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 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 11-12 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 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 12 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.
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]),
wherein a rib of the plurality of ribs on a first surface of the porous backweb and 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]. The 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 the rib of the plurality of ribs 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).
PNG
media_image1.png
970
1092
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
970
1092
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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-fold rotational 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 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 are 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.).
PNG
media_image3.png
628
512
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 battery, 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 ribs are arranged on the first surface of the porous backweb 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 ribs are arranged on the first surface of the porous backweb 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 pattern.
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 to be any direction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/26/2026 have been fully considered and are addressed below.
Claim Rejections Under 35 USC § 112b
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 5-6, with respect to claim rejections under 35 USC §112b have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claims 1-6 and 9-10 and 13 has been withdrawn.
However, after consideration the 112b rejections of Claims 11 and 12 are respectfully maintained. The recitation of the following limitations remains unclear:
(per Claim 11) 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
(per Claim 12) 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 is structurally required by the Claims because there is no previous recitation of “the broken rib adjacent to each other” and there is no way of determining the horizontal and vertical directions.
Claim Rejections Under 35 USC § 102
Applicant argues on pages 6-9 of the response that Miller does not teach that each rib includes two or more bending points. It is the Examiner’s position that the broadest reasonable interpretation for the claim term “a rib” does not exclude a collection of discontinuous raised structures on the porous backweb. Therefore, the argument made by applicant is not commensurate in scope with the claim because amended Claim 1 does not exclude the previously provided interpterion. After a review of the arguments made by applicant and the cited art, the Examiner respectfully maintains that the disclosure of Miller anticipates the amended limitations to Claim 1 as given above.
Note, if Claim 1 was amended to preclude the interpretation of the rib from being a discontinuous structure the cited prior art would be overcome.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Natesh (US-20170294639-A1), see Fig. 10.
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 Kayla E Clary whose telephone number is (571)272-2854. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 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. ClaryExaminer, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights