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 Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a water-outflowing means, a water-feeding means, and a n alkali-adding means in claim 1; a control means in claim 3; a water-feeding means and a chemical-agent-adding means in claim 5 ; and a chemical agent-adding means in claim 7. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Objections Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the examiner suggests amending “a chemical agent-adding means” (see line 3) to “ another chemical agent-adding means” or “the chemical agent-adding means” . Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim(s) 5 -10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) ( 1) as being anticipated by Kato et al. (CN 101541400 A , machine translation provided) . Claim 5 invoke 112(F) interpretation for a water-feeding means and a chemical-agent-adding means . The examiner will interpret the water-feeding means as a conduit or line and the chemical agent-adding means as a conduit or line (see applicant’s specification figure 2 and paragraph 0043) . Regarding claim 5 , Kato et al. discloses an exhaust gas treatment facility (gas processing apparatus or gas treatment device (1 0) , comprising: a detoxifying apparatus (reactor, 12) for detoxification-treating an exhaust gas (heat decomposable soluble composition processed target gas, F) ; and a water-feeding means (W) for supplying water to the detoxifying apparatus, wherein a chemical agent-adding means (ammonia supplied to the water supply device (16) or the front section wet scrubber (18) using water (W) of at least one of the ammonia supply device (64)) for adding choline and/or ammonia into water to be supplied to the water-feeding means is provided (see Abstract; figures 1-5; and the description). Regarding claim 6, Kato et al. discloses an apparatus wherein the chemical agent-adding means (ammonia supply pump branch pipe, 40) adds choline and/or ammonia, and also hydrogen peroxide into the water (see Abstract; figures 1-5; and the description) , since Kato et al. discloses that the chemical agent-adding means as a conduit or line and the use of the apparatus isn't limiting or the material the apparatus acts upon isn't limiting . Claim 7 invoke 112(F) interpretation for a chemical-agent-adding means . The examiner will interpret the chemical agent-adding means as a conduit or line (see applicant’s specification figure 2 and paragraph 0043). Regarding claim 7, Kato et al. discloses an apparatus wherein a scrubber ( back space wet scrubber , 22 ) is provided on a downstream side of the detoxifying apparatus ( 1 2) , and a chemical agent-adding means (ammonia supply pump branch pipe, 40) for adding choline and/or ammonia into water for the scrubber (22) is provided (see Abstract; figures 1-5; and the description), since Kato et al. discloses that the chemical agent-adding means as a conduit or line and the use of the apparatus isn't limiting or the material the apparatus acts upon isn't limiting. Regarding claims 8-10, Kato et al. discloses an apparatus wherein choline and/or ammonia and also hydrogen peroxide are added into water for the scrubber (22); wherein the chemical agent-adding means (40) adds, as a chemical agent, a solution used in a semiconductor production process or a drainage water of a semiconductor production process; and wherein the exhaust gas is an exhaust gas from a semiconductor production process (see Abstract; figures 1-5; and the description), since the use of the apparatus isn't limiting or the material the apparatus acts upon isn't limiting. 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. 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. Claim (s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki et al. (US 2019/0041058 A1) in view of Heskett et al. (US 10,245,546 B1) . Claim 1 invoke 112( f ) interpretation for a water-outflowing means, a water-feeding means, and an alkali-adding means. The examiner will interpret the water-outflowing means as a conduit or line (see applicant’s specification figure 1 and paragraph 0008) , water-feeding means as a pump for feeding water, a first pipe connected to an inlet side of the pump, and a second pipe connected to an outlet side of the pump and the alkaline -adding means as a conduit or line to add the alkali into the first pipe (see applicant’s specification figure 1 and paragraph 0009). Regarding claim 1, Miyazaki et al. discloses an exhaust gas treatment facility, comprising: a combustion chamber (1) for combustion-treating an exhaust gas; a water-outflowing means (5) for letting water flow along an inner wall surface of the combustion chamber (1); cooling water; and the cooling water may be alkaline water (water solution of sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide or the like) (see figures 1-3; and paragraphs 0043-0050). Miyazaki et al. fails to discloses a water-feeding means for supplying water to the water-outflowing means, wherein an alkali-adding means for adding an alkali is provided on the water-feeding means. Heskett et al. discloses a water-feeding means (mixing system (400) may include a mixing pump (410) (see figure 7 and column 7, lines 24-30) and system fluid (330) which is primarily water, but may include system fluid additive containing various compounds to neutralize various chemical commonly found in flue exhaust gases) (see column 4, lines 4-42 ) , wherein an alkali-adding means for adding an alkali is provided on the water-feeding means , since Heskett et al. discloses that limestone CaCO 3 , magnesium hydroxide (Mg(OH) 2 ), and lye (NaOH) may be used to remove sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) from the unprocessed exhaust gas ; the system fluid additive(s) may be introduced into the system fluid (330) within the mixing tank (300) via an additive system (500) (see figure 4) , which may be as simple as a compartment within the mixing tank (300) to receive and house additives, however in another embodiment it may be an additive injection system that monitors the system fluid (330) and injects at least one additive when the additive system (500) determines that the system fluid (330) requires more additive to carry out the objectives set forth herein (see column 4, lines 4-42) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Miyazaki et al. with the teachings of Heskett et al. resulting in a water-feeding means for supplying water to the water-outflowing means, wherein an alkali-adding means for adding an alkali is provided on the water-feeding means in order to remove sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) from the unprocessed exhaust gas . Regarding claim 2, Miyazaki et al. fails to disclose an exhaust gs treatment facility wherein the water-feeding means comprises a pump for feeding water, a first pipe connected to an inlet side of the pump, and a second pipe connected to an outlet side of the pump , and the alkali-adding means is provided so as to add the alkali into the first pipe. Heskett et al. discloses the water-feeding means comprises a pump for feeding water, a first pipe connected to an inlet side of the pump, and a second pipe connected to an outlet side of the pump (mixing system (400) may include a mixing pump (410) (see figure 7 and column 7, lines 24-30) and system fluid (330) which is primarily water, but may include system fluid additive containing various compounds to neutralize various chemical commonly found in flue exhaust gases) (see column 4, lines 4-42 ). Heskett et al. fails to explicitly discloses that the alkali-adding means is provided so as to add the alkali into the first pipe . However, Heskett et al. discloses that limestone CaCO 3 , magnesium hydroxide (Mg(OH) 2 ), and lye (NaOH) may be used to remove sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) from the unprocessed exhaust gas ; the system fluid additive(s) may be introduced into the system fluid (330) within the mixing tank (300) via an additive system (500) (see figure 4), which may be as simple as a compartment within the mixing tank (300) to receive and house additives, however in another embodiment it may be an additive injection system that monitors the system fluid (330) and injects at least one additive when the additive system (500) determines that the system fluid (330) requires more additive to carry out the objectives set forth herein (see column 4, lines 4-42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Miyazaki et al. with the teachings of Heskett et al. resulting in the water-feeding means comprises a pump for feeding water, a first pipe connected to an inlet side of the pump, and a second pipe connected to an outlet side of the pump in order to mix an additive to water to remove sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) from the unprocessed exhaust gas . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the alkali-adding means is provided so as to add the alkali into the first pipe , since it was known in the art that to add an additive to water from a pipe (see MPEP 2144.03 (A-E)). Regarding claims 3-4, Miyazaki et al. fails to disclose an exhaust gs treatment facility wherein a pH meter is provided on the second pipe, and a control means for controlling an amount of the alkali to be added with the alkali-adding means so as to regulate a detected pH by the pH meter within a predetermined range is provided ; and wherein the predetermined range is a pH of 9 or higher . Heskett et al. discloses a pH meter is provided on the second pipe, and a control means for controlling an amount of the alkali to be added with the alkali-adding means so as to regulate a detected pH by the pH meter within a predetermined range is provided; and wherein the predetermined range is a pH of 9 or higher , since Heskett et al. disclose that the mixing tank (300) may have mixing tank monitoring system having a liquid sensor system that monitors the amount of precipitant and other contaminants in the mixing tank (300) ; t he sensor system may include a mixing tank fluid sensor (350) ; the mixing tank fluid sensor (350) may monitor one, or more, of the following: physical precipitant levels, total dissolved solids, conductivity, specific gravity, pH level, mercury (Hg), Lead (Pb), and other heavy metal levels, as well as the temperature of the system fluid (330) (see figure 4 and column 4, lines 43-61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Miyazaki et al. with the teachings of Heskett et al. resulting in a pH meter is provided on the second pipe, and a control means for controlling an amount of the alkali to be added with the alkali-adding means so as to regulate a detected pH by the pH meter within a predetermined range is provided; and wherein the predetermined range is a pH of 9 or higher in order to ensure that sulfur dioxide is removed from the unprocessed exhaust gas. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT NATASHA E YOUNG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3163 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 7:00 am - 6:00 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 Wang Claire can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-1051 . 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 NATASHA E. YOUNG Examiner Art Unit 1774 /NATASHA E YOUNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774