CTNF 18/141,121 CTNF 101911 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-30-02 AIA 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 applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 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. 07-34-10 AIA Regarding claim s 5 and 10 , the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-3, 5- 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US 3993517 A (henceforth referred to as "Schneider") . In regards to claims 1 and 6, Schneider teaches a thin cell gasket-spacer (i.e., a spacer) as shown in figure 2 and described in column 3 lines 46 - 58 comprising: a mesh component (44) with a plurality of protrusions featuring holes (42) a gasket component (46) defining the central area where the mesh is located, featuring a plurality of protrusions (46a) featuring a hole (42) that lines up with the mesh. Due to Schneider’s method of fabrication of the gasket component, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the thickness of the gasket protrusions is substantially the same as the thickness of the mesh. Regarding the spacer being for “use in electrodialysis and deionization systems” as stated in claim 1 or being for “reducing ion exchange membrane polarization effects and increasing the limiting current density in an electrodialysis system” as stated in claim 6, these are considered to be statements of intended use and are not considered to further limit the claimed spacers comprising a mesh and a gasket. See MPEP § 2111.02(II). In regards to claims 2 and 7, Schneider teaches in column 1 lines 22 - 24 that “thin cell separators” have thicknesses of approximately 0.5 mm. This is equivalent to the claimed central mesh sheet having a thickness of approximately 0.5 mm since the thickness of the separator in an embodiment described by Schneider in column 1 lines 47 – 60 involves rolling the gasket until it is approximately as thick as the mesh. This fits within the range of claimed mesh thicknesses. This also demonstrates the thickness of the gasket edge being substantially the same as the mesh. In regards to claims 3 and 8, Schneider teaches in figure 1 and describes in column 3 lines 31 – 33, a spacer gasket (24) that comprises an outer edge, open central area, and holes in the top and bottom that match the spacer. The mesh of the central area is voluminous. Regarding the spacer gasket being “for receiving a volume of electroactive media” in claims 3 and 8, these are considered to be statements of intended use and are not used to further limit the claimed combination of spacer and gasket. In Schneider’s in figure 1 and described in column 3 lines 18 – 45, there is an example electrodesalination system featuring multiple of the spacers (24 and 30) and since the spacers can be reasonably interpreted as gaskets as described above, figure 1 demonstrates the spacer of claim 1 (24) being used in conjunction with a voluminous spacer gasket (30). In regards to claims 5 and 10, Schneider teaches in column 4 lines 24 – 30 that the material of the gasket is a polymeric material, preferably a silicone rubber . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider as applied to claim s 3 and 8 above, and further in view of US 6123823 A (henceforth referred to as "Mani") and US 9422176 B2 (henceforth referred to as "Ng") . Schneider teaches the voluminous spacer gaskets of claims 3 and 8 as explained above. Schneider fails to teach a gasket edge greater than 2.0 mm. Mani teaches in column 5 lines 54 – 59 that gaskets are usually between 0.5 to 3 mm. Ng teaches in column 12 lines 64 – 67 that the thickness of a spacer may be higher for applications where energy consumption is not a high priority and plugging and fouling are particular concerns. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the gasket of Schneider to have the thickness greater than 2 mm as described in Mani for the purpose of preventing plugging and fouling as taught by Ng. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY SABATOSE whose telephone number is (571)272-9893. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-Th. 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, Nikki Dees can be reached at 571-270-3435. 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. /A.C.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 1791 /Nikki H. Dees/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791 Application/Control Number: 18/141,121 Page 2 Art Unit: 1791 Application/Control Number: 18/141,121 Page 3 Art Unit: 1791 Application/Control Number: 18/141,121 Page 4 Art Unit: 1791 Application/Control Number: 18/141,121 Page 5 Art Unit: 1791