " the plurality of broken ribs " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 1 recites the limitation " the plurality of broken ribs " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 recites “ with a gap formed between another set of the broken rib and the broken rib adjacent to each other in the horizontal direction (CD direction) of the separator, disposed adjacent in the vertical direction (MD direction) of the separator . ” It is unclear what structure is required by this limitation. Claim 1 2 recites the limitation " the plurality of broken ribs " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 2 recites “ with a gap formed between the broken rib and the broken rib second most adjacent to the broken rib, located on the left side of the broken rib with respect to the horizontal direction (CD direction) of the separator .” It is unclear what structure is required by this limitation. Claims 2 -6 and 9 -13 are additionally rejected due to their dependence on Claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1, 3- 6, 9- 10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller et al. (US-20200035974-A1) . Regarding Claim 1 , A separator for a lead acid battery for use in a flooded lead acid battery (“the present disclosure or invention is directed to novel or improved enhanced flooded lead acid battery separators,” see [0023]) , characterized in that the separator comprises a porous backweb and a plurality of ribs extending from each of both surfaces of the backweb (a web based porous separator that has a plurality of ribs that can suitably be provided on the positive and negative electrode facing surfaces, see [0022]) , the rib on a surface on a side that comes into contact with a positive electrode plate is a broken rib ( The plurality of ribs that can suitably be provided on the positive and negative electrode facing surfaces, see [0022] . T he dashed lines of annotated Fig. 4E-1 and Fig.4E-2 below indicate a collection of ribs that comprise a broken rib, see also [ 0096 ]) , has a shape with two or more bending points (see annotated Fig. 4E -1 and Fig.4E-2 below) , and is a linear broken rib that bends in opposite directions at each of two consecutive bending points or is a curved broken rib having one or more inflection points (see annotated Fig. 4E-1 and Fig.4E-2 below) . Regarding Claim 3 , Miller discloses: characterized in that the broken rib has two-fold rotational symmetry (the indicated broken rib in Fig. 4E -1 and 4E-2 above has two-symmetry along the axis into and out of the plane of the separator ) . Regarding Claim 4 , Miller discloses: characterized in that the broken rib is a linear broken rib in which line segments located at both ends are substantially parallel to each other (all opposing ends are shown to have segments that are substantially parallel to each other, see annotated Fig. 4E ) Regarding Claim 5 , Miller discloses in annotated Fig. 4E-1A below : characterized in that the broken rib is a linear broken rib having a shape in which bending angles at all bending points are 90 ° or more and less than 180 ° ( Shown in the annotated Fig. below, the individual ribs are orientated in a manner where there is two bending points with the dashed line showing the intersection between the indicated ribs. Based on the substantially perpendicular orientation of the ribs at the bending points, at least one of the angles indicated by the semicircles necessarily are limited between 90 and 180 degrees. ) . Regarding Claim 6 , Miller discloses: characterized in that the broken rib is a linear broken rib having two bending points (see annotated Fig. 4E-1 and 4E-2 above) . Regarding Claim 9 , Miller discloses: characterized in that the plurality of broken ribs are arranged substantially horizontally to one another with respect to a horizontal direction (CD direction) of the separator (see annotated Fig. 4E -1 and 4E-2 above) . Regarding Claim 10 , Miller discloses: characterized in that the plurality of broken ribs are arranged such that the broken rib and another broken rib adjacent to the broken rib in a vertical direction (MD direction) of the separator do not completely overlap with each other in the vertical direction (MD direction) of the separator (see the indicated broken ribs in Fig. 4E-2) . Regarding Claim 13 , Miller discloses: A lead acid battery, characterized by using the separator according to claim 1 (the separators of the invention of for use in a lead acid batteries, see [0055]) . 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. Claim(s) 2 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US-20200035974-A1) as applied to Claim 1 above . Regarding Claim 2 , Miller does not necessarily teach the following limitations for the embodiments shown in annotated Fig. 4E- and 4E-2 above: characterized in that the broken rib includes those having mutually different bending angles or those having mutually different line segment lengths (optional limitation ) . However, Miller teaches the separator can suitably have ribs that independently can have different angles either in the same row or in different rows, see [0103]. Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention two have used independently different angles for the alignment of the ribs, because Miller teaches that this is a suitable configuration for the separator of his invention. Regarding Claim 11 , the embodiments shown in Fig. 4E-1 and 4E-2 above do not teach the following: characterized in that the plurality of broken ribs are arranged such that a gap formed between a set of the broken rib and the broken rib adjacent to each other in a horizontal direction (CD direction) of the separator does not completely overlap in a vertical direction (MD direction) of the separator with a gap formed between another set of the broken rib and the broken rib adjacent to each other in the horizontal direction (CD direction) of the separator, disposed adjacent in the vertical direction (MD direction) of the separator. However, Miller teaches an embodiment in which the patterning of the broken rib is staggered such that the gap formed in the adjacent broken rib pattern does not completely overlap in the MD direction, see Fig. 6B. Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have staggered the pattern in the embodiments shown in Fig. 4E-1 and 4E-2 because Miller teaches this is a suitable embodiment. Regarding Claim 12 , the embodiments shown in Fig. 4E-1 and 4E-2 above do not teach the following: characterized in that the plurality of broken ribs are arranged such that a gap formed between the broken rib and the broken rib most adjacent to the broken rib, located on a right side with respect to a horizontal direction (CD direction) of the separator does not overlap in a vertical direction (MD direction) of the separator with a gap formed between the broken rib and the broken rib second most adjacent to the broken rib, located on the right side of the broken rib with respect to the horizontal direction (CD direction) of the separator, or a gap formed between the broken rib and the broken rib most adjacent to the broken rib, located on a left side with respect to the horizontal direction (CD direction) of the separator does not overlap in the vertical direction (MD direction) of the separator with a gap formed between the broken rib and the broken rib second most adjacent to the broken rib, located on the left side of the broken rib with respect to the horizontal direction (CD direction) of the separator. However, Miller teaches an embodiment in which the patterning of the broken rib is staggered such that the gap formed in the adjacent broken rib pattern does not completely overlap in the MD direction, see Fig. 6B. Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have staggered the pattern in the embodiments shown in Fig. 4E-1 and 4E-2 because Miller teaches this is a suitable way to orient the . It is noted that the claim as written and the art of Miller does not require an absolute orientation, therefore the recitation of right and left can be interpreted be any direction. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Kayla E Clary whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2854 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00 (PT) . 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 Allison Bourke can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 303-297-4684 . 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. /K.E.C./ Kayla E. Clary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 /SADIE WHITE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721