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. Specification The disclosure is objected to because it appears to be a literal translation of the foreign language application to which priority is claimed. Specifically, the specification contains the same types of errors found in the claims, as described in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), below. For example, p. 4 recites claim 1 verbatim, and the specification recites “during the working stage” on p. 4, 6, 7, and 8, but does not recite any other stage or define what “a working stage” is . It is thus unclear what, precisely, many of the terms used in the specification are intended to describe. A substitute specification , including the claims, in proper idiomatic English and in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b) is required . The substitute specification filed must be accompanied by a statement that it contains no new matter. 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. Claim 1 is 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, The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. For example, under U.S. practice, each claim must be drawn to one of four statutory categories i.e., a process, a machine /apparatus , a manufacture, and a composition of matter (MPEP § 2106.03). As currently drafted, it is not clear whether claim 1 is intended to be drawn to a process or a machine /apparatus . Specifically, claim 1 recites “A high-efficient magnesium ion removal system” in line 1, which indicates the claim is a process claim. However, claim 1 also recites e.g., “during the working stage … sodium chloride is fed into the cathode cell” in lines 16-18, and “the mesh materials for precipitate aggregation in the alkali cell are periodically replaced” in lines 27-28, which appear intended to indicate method steps rather than functional limitations of a machine/apparatus. The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim limitations differs greatly for claims drawn to a method versus claims drawn to a machine/apparatus (see e.g., MPEP § 2111 and 2114). To correct this issue, it is recommended that Applicant amend the claim to recite e.g., “A method for magnesium ion removal from salt lake brine”, if the claim was intended to be drawn to a method, or to remove references to a stages and/or durations if the claim is intended to be drawn to a machine/apparatus. Furthermore, as currently drafted, the claim uses “wherein” as a transitional phrase between the preamble and the claim body i.e., “ A high-efficient magnesium ion removal system for salt lake brine based on in situ alkali production using bipolar membrane electrochemical process, wherein ”. It is not clear whether the term “wherein” is intended to be open or closed with respect to the inclusion of unrecited components or steps. I.e., it is unclear whether “wherein” is intended to correspond to “comprising” or “consisting of” (MPEP § 2111.03). To correct this issue, examiner recommends amending the claim to recite “comprising” or “consisting of” after the claim preamble. Furthermore, the claims as currently drafted lack antecedent basis for many of the recited terms. For example, line 3 recites “the single-channel bipolar membrane unit”, but the claim does not recite “a single-channel bipolar membrane unit” and line 9 recites “the multi-channel bipolar membrane unit”, but the claim does not recite “a multi-channel bipolar membrane unit”. It is therefore unclear which of the recited elements are intended to be required by the claim. In particular, it is unclear whether the apparatus claimed in claim 1 (either directly or as part of a method claim) incorporates two discrete units i.e., a “single-channel bipolar membrane unit” and a “multi-channel bipolar membrane unit” that are connected in some manner, whether the “single-channel bipolar membrane unit” is meant to be a component of the “multi-channel bipolar membrane unit”, whether the “single-channel bipolar membrane unit” and the “multi-channel bipolar membrane unit” are intended to be optional alternatives, one for another, whether these recitations are intended to be product-by-process claims (MPEP § 2113), or whether the claim is intended to be a method claim, wherein the steps required to construct the “single-channel bipolar membrane unit” and the “multi-channel bipolar membrane unit” are intended to be positively recited steps of the method. Examiner recommends amending the claim to positively recite the components that are intended to be claimed, and to clearly indicate which components, if any, are optional using phraseology such as “optionally”. For example, if Applicant intended the claim to be drawn to an apparatus having any number of acid an alkali cells, Applicant could use language such as “a bipolar membrane unit comprising, in order: a cathode; at least one pair of ion exchange membranes; a first anion exchange membrane; and an anode, wherein each of the at least one pair of ion exchange membranes consist of a second anion exchange membrane and a bipolar membrane, the anion exchange membrane being closer to the cathode than the bipolar membrane, a cathode cell containing the cathode is formed by a first anion exchange membrane of the at least one pair of ion exchange membranes, an acid cell is formed on an anode side of each of the second anion exchange membranes, an alkali cell is formed on an anode side of each of the bipolar ion exchange membranes, and an anode cell is formed on an anode side of the first anion exchange membrane …”. Furthermore, it is not clear what the term “outstretched mesh materials for precipitate aggregation ”, as recited in lines 6 -7 and 13 -14 , and “mesh materials for precipitate aggregation ”, as recited in lines 26 , 27, 28, and 31 are intended to describe. Specifically, while these terms appear to refer to the same component of the invention, the use of two distinct terms implies the terms refer to two discrete components. Furthermore, it is not clear whether the term (s) is /are intended to merely describe e.g., a spacer or mesh structure, whether the term (s) is /are intended to indicate a particular material is used, or whether the term (s) is /are intended to recite a spacer or mesh structure limited functionally i.e., a spacer capable of aggregating precipitates. Examiner recommends amending the term(s) to recite e.g., “a mesh”, “a mesh capable of aggregating precipitates”, or a particular mesh material, depending on Applicant’s intended meaning. Fu rthermore, it is not clear if the term “the replaced mesh materials for precipitate aggregation” recited in line 28 is intended to refer to the spent mesh materials containing recovered magnesium, or the fresh mesh materials with which they have been replaced. Beyond the examples provided above, the following are also considered to render the claim indefinite: “the layout parallel to the bipolar membrane” in lines 7 and 14 lack antecedent basis; “the outlet of the acid cell” in lines 8 and 15 lack antecedent basis; “the alkali cell” and “the outlet of the acid cell” in lines 14 and 15 are unclear because the “multi-channel bipolar membrane unit” comprises more than one “alkali cell” and “acid cell”; “the working stage” in line 16 lacks antecedent basis; the phrase “would be” in lines 22 and 24 create uncertainty as to whether e.g., the formation of hydrochloric acid in the phrase “chloride ions permeating across the anion exchange membrane would be mixed with protons produced by the bipolar membrane and generate hydrochloric acid” in lines 21-22 is necessary or optional; “magnesium hydroxide is dissolved into magnesium chloride solution” in line 30 implies that the acid-washing cell is filled with a magnesium chloride solution into which the magnesium hydroxide is dissolved, but it appears Applicant intended to indicate the magnesium hydroxide reacts with hydrochloric acid to form a magnesium chloride solution. For at least the above reasons, claim 1 is indefinite. Note that any claim amendments, including those suggested by Examiner, must not introduce new matter, and should be accompanied by corresponding amendments to the specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b) (see objection to the Specification, above). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mani ‘498 (US Pat. Pub. 5814498) . Regarding claim 1, claim 1 has been interpreted as an apparatus/machine claim, using an open-ended transitional phrase i.e., comprising. Mani ‘498 teaches a high-efficient magnesium ion removal system for salt lake brine based on in situ alkali production using bipolar membrane electrochemical process (see below) comprising, in order: a cathode (“cathode ” Fig. 2 , annotated below); a pair of ion exchange membranes (comprising “anion membrane 4 2 ” and “bipolar membrane 40 ” Fig. 2 ); a first anion exchange membrane (the first “anion exchange membrane 42 ” annotated Fig. 2 ); and an anode (“anode” Fig. 2 ), wherein each of the at least one pair of ion exchange membranes consist of a second anion exchange membrane (“anion membrane 42 ” Fig. 2 ) and a bipolar membrane (“bipolar membrane 40 ” Fig. 1 ), the anion exchange membrane being closer to the cathode than the bipolar membrane (see annotated Fig. 2) , a cathode cell containing the cathode is formed by a first anion exchange membrane of the at least one pair of ion exchange membranes (see annotated Fig. 2) , an acid cell is formed on an anode side of each of the second anion exchange membranes (“compartments A ” col. 8 lines 11-45 and see annotated Fig. 2) , an alkali cell is formed on an anode side of each of the bipolar ion exchange membranes (“compartments B ” col. 8 lines 11-45 and see annotated Fig. 2) , and an anode cell is formed on an anode side of the first anion exchange membrane (see annotated Fig. 2) wherein, a mesh for precipitate aggregation is inserted into the alkali cells with a layout parallel to the bipolar membrane (“Gaskets … form the solution compartments A and B . Each gasket had an open area …the open areas are filled with an open meshed screen” col. 8 lines 11-45 and see below), and the outlet of the acid cell is connected with an acid-washing cell (“acid tank 82 ” Fig. 4). Annotated Mani ‘498 Fig. 2 Regarding the limitations “a high-efficient magnesium ion removal system for salt lake brine based on in situ alkali production using bipolar membrane electrochemical process ” and “a mesh for precipitate aggregation”, these limitations have been interpreted as functional limitations. I.e., these limitations have been interpreted as limiting what the apparatus does, rather than what it is. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional recitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114). In the instant case, Mani ‘498 teaches magnesium precipitates in the base compartments if the Mg concentration in the feed is allowed to exceed ~10 ppm (col. 10 line 50 through col. 11 line 5). The system of Mani ‘498 is therefore capable of removing magnesium ions via alkali production, and the meshes in the base compartments of Mani ‘498 are capable of aggregating magnesium precipitates. Mani ‘498 therefore anticipates the limitations “a high-efficient magnesium ion removal system for salt lake brine based on in situ alkali production using bipolar membrane electrochemical process ” and “a mesh for precipitate aggregation” as they are currently interpreted. Regarding the limitations “ during the working stage of the bipolar membrane system with in situ alkali production and high-efficient magnesium ion removal from salt lake brine, sodium chloride aqueous solution is fed into the cathode cell, in which aqueous solution containing sodium hydroxide and sodium chloride is generated, meanwhile chloride ions are driven away by direct-current electric field and permeate across the anion exchange membrane and into the acid cell; pure water is fed into the acid cell in which chloride ions permeating across the anion exchange membrane would be mixed with protons produced by the bipolar membrane and generate hydrochloric acid and then hydrochloric acid is fed into the acid-washing cell; salt lake brine is fed into the alkali cell , in which magnesium ions would be reacted with hydroxide groups produced by the bipolar membrane and generate magnesium hydroxide particles hardly soluble in water in the mesh materials for precipitate aggregation, and magnesium-removed salt lake brine is produced simultaneously; the mesh materials for precipitate aggregation in the alkali cell are periodically replaced, while the replaced mesh materials for precipitate aggregation , which have been packed with magnesium hydroxide particles, are transferred into the acid-washing cell , in which magnesium hydroxide is dissolved into magnesium chloride solution, and the mesh materials for precipitate aggregation will be recycled after regeneration. ”, these limitations have been interpreted as recitations of intended use. I.e., they have been interpreted to describe how the apparatus is intended to be used, rather than what it is. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a recitation of intended use limits the apparatus such that it is structurally capable of performing the intended use (MPEP § 2114). In the instant case, the system of Mani ‘498 comprises a bipolar membrane electrodialyzer with alternating anion exchange membranes and bipolar membranes, a mesh for precipitate aggregation disposed in the alkali cells of the electrodialyzer, and the acid cells of the electrodialyzer are connected to an acid-washing cell. Mani ‘498 further teaches that hydrochloric acid may be used to remove precipitated magnesium from the mesh for precipitate aggregation (col. 10 line 61 through col. 11 line 5). It is therefore considered that the system of Mani ‘498 is capable of being fed with sodium chloride, to generate sodium hydroxide in the alkali cells and hydrochloric acid in the acid cells, aggregating precipitated magnesium hydroxide on the mesh for precipitate aggregation, wherein the mesh for precipitate aggregation may be replaced, the precipitated magnesium hydroxide being dissolved in the produced hydrochloric acid to form a magnesium chloride solution , and the mesh subsequently recycled. Mani ‘498 therefore anticipates the limitations indicated above as they have been interpreted. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Eisaman (US Pat. Pub. 2017/0341982 A1) describes the use of a bipolar membrane electrodialyzer for the recovery of magnesium hydroxide to be used in concrete (see e.g., Fig. 1b and paras. 28-29), and is considered to provide a person having ordinary skill in the art with a motivation for modifying methods using bipolar membrane electrodialyzers such that magnesium is recovered . Mani ‘191 (US Pat. No. 5972191) teaches a bipolar membrane electrodialyzer comprising alternating bipolar and anion exchange membranes, wherein magnesium precipitates in the alkali chambers (see col. 13 lines 15-45 and Fig. 9). Mani ‘061 (US Pat. No. 6627061 B2) teaches a method of removing magnesium salts from the alkali loop of a bipolar membrane electrodialyzer using an ion exchange column disposed on the base loop , wherein the ion exchange column is regenerated with acid (see e.g., col. 12 lines 9-55 and Fig. 5). 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