DETAILED ACTION Application 18/280780 , “ SEPARATOR FOR LEAD ACID STORAGE BATTERIES, AND LEAD ACID STORAGE BATTERY ”, is the national stage entry of a PCT application filed on 3/7/22 and claims priority from a foreign application filed on 3/10/21 . The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This Office Action on the merits is in response to communication filed on 6/25/25 . 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 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 4 , the following recitation is unclear, “at least a part of the fibrous second conductive material extends from the conductive layer toward a gap of the cracks”. More specifically, it is unclear how the fibrous second conductive material could extend from the conductive layer toward a gap of the cracks. “From” implies that the fibrous material protrudes from the bulk of the conductive layer into the cracks, yet “toward” implies that the fibrous material does not enter the crack. Since these possibilities are in conflict, the claim is found to be ambiguous and the broadest reasonable interpretation includes both possibilities. 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 of this title, 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. Claims 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Roumi (US 2013/0224632) and Nguyen (US 2014/0349216) . Alternatively, claims 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Roumi (US 2013/0224632), Nguyen (US 2014/0349216) and Anada (US 2009/0325069). Claims 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Roumi (US 2013/0224632), Nguyen (US 2014/0349216) and Anada (US 2009/0325069). Regarding claim 1 -2 and 5 , 8-9 , Roumi teaches a separator for a lead-acid battery (paragraph [0048]; e.g. Figs. 2, 3), comprising a substrate (Fig. 3 item M; paragraph [0206]), and a conductive layer laminated on at least one surface of the substrate (Fig. 3 item R or F), wherein the conductive layer has cracks (Fig. 2 where the illustrated apertures are readable on the claimed cracks), and the conductive layer comprises a conductive material (paragraph [00 90 ]). Roumi further teaches wherein the conductive material may be a combination of a first conductive material [e.g. a metal, carbon or graphite], and a nanocarbon as a second conductive material (“metal… carbon, graphite, nanocarbon or any combination of these, paragraph [00 90 ]), but does not expressly teach that in this combination, the nanocarbon is a fibrous second conductive material . However , Roumi does suggest, at least as a separate embodiment, the use of carbon nanotubes as a conductive material (paragraph [00 66 ]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to utilize carbon nanotubes, which are fibrous conductive materials comprising a nanoscale diameter, as the nanocarbon. Roumi does not appear to teach the fibrous second conductive material having an average fiber diameter of 1% or more and 30% or less of an average crack width of the cracks. Roumi cannot teach this feature at least because Roumi is silent as to the diameter of the nanocarbon/carbon nanotube . H owever, some diameter is implicit since nanotubes require a diameter. I n the battery art, Nguyen teaches that typical carbon nanotube diameters are between 0.5 nm and 40 nm (paragraph [0074]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of invention to employ carbon nanotubes having a diameter of 0.5 to 40 nm as the nanocarbon, since carbon nanotubes of this range are suitable as a conductive material for battery applications at taught by Nguyen. As to the diameter:crack with ratio, Roumi further teaches that the apertures [cracks] of the conductive layer may have a dimension [i.e. a width ] of “between 1 µm and 1 mm”, and/or “less than or equal to 10 µm” (paragraph [0035]). Considering these suggested ranges together suggests a possible or suitable range of 1 to 10 µm . It is noted that the 1 to 10 µm crack width range of claim 5 is found to be obvious for overlapping this range suggested by Roumi. Considering the suggested aperture [crack] width range of Roumi and the typical diameter of carbon nanotubes together, the cited art suggests that the separator may comprise fibrous carbon having an average fiber diameter which lies within the range of 1% to 30% of the crack width (For example, if the carbon fiber diameter is 40 nm, which is within the typical range, then the 1% to 30% limitation translates to a crack width of 0.13 to 4.0 µm, which overlaps the prior art range at 1 to 4 µm). Finally , it has been held that “ where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device ” (MPEP 2144.04 IVA). In this case, the cited art suggests the general conditions of the claim, i.e. a conductive layer formed to include cracks therein and comprising a fibrous conductive material. Moreover, the art has demonstrated that the claimed fiber diameter to crack width ratio falls within the broader suggestion of the prior art. Absent a showing of criticality associated with claimed relative dimensions, the claimed invention is found to be prima facie obvious. Previously, t his rejection has been written with the high mechanical strength layer of Roumi (e.g. Fig. 3 items R, F; paragraph [0206]) read on the claimed conductive layer. Alternatively, Roumi teaches an (“electronically and ionically conductive layer” (e.g. paragraph [0066]), which may comprise the apertures (Roumi claim 196); therefore, the invention is also found to be obvious with the electronically and ionically conductive layer read on the claimed conductive layer. In this case, the “carbon nanotubes” are expressly taught as a subcomponent of the conductive layer. It is noted that Roumi teaches a conductive layer which may comprise “metal… carbon, graphite, nanocarbon or any combination of these” (paragraph [0090]), thereby suggesting a combination of first and second conductive materials, and further teaches the use of carbon nanotubes as a form of nanocarbon (paragraph [0066]). The Office has concluded that these teachings are sufficient to suggest a combination of a first conductive material and a fibrous second conductive material as claimed. However, to further support the finding, in the battery art, Anada teaches that a carbon based conductive material layer preferably includes two types of carbon material, such as a carbon black and carbon nanofiber, for the benefit of decreasing electric resistance as the particle and fiber shapes mechanically complement one another (paragraphs [0095-0096]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include a combination of first and second conductive materials, with one being carbon nanofiber and the other being a particulate carbon, for the benefit of providing decreased electric resistance as taught by Anada. Regarding claim 3 , the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Roumi further teaches wherein a percentage of an area occupied by the cracks is 0.1% or more and 30% or less of an entire surface of the conductive layer (paragraphs [0198] characterizes apertured area as “porosity”; Roumi claim 77 describes mechanical strength layer having porosity of greater than or equal to 30%, overlapping the claimed range at least a 30%) . Regarding claim 4 , the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. The cited further teaches wherein at least a part of the fibrous second conductive material extends from the conductive layer toward a gap of the cracks (a random orientation of the carbon nanotube within the conductive layer, as described in the rejection of claim 1, provides a least a part of the material extending from the conductive material toward a gap of the cracks). Regarding claim 6 , the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Roumi further teaches that the conductive layer may have a thickness of less than or equal to 20 µm (paragraph [0210 ]). The claimed range of 0.1 to 30 µm is found to be obvious as being substantially overlapped by the range suggested by Roumi. Regarding claim 7 , the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Roumi further teaches wherein the cracks extend from a surface of the conductive layer to a layer-substrate boundary (“apertures extending entirely through the first high mechanical strength layer and provided in a first pattern”, paragraph [0009]). Regarding claim 10 , the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Roumi teaches a conductive material layer which may include carbon graphite, nanocarbon or any combination of these, and Nguyen further teaches that the nanocarbon may be provided in the form of carbon nanotube, but Roumi does not expressly teach wherein the first conductive material comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of furnace black, acetylene black, and ketjen black. In the battery art, Anada teaches that a carbon based conductive material layer may include a carbon black such as ketjen black and carbon nanofiber, and that the carbon based conductive layer preferably includes both particle and fiber type carbons for the benefit of decreasing electric resistance as the shapes mechanically complement one another (paragraphs [0095-0096]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include a combination of first and second conductive materials, with one being carbon nanofiber and the other being a carbon black such as ketjen black, for the benefit of providing decreased electric resistance as taught by Anada. Claims 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Roumi (US 2013/0224632) , Nguyen (US 2014/0349216) , Anada (US 2009/0325069) and Tang (CN 105390754). Regarding claim 11 -13 , the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Roumi teaches the separator may be used as a subcomponent of a lead-acid battery (paragraph [0048]), but does not detail the battery. In the battery art, Chang teaches a lead acid battery comprised of positive and negative electrodes (abstract) , an electrolyte (abstract) , a separator (T031,T037) between the electrodes, wherein the electrode is a metal or metal compound having a standard electrode potential of -0.7 V such as zinc ( T034, T024 ) and the electrode comprises a zinc compound ( “zinc sulfate”, abstract ). Chang further teaches that such a lead acid battery utilizes readily available and relatively cheap materials to produce a desirable battery (T023). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to employ the separator of Roumi in a lead -acid battery comprising the features set forth in claims 11-13, since a lead-acid battery comprising such features is desirable at least in terms of availability of materials and economy as taught by Chang. Relevant or Related Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, though not necessarily pertinent to applicant’s invention as claimed. Duddy (USP 3466194) a conventional lead acid battery; Whear (US 2018/0366710) separator with ribs and conductive layer; Iwata (US 2020/0335760) separator comprising a porous layer having cracks therein, the porous layer is an inorganic organic composite, apparently nonconductive; Collins (US 2021/0175495) carbon nanotubes may have diameters in range of 0.5 to 70 nm, may be single or multi-walled; Krishnamoorthy (US 2022/0094015) separator comprising channels for enhancing wicking (paragraph [0036]); Kodimole (US 2024/0021957) separator comprising ribs and a conductive coating. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JEREMIAH R SMITH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7005 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri: 9 AM-5 PM (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 Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7078 . 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. /JEREMIAH R SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723