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. Claims 1-5 are pending and considered in the present Office action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by WO2020013112 , where Yokoyama (US 2021/0265635) is used as a translation, hereinafter Yokoyama (both of record) . Regarding Claim 1 , Yokoyama suggests a n organic expander for lead storage batteries (see e.g., abstract) comprising sulfomethylated kraft lignin ([0071-0088, 0094-0095, 0100-0105]) , wherein the sulfomethylated kraft lignin has an organic S content of 1.5 to 3.8% by mass ([0075]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama ( cited above ) in view of Hamano et al. ( US 2017/0092934 , of record ) , hereinafter Hamano . Regarding Claim s 2- 3 , Yokoyama suggests the organic expander has the organic S content of 1.5 to 3.0% by mass ([0075]), but does not suggest a weight average molecular weight of 16,000 or less. However, Hamano suggests the molecular weight of sulfomethylated kraft lignin is 16,000 or less (e.g., 12,000 ) to control the average particle size , thereby enabling control of pore size of the negative electrode material , hence discharge performance at low temperature , [ 0021, 0087]. The use of a molecular weight of 16,000 or less for sulfomethylated kraft lignin is obvious because t he selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin , 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07. Further, it would be obvious to use of a molecular weight of 16,000 or less for sulfomethylated kraft lignin from the standpoint of controlling particle size, thereby enabling the control of negative electrode material pore size and discharge performance at low temperature , as suggested by Hamano. Regarding Claim s 4 -5 , Yokoyama suggests a method for producing the organic expander for lead storage batteries comprising the step of sulfomethylating kraft lignin , see e.g., [0074] . Claim (s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama (cited above) in view of Koji et al. (JP 2008152955), hereinafter Koji . Regarding Claims 2-3 , Yokoyama suggests the organic expander has the organic S content of 1.5 to 3.0% by mass ([0075]), but does not suggest a weight average molecular weight of 16,000 or less. However, Koji suggests the use of high molecular weight lignin (e.g., 20,000 to 60,000) lowers charge acceptance performance; using a lower molecular weight (e.g., 12,000 or more) improves charge acceptance performance. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the molecular weight is 16,000 or less from the standpoint of improving charge acceptance, as suggested by Koji . The molecular weight suggested by Koji overlaps with that claimed, or is close, hence a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP 2144.05. Regarding Claims 4-5 , Yokoyama suggests a method for producing the organic expander for lead storage batteries comprising the step of sulfomethylating kraft lignin , see e.g., [0074] . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Oikawa (JP 2019204702) suggests lignin has a molecular weight of 16,000 or less from the view point of suppressing the elution of lignin from the electrode, obtaining excellent dispersibility of the active material, and to obtain excellent Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ANNA KOROVINA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9835 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Th 7am - 6 pm . 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 Ula Ruddock can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712721481 . 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. /ANNA KOROVINA/ Examiner, Art Unit 1729 /ULA C RUDDOCK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729