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 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 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. As to claims 9 and 10, t he term “ about ” in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ about ” 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. Use of the term about renders indefinite the volume . As to claims 13 and 14, t he term “ strong ” in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ strong ” 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. Use of the term strong renders indefinite the ion exchange resin . As to claims 15 and 16, t he term “ about ” in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ about ” 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. Use of the term about renders indefinite the content of the resin . As to claims 17 and 19, t he term “ about ” in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ about ” 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. Use of the term about renders indefinite the crosslinking . 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. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2020-078772 to Kato (Kato) . As to claim s 1 , 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 , 10, 11, 12, 15 and 1 6 , Kato teaches an electrochemical water treatment device connected to a source of water to be treated having weakly ionized species, the device comprising an electrochemical separation module (1) connected to the source of water to be treated, the module (1) comprising a first electrode (anode) (12) and a second electrode (cathode) (12) and a plurality of dilution compartments (15) , each dilution compartment including a first region (15A) of ion exchange media (21) having a first average particle size of 500 to 1000 microns, a second region (15B) of ion exchange media (22) having a second average particle size of 100 to 100 microns, a third region (15C) of ion exchange media (21) having a third average particle size of 500 to 1000 microns , a height and thus corresponding volume of the second ion exchange media being 66% of the dilution compartment, thus the volume of the second region being greater than the total of the first and third regions with the remaining 34% , the ion exchange media in each region being the same 50/50 wt% mixture of anion and cation ion exchange resin merely with different particle sizes ( Paragraphs 0013, 0031, 0032, 0037, 0045 and 0046 ; Figures 1 and 5) . As to claim 2, Kato teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The apparatus of Kato , structed as in the present claims, would be capable of performing the functional language of claim 2 depending on operating conditions, such as temperature, applied voltage/current, the content of the starting fluid, the inlet pressure of the starting fluid and the flow rate of the starting fluid (MPEP 2114) . As to claim s 13 and 14 , Kato teaches the apparatus of claim 1 2 . Kato further teaches that the anion and cation exchange resins are functional to remove difficult to remove components, thus considered to be “strong” anion and cation exchange resins (Paragraph 0040) . 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. Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato as applied to claim s 15 and 16 above, and further in view of JP 2004-167291 to Miwa et al. (Miwa) . As to claims 17 and 19, Kato teaches the apparatus of claims 15 and 16. However, Kato fails to discuss the crosslinking of the anion or cation exchange materials. However, Miwa also discusses electrodeionization with mixed anion and cation exchange resins for water treatment and teaches that the degree of crosslinking should be optimized in view of strength and electrical resistance, which are inversely related, and teaches that desirable values is 3 to 8% crosslinking for the anion exchange resin and 5 to 10% for the cation exchange resin (Paragraphs 0019-0021) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to crosslink the anion and cation resins of Kato as in Miwa in order to optimize strength and electrical resistance as taught by Miwa. Claim s 1 , 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 , 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0213066 A1 to Gifford et al. (Gifford) in view of Kato . As to claim s 1 , 3 , 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12, Gifford teaches an electrochemical water treatment device connected to a source of water to be treated having weakly ionized species, the device comprising an electrochemical separation module (1 00 ) connected to the source of water to be treated, the module (1 00 ) comprising a first electrode (anode) (12 2 ) and a second electrode (cathode) (12 0 ) and a plurality of dilution compartments (1 60 ) , each dilution compartment including a first region (1 12 A) of ion exchange media having a first average particle size of 600 microns , a second region (1 12 B) of ion exchange media having a second average particle size of 150 to 300 microns , a third region (1 12 C) of ion exchange media having a third average particle size of 600 microns , the ion exchange media comprising 50/50 mixture of anion and cation exchange resins (Paragraphs 0040, 0090 and 0091 ; Figure 1) . However, Gifford is silent as to the specific relative volumes of the regions. However, Kato also discusses layered mixed anion and cation exchange resins with a smaller particle size middle region and larger particle size upper and lower layers in dilution compartments in electrodeionization cells and teaches that the center region should comprises for example, 66% of the volume to ensure effective deionization ( Paragraphs 0013, 0031, 0032, 0037, 0045 and 0046 ; Figures 1 and 5) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the second region of Gifford at 66% of the volume, thus larger than the combined remaining 34% volume of the first and third region, with the expectation of ensuring effective deionization as taught by Kato. As to claim 2, the combination of Gifford and Kato teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The apparatus of the combination , structed as in the present claims, would be capable of performing the functional language of claim 2 depending on operating conditions, such as temperature, applied voltage/current, the content of the starting fluid, the inlet pressure of the starting fluid and the flow rate of the starting fluid (MPEP 2114) . As to claims 24 and 25, the combination of Gifford and Kato teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Gifford further teaches that the module comprises concentration compartments which can include ion exchange media identical to that of the dilution compartments (Paragraph 0040) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CIEL P Contreras whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7946 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9 AM to 4 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 James Lin can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-8902 . 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. /CIEL P CONTRERAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794