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. Claim s 3, 4, 9, 10, 15, 15, 17 and 18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. As to claim 3, the claim recites the limitation “within a range of 25%” it is unclear what boundaries this range intends to claim, i.e. is this a range of up to 25%, is this a range of plus or minus 10% of 25%, etc. As to claims 4, 14 and 15, the claims recite the limitation “at least one large grain size layer”. However, claim 1, upon which claims 4, 14 and 15 depend, already introduces the limitation of “a large grain size layer”. Therefore, it is unclear as to if the limitation of claims 4, 14 and 15, intend to refer back to that of claim 1 or to a new and separate limitation. For the purpose of Examination, each claim has been broadly interpreted to include, at least, both of the above interpretations. As to claims 9 and 17, the c laim recites the limitation " the first small desalting chamber " , “the one small desalting chamber” and “the other small deionization chamber” . There is insufficient antecedent basis for th e s e limitation s in the claim. 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 1-4 and 6-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2019-117327 A to Kato (Kato) . As to claim s 1 , 4, 6 and 7 , Kato teaches an electrodeionization device for removing boron from water to be treated comprising boron, the device comprising an anode (11) , a cathode (12) and a plurality of deionization chambers (16) each partitioned by a pair of ion exchange membranes (13/14) between the anode (11) and the cathode (12) , the deionization chambers (16) filled with an ion exchange resin; wherein the resin in the deionization chambers (1 6 ) is filed in layers along a water flow direction, an upper layer and a lower layer comprising a large grain size of resin with an average grain size larger than 0.4 mm and a middle layer formed with small size grains at 0.1 to 0.4 mm (Paragraphs 0012-0014 and 0021-0022; Figures 1 and 2) . further teaches that instead of providing the layers fully separated, the small size layer can be mixed with large size particles at a ratio of, preferably 9:1 to 7:3 large to small (10-30% small), thus rendering obvious forming any one of these stacked layers, thus for example, the middle layer and not the upper and lower layers, as a mixed layer as a combination of disclosed embodiments. As to claim s 2 and 8 , Kato teaches the apparatus of claim s 1 and 7 . Kato teaches that the mixed grain size layer is made of an anion exchange resin (Paragraph 0022) . As to claim s 3 and 16 , Kato teaches the apparatus of claim s 1 and 2 . Kato further teaches that the middle layer, the mixed layer, is filled at about 100 mm along the length of flow with 500 mm combined of the upper and lower layers, thus approximately 17% and in the range of up to 25% (Paragraph 0031) . As to claim s 9 , 10, 17 and 1 8 , Kato teaches the apparatus of claim s 1 and 7 . Kato further teaches that a portion of the water passing through the deionization chamber (16) should be sent to the concentration chamber (15) , the chambers separated by an ion exchange membrane, thus each chamber capable of being considered a small deionization chamber separated by an intermediate ion exchange membrane, the first small deionization chamber (for example rightmost chamber 16) filed with anion exchange resins and the second small deionization chamber (for example rightmost chamber 15) closer to the cathode and filed with (Paragraphs 0023, 0024 and 0026; Figure 1) . As to claim s 11 and 13 , Kato teaches an electrodeionization method for removing boron from water to be treated comprising bo ron, the method comprising passing water to be treated through a plurality of deionization chambers (16) each partitioned by a pair of ion exchange membranes (13/14) and arranged between an anode (11) and a cathode (12) , while applying a DC voltage between the anode (11) and the cathode (12) , the deionization chambers (16) filled with an ion exchange resin; wherein the resin in the deionization chambers (1 6 ) is filed in layers along a water flow direction, an upper layer and a lower layer comprising a large grain size of resin with an average grain size larger than 0.4 mm and a middle layer formed with small size grains at 0.1 to 0.4 mm (Paragraphs 0012-0014 and 0021-0022; Figures 1 and 2) . further teaches that instead of providing the layers fully separated, the small size layer can be mixed with large size particles at a ratio of, preferably 9:1 to 7:3 large to small (10-30% small), thus rendering obvious forming any one of these stacked layers, thus for example, the middle layer and not the upper and lower layers, as a mixed layer as a combination of disclosed embodiments. As to claim 12, Kato teaches the method of claim 11. Kato further teaches that each of the layers comprises an anion exchange resin (Paragraph 0022) . As to claim s 14 and 15 , Kato teaches the apparatus of claim s 1 and 2 . Kato further teaches that the upper and lower grain size layers comprise anion exchange resin (Paragraph 0022) . Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2020-078722 A to Kato et al. (Kato ‘722) . As to claim 5, Kato teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Kato gives merely one example of the percentage of the resin that comprises the central layer with smaller particles of approximately 17% and thus fails to teach between 20% and 80%. However, Kato’ ‘722 also discusses a deionization chamber with a central smaller particle size layer and teaches that this layer should comprise, for example, 66% of the volume (and thus corresponding height) in order to ensure effective deionization (Paragraphs 0013, 0032, 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 middle region of Kato with a height of, for example, 66% in order to ensure effective deionization as taught by Kato ‘722. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claim s 1. 2. 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17 and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of copending Application No. 18/869,362 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2013/0068624 A1 to Hasegawa et al. – Discussing a narrower interpretation of the intermediate ion exchange membrane US 2008/0067069 A1 to Gifford et al. - Discussing layers and mixtures of resin sizes 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