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. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the cross sectional view of the MD-ND cross section must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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. Claims 2, 5, and 11 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. Claims 2, 5, and 11 recite in part “MD-ND cross section,” however it is unclear where this cross section is to be taken. The term “MD-ND cross section” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention , and is therefore indefinite. 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) 1 , 3, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whear et al. (US2019/0051946A1), in view of Mittal et al. (US2019/0058175A1) . As to claim 1 , Whear discloses a separator for a lead-acid battery, comprising a substrate and a conductive layer (carbon) laminated on at least one surface of the substrate [Abstract] , wherein the conductive layer has a continuous phase formed of an electrically conductive material (carbon [009]) , and a dispersed phase in the continuous phase (mineral additives, [0075]) , Whear does not explicitly disclose the dispersed phase being formed of at least one low-potential metal material selected from the group consisting of a metal having a standard electrode potential of -0.7 V or less, a metal compound containing the metal, and a combination thereof. However in the same field of endeavor Mittal discloses a separator for a battery [Abstract] and teaches the porous membrane can contain a metal salt and that metal salt can be zinc sulfate (ZnSO.sub.4) [0061-0062] (zinc sulfate is the same material as applicant as exemplified in paragraph [12] of the instant application) , and Mittal further teaches the present disclosure provides an improved separator enhancing battery life, reducing battery failure, reducing water loss, lowering float charge current, minimizing internal resistance increase, increasing wettability, reducing acid stratification, improving acid diffusion, and/or improving uniformity in lead acid batteries. [0006] Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the separator Whear with the zinc sulfate of Mittal to enhanc e battery life, reduc e battery failure, reduc e water loss, lower float charge current, minimiz e internal resistance increase, increas e wettability, reduc e acid stratification, improv e acid diffusion, and/or improv e uniformity in lead acid batteries , and a s exemplified in paragraph [00 1 2] of the instant specification , The separator for a lead-acid battery, wherein the low-potential metal material is at least one selected from the group consisting of zinc oxide and zinc sulfate , meets the limitation. Examiner notes claim 1 , t he phrase, “ lead-acid” has not been given patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitation are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao , 535 F2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v Robie , F.2d 15, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). As to claim 3 , modified Whear discloses the low-potential metal material comprises zinc or a zinc compound. ( ZnSO.sub.4 [0061-0062]) As to Claim 4 , Whear discloses the conductive material comprises a carbon material. (carbon [0075]) As to Claim 8 , modified Whear discloses the low-potential metal material is at least one selected from the group consisting of zinc oxide and zinc sulfate. ZnSO.sub.4 [0061-0062]) Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whear et al. (US2019/0051946A1), in view of Mittal et al. (US2019/0058175A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US2021/0242534A1 with foreign priority of 10/26/2018 ). As to claim 6 , Whear is silent on a maximum diameter of the low-potential metal material is 0.1 µ m or more and 15 µ m or less , however in the same field of endeavor Kim discloses a separator for a battery [Abstract] and teaches separator with a metal oxide [Abstract]…metal oxide is a zinc metal oxide [0030]… particle diameters of 1-500 nm where 500 nm prevents the specific surface area from being reduced and lowering of the energy density of the cell [0029], and it would be obvious to apply a particle size of 500 nm to prevent lowering the energy density of the cell, which overlap s the claimed range. As to claim 7 , modified Whear is silent an amount of the low-potential metal material is 5 wt % to 60 wt % relative to the weight of the entire conductive layer. ( content of the metal oxide is 10 to 80 parts by weight relative to 100 parts by weight of the total weight of the conductive carbon layer. [0030]. Which overlaps the claimed range, and 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). As to claim 9 , modified Whear discloses the carbon material comprises carbon black [0035] and at least one selected from the group consisting of furnace black, acetylene black, ketjen black, and carbon nanotubes ( carbon blacks such as Denka black, acetylene black, Ketjen black, channel black, furnace black, .. [Kim, 0043]) . As to claim 10 , Whear discloses a lead-acid battery, comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and the separator according claim 1 between the positive electrode and the negative electrode. [0008], [0006]. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Whear et al. (US2019/0386280A1) Separator with coating layer. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BART A HORNSBY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (313)446-6637 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9:00-6:00 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 Matthew T Martin can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-7871 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT BART HORNSBY Examiner Art Unit 1728 /MATTHEW T MARTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728