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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the limitation “the reticular elastic body has insulating properties” in line 9. It is not clear, in light of the specification, what is meant by “has insulating properties”. Specifically, the specification indicates the elastic body may be “conductive or insulating”, but does not use the term “insulating properties” . I t is therefore unclear what is meant by the term “insulating properties” . I.e., it is unclear whether the term “has insulating properties” is intended to be equivalent to “insulating” as used in the specification, or is intended to have an interpretation distinct from the term “insulating”. Furthermore, claim 1 recites the limitation “the porous electrode or the membrane electrode” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, claim 1 recites “at least one of the electrodes is a porous electrode or a membrane electrode”. It is therefore unclear whether the limitation “the porous electrode or the membrane electrode” refers to : a) only one of the at least one electrodes that is a porous electrode or a membrane electrode, or b) to each of the at least one electrodes that is a porous electrode or a membrane electrode. Claim 1 is therefore indefinite. Examiner recommends amending claim 1 to read “the reticular elastic body is insulating” and “at least one of the at least one porous electrode or membrane electrode” , respectively . Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites t he limitation “the porous electrode or the membrane electrode is provided on both main surface sides of the permselective membrane”. A plain language reading of this limitation requires a single electrode to be provided on both sides of the permselective membrane. However, based on the recitation of “electrodes” in claim 1 line 4 and the depictions in Figs. 1-6, it appears that this limitation was intended to require two discrete porous or membrane electrodes, each of which are in contact with opposite main sides of the permselective membrane. Furthermore, claim 2 recites “the porous electrode or the membrane electrode” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, recites “at least one of the electrodes is a porous electrode or a membrane electrode”. It is therefore unclear whether the limitation “the porous electrode or the membrane electrode” refers to only one of the at least one electrodes that is a porous electrode or a membrane electrode, or to each of the at least one electrodes that is a porous electrode or a membrane electrode. Furthermore, claim 2 depends from claim 1, and therefore inherits the indefinite language of claim 1. Claim 2 is therefore indefinite. Examiner recommends amending claim 2 to recite “wherein the electrodes are provided on both main surface sides of the permselective membrane, and each of the electrodes are porous electrodes or membrane electrodes”. Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites the limitation “an electrode made of a rigid conductive porous plate”. However, claim 1 recites “electrodes” in line 3. It is unclear whether the “an electrode made of a rigid conductive porous plate” is intended to be one of the “electrodes” recited in claim 1, or is intended to be in addition to the “electrodes” recited in claim 1. Furthermore, claim 3 depends from claim 1, and therefore inherits the indefinite language of claim 1. Claim 3 is therefore indefinite. Examiner recommends amending claim 3 to recite “further comprising a first rigid conductive porous plate”. Regarding claims 4-5 , claims 4 and 5 recite the limitation “the porous electrode or the membrane electrode” in lines 1-2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, claim 1 recites “at least one of the electrodes is a porous electrode or a membrane electrode”. It is therefore unclear whether the limitation “the porous electrode or the membrane electrode” refers to only one of the at least one electrodes that is a porous electrode or a membrane electrode, or to each of the at least one electrodes that is a porous electrode or a membrane electrode. Furthermore, claims 4-5 depend from claims 1 and 3, and therefore incorporate the indefinite language of those claims. Claims 4-5 are therefore indefinite. Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites the limitation “the porous electrode or the membrane electrode and the rigid conductive porous plate are provided on both main surface sides of the permselective membrane”. A plain language reading of this limitation requires a single electrode and a single rigid conductive porous plate to be provided on both sides of the membrane. However, based on the Figures, it appears this limitation was intended to require an electrode and a rigid conductive porous plate on each side of the membrane. Furthermore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the porous electrode or the membrane electrode”. Specifically, claim 1 recites “at least one of the electrodes is a porous electrode or a membrane electrode”. It is therefore unclear whether the limitation “the porous electrode or the membrane electrode” refers to only one of the at least one electrodes that is a porous electrode or a membrane electrode, or to each of the at least one electrodes that is a porous electrode or a membrane electrode. Furthermore, claim 6 depends from claims 1 and 3, and therefore inherits the indefinite language of those claims. Claim 6 is therefore indefinite. Examiner recommends amending claim 6 to recite “wherein the electrodes are provided on both main surface sides of the permselective membranes, and each of the electrodes are porous electrodes or membrane electrodes, the first rigid conductive porous plate is provided on one main surface side of the permselective membrane, and a second rigid conductive porous plate is provided on the opposite main surface side of the permselective membrane from the first rigid conductive porous plate”. Regarding claim 7, claim 7 depends from claims 1, 3, and 5, and therefore incorporates the indefinite language of those claims. Claim 7 is therefore indefinite. Regarding claims 8-12, claims 8-12 depend from claim 1, and therefore incorporate the indefinite language of claim 1. Claims 8-12 are 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 . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1-5, 7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (JP 2019141807 A) in view of Bianchi (US Pat. No. 4830721) and Faita (US Pat. Pub. 2015/0041323 A1) . Regarding claim 1, claim 1 has been interpreted as “the reticular elastic body is insulating” and “at least one of the at least one porous electrode or membrane electrode”. Sasaki teaches a Li ion recovery member (title) , comprising: a permselective membrane including a Li ion conductor made of an inorganic substance (“ The electrolyte membrane 2 is an electrolyte that has lithium ion conductivity … Specifically, lithium lanthanum titanium oxide … ” para. 19 and Fig. 3) ; electrodes (“ a first electrode 31 and a third electrode 32 ” para. 17 and Fig. 3) ; wherein the electrodes are provided each main surface side of the permselective membrane (“ a first electrode 31 and a third electrode 32 coated on each surface of the electrolyte membrane 2 , ” para. 17 and Fig. 3) , wherein each of the electrodes is a porous membrane electrode (“ The first electrode 31 applies a voltage to a wide area of the electrolyte membrane 2 , while having a porous structure, ” para. 20 and “ The third electrode 32 is provided in contact with the surface of the electrolyte membrane 2 facing the recovery tank 12 as needed ” para. 21, see also Fig. 3). Sasaki does not teach an insulating elastic body, wherein at least one of the at least one porous electrode or membrane electrodes is sandwiched between the insulating elastic body and the permselective membrane. However, Bianchi teaches that an insulating elastic body (“ a fluid distributor ( D ) ” col. 4 lines 37-41 and “ a distributor ( D ) made of an elastic polymeric material ” col. 4 lines 52-66, see also Fig. 2) can be used to press an electrode against a membrane in a membrane electrode assembly, thereby protecting the membrane from damage (“ distributor D, which presses cathode C against the membrane M which is supported by the anode A: this mechanical arrangement permits to avoid vibrations of the membrane during operation, and thus avoids damaging of the membrane due to abrasions or fatigue. ” col. 3 lines 27-33). As Sasaki teaches an electrochemical Li recovery member, Sasaki is analogous art to the instant invention. As Bianchi teaches an electrochemical cell comprising a membrane electrode assembly, Bianchi is analogous art to the instant invention. It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Sasaki, by adding an insulating elastic body such that at least one of the porous membrane electrodes is sandwiched between the insulating elastic body and the permselective membrane, as taught by Bianchi. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of protecting the membrane from damage, as taught by Bianchi. Modified Sasaki does not explicitly teach the elastic body is a reticular elastic body. However, Faita teaches a reticular elastic body (“elastic mat 4 formed by an assembly of nickel wire coils” para. 6 and Fig. 1) is suitable for pressing the electrode against the membrane in a membrane electrode assembly (“ elastic mat 4 was compressed, ensuring an adequate contact pressure between the various parts of the assembly. ” Id. ). As Faita teaches an electrochemical cell comprising a membrane electrode assembly, Faita is analogous art to the instant invention. It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application , when modifying the system of Sasaki in view of Bianchi, to do so such that the insulating elastic body is an insulating reticular elastic body. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification in this way because Faita teaches a reticular elastic body is suitable as the elastic body in a membrane electrode assembly. Regarding claim 2, claim 2 has been interpreted as “ wherein the electrodes are provided on both main surface sides of the permselective membrane, and each of the electrodes are porous electrodes or membrane electrodes ”. Sasaki further teaches the electrodes are provided on both main surface sides of the permselective membrane (“ a first electrode 31 and a third electrode 32 coated on each surface of the electrolyte membrane 2 , ” para. 17 and Fig. 3) , and each of the electrodes are porous electrodes or membrane electrodes ( “ The first electrode 31 applies a voltage to a wide area of the electrolyte membrane 2 , while having a porous structure, ” para. 20 and “ The third electrode 32 is provided in contact with the surface of the electrolyte membrane 2 facing the recovery tank 12 as needed ” para. 21, see also Fig. 3). Regarding claim 3, claim 3 has been interpreted as “ further comprising a first rigid conductive porous plate” . Modified Sasaki renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above. Sasaki further teaches a rigid conductive porous plate (“ second electrode 4 ” para. 17 and Fig. 3 and “ As the second electrode, a 20 mm x 20 mm Ni mesh electrode was used ” para. 39 ). Regarding claim 4, claim 4 has been interpreted as “at least one of the at least one porous electrode or membrane electrode is provided …”. Sasaki further teaches at least one of the at least one porous electrode or membrane electrode is provided on one main surface side of the permselective membrane (“ The first electrode 31 is an electrode that is in contact with the surface of the electrolyte membrane 2 on the side of the supply tank 11 ” para. 20 and Fig. 3), and the rigid conductive porous plate is provided on the other main surface of the permselective membrane (“ The second electrode 4 is an electrode provided in the recovery tank 12 … preferably disposed parallel to the first electrode 31 …” para. 22 and Fig. 3) . Regarding claim 5, claim 5 has been interpreted as “at least one of the at least one porous electrode or the membrane electrode and the rigid conductive porous plate are provided on one main surface side of the permselective membrane ”. Modified Sasaki renders the limitations of claim 3 obvious, as described above. Sasaki further teaches at least one of the at least one porous electrode or the membrane electrode (“ The third electrode 32 is provided in contact with the surface of the electrolyte membrane 2 facing the recovery tank 12 as needed ” para. 21 and Fig. 3) and the rigid conductive porous plate are provided on one main surface side of the permselective membrane (“ The second electrode 4 is an electrode provided in the recovery tank 12 ” para. 22 and Fig. 3). Regarding claim 7, modified Sasaki further teaches the rigid conductive porous plate is provided so as to sandwich the porous electrode or the membrane electrode and the reticular elastic body (see below). Sasaki teaches the rigid conductive porous plate i.e., second electrode, is spaced apart from the membrane (“ second electrode 4 is separated from the electrolyte membrane 2 by the aqueous solution AS ” para. 28). Bianchi teaches the elastic body presses the first electrode against the membrane ( “ distributor D, which presses cathode C against the membrane M. ” col. 3 lines 27-33) . Thus, in modified Sasaki, the elastic body is positioned between i.e., sandwiched by, the porous electrode and the rigid conductive porous plate. Regarding claim 10, modified Sasaki renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above. Sasaki further teaches the Li ion conductor contains an oxide containing Li (“ lithium lanthanum titanium oxide …” para. 19 and Fig. 3). Regarding claim 11, modified Sasaki renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above. Sasaki further teaches a Li ion recovery electrolytic cell (title) including the Li ion recovery member of claim 1 and configured to recover Li ions by electrodialysis (“ the present invention is to provide a lithium recovery method and apparatus using e lectrodialysis ” para. 8). Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki in view of Bianchi and Faita , as applied to claim 1 1 above, and further in view of Nakao (US Pat. No. 5254233). Regarding claim 12, modified Sasaki renders the limitations of claim 11 obvious, as described above. Modified Sasaki does not explicitly teach a plurality of the Li ion recovery members, wherein the plurality of Li ion recovery members are connected such that a main surface of the permselective membrane of one Li ion recovery member and a main surface of the permselective membrane of another Li ion recovery member face each other. However, Nakao teaches an electrochemical cell comprising membrane electrode assemblies (abstract), wherein a plurality of such membrane electrode assemblies are arranged in parallel, such that that a main surface of the permselective membrane of one membrane electrode assembly and a main surface of the permselective membrane of another membrane electrode assembly face each other (abstract and Figs. 1, 5, see also col. 3 lines 53-62) i.e., in a filter press arrangement, which provides the predictable benefit of allowing a larger effective surface area for the electrochemical process (col. 3 lines 30-52). As Nakao teaches a membrane electrode assembly comprising insulating elastic members, Nakao is analogous art to the instant invention. It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Sasaki, by arranging a plurality of the Li ion recovery members, wherein the plurality of Li ion recovery members are connected such that a main surface of the permselective membrane of one Li ion recovery member and a main surface of the permselective membrane of another Li ion recovery member face each other , as taught by Nakao. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of increasing the effective surface area for the electrochemical process, as taught by Nakao. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 6, and 8-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims . The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not teach or render obvious the cumulative limitations of claim 6 when the limitation “ the reticular elastic body has insulating properties ” in claim 1 line 9 is interpreted as “the reticular elastic body is insulating” and the limitation “ the porous electrode or the membrane electrode and the rigid conductive porous plate are provided on both main surface sides of the permselective membrane ” in claim 6 is interpreted as “ wherein the electrodes are provided on both main surface sides of the permselective membranes, each of the electrodes are porous electrodes or membrane electrodes, the first rigid conductive porous plate is provided on one main surface side of the permselective membrane, and a second rigid conductive porous plate is provided on the opposite main surface side of the permselective membrane from the first rigid conductive porous plate ” . In particular, the prior art of record does not teach the system of claim 6 wherein the reticular elastic body is insulating and both electrodes and rigid conductive porous plates are provided on both sides of the membrane. The closest prior art is considered to be Sasaki (JP 2019141807 A), Bianchi (US Pat. No. 4830721), Faita (US Pat. Pub. 2015/0041323 A1) and Kimura (US Pat. No. 6495006 B1). As described above, the limitations of claim 1 and 3, from which claim 6 depends, are considered to be rendered obvious by Sasaki in view of Bianchi and Faita . However, Sasaki does not teach a rigid conductive porous plate on both sides of the membrane, but rather teaches only one rigid conductive porous plate (Fig. 3 shows “second electrode 4 ” is in “tank 12 ” , paras. 29 and 35 indicate this electrode can be placed in “tank 11 ” as an alternative configuration, but no embodiments comprise two such electrodes). While systems comprising rigid conductive porous plates and membrane electrodes on both sides of a membrane , with an elastic body disposed therebetween, are relatively common see e.g., Kimura Figs. 2 and 6, these configurations use the rigid conductive porous plate as a current collector, and therefore require the elastic body to be conductive to supply power to the membrane electrodes. These prior art examples therefore cannot reasonably be considered to provide a person having ordinary skill in the art with a motivation to combine with a system wherein the “elastic body is insulating ”. Furthermore, these systems cannot themselves be modified such that the “elastic body is insulating ” , because this would render such systems unsatisfactory for their intended purpose. I.e., based on the prior art of record, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have considered the combined limitations “the reticular elastic body is insulating” and “ wherein the electrodes are provided on both main surface sides of the permselective membranes, and each of the electrodes are porous electrodes or membrane electrodes, the first rigid conductive porous plate is provided on one main surface side of the permselective membrane, and a second rigid conductive porous plate is provided on the opposite main surface side of the permselective membrane from the first rigid conductive porous plate ” to be mutually exclusive. It is therefore considered that, if rewritten in independent form including the limitations of the base claim and the intervening claim, and to address the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indicated, the cumulative limitations of claim 6 would be patentably distinguished over the prior art of record. Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not teach or render obvious the cumulative limitations of claim 8 when the limitation “ the reticular elastic body has insulating properties ” in claim 1 line 9 is interpreted as “the reticular elastic body is insulating”. In particular the prior art of record does not teach the system as described in claim 8, wherein “the permselective membrane includes a plurality of permselective membrane units and an adhesive portion, which are disposed on the same plane” and “the plurality of permselective membrane units … are bonded to one another by the adhesive portion”. The closest prior art is considered to be Sasaki (JP 2019141807 A), Bianchi (US Pat. No. 4830721), Faita (US Pat. Pub. 2015/0041323 A1) Kimura (US Pat. No. 6495006 B1), Nakao (US Pat. No. 5254233) and Adachi (US Pat. Pub. 2010/ 0 291460 A1). As described above, the limitations of claim 1, from which claim 8 depends, are considered to be rendered obvious by Sasaki in view of Bianchi and Faita . However, Sasaki does not teach the permselective membrane “ includes a plurality of permselective membrane units and an adhesive portion, which are disposed on the same plane wherein the plurality of permselective membrane units … are bonded to one another by the adhesive portion ” . Each of Kimura, Nakao and Adachi teach segmentation of a membrane for use in a membrane electrode assembly. However, each of these references uses a single large membrane subdivided into multiple portions by an adhered electrode, and therefore do not teach “ membrane units ” that are “bonded to one another by the adhesive portion”. For example, Adachi teaches a membrane (“ 11 electrolyte membrane (layer)” para. 36 and Fig. 5) segmented into “membrane units” using a plurality of electrodes (“ 10 electrodes” para. 35 and Fig. 5), but the membrane itself is contiguous (see Fig. 5, see also “ 15 electrolyte membrane ” Fig. 7). In general, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to use a plurality of membranes bonded to one another by an adhesive portion, because this would increase the potential for leakage around the edges of the membrane. Rather, when the overall membrane area needs to be increased, a plurality of membranes or MEAs are typically arranged in parallel, as described in e.g., claim 12 and Nakao (see rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, above). It is therefore considered that, if rewritten in independent form including the limitations of the base claim and the intervening claim, and to address the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indicated, the cumulative limitations of claim 8 would be patentably distinguished over the prior art of record. Regarding claim 9, claim 9 depends from claim 8, and would therefore be allowable if written in independent form including the limitations of the base claim and the intervening claim, and to address the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), for the same reasons enumerated for claim 8 above. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. DeNora (US Pat. No. 4341604) teaches an electrolytic cell comprising a membrane electrode assembly having rigid conducting plates disposed on each side of the membrane electrode assembly, and connected thereto by a conductive reticular elastic body (see Figs 1 and 3). Federico (US Pat. No. 9797051 B2) teaches an electrolytic cell comprising a membrane electrode assembly having rigid conducting plates disposed on each side of the membrane electrode assembly, and connected thereto by a conductive elastic body (see Fig. 3). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ALEXANDER R PARENT whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-0948 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 11:00 AM - 6 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 Luan V. Van can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8521 . 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. /ALEXANDER R. PARENT/ Examiner, Art Unit 1795 /LUAN V VAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795