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 Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: for sake of clarity, it is suggested that the phrase “is seated, moves to continuously transfer” be written as “is seated, that moves to continuously transfer,” or “is seated, which moves to continuously transfer,” or “is seated, configured to move to continuously transfer . ” Appropriate correction is required. Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: for sake of clarity, it is suggested that the phrase “is formed in a perforated structure” be written as “is formed as a perforated structure.” Appropriate correction is required. Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “comprising a and drum cooling device” should be written as “comprising a drum cooling device.” Appropriate correction is required. 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 1-13 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. The term “ close ” (in the phrase “comes into close contact”) in C laim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ close ” 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. In other words, Claim 1 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what distance(s) constitute “close , ” or alternatively, what distance(s) would render the claimed active material in “close” contact between the guide device and the outer circumferential surface of the drum. Claim 1 recites “so that a cleaning solution remaining in the positive electrode active material introduced by the transfer member is dehydrated.” Claim 1 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear if said phrase means that the claimed cleaning solution is introduced by th e transfer member, or if said phrase means that the claimed cleaning solution is already present in the active material prior to the transfer member. For purposes of examination, either of said interpretations will be considered appropriate. Proper clarification is required. Claim 4 is 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. Claim 4 recites that the first electrode has “insolubility.” Claim 4 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what is meant by the first electrode has “insolubility.” For example, it is unclear if said claim limitation means that the first electrode is insoluble to a specific/predetermined degree, or if said claim limitation means that the first electrode is insoluble with respect to specific/predetermined materials (especially given that all materials generally exhibit “insolubility” to at least some extent with respect to at least some substances). Claims 6-10, 13 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. The term “ close ” (in the phrase “come into close contact”) in C laim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ close ” 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. In other words, Claim 6 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what distance(s) constitute “close,” or alternatively, what distance(s) would render the claimed filter in “close” contact with the guide device. Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 1-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objection(s) and rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Independent Claim 1 (Claims 2-13 each ultimately depend from Claim 1) requires an apparatus for continuous electric dehydration of a positive electrode active material, wherein the apparatus comprises at least the claimed rotating drum comprising a first electrode, the claimed transfer member specifically having a positive electrode active material seated thereon and moving to continuously transfer said active material to said drum, the claimed guide device comprising a second electrode for generating an electric field caused by a potential different between the first and second electrodes so that the claimed cleaning solution is dehydrated using electrophoresis due to the electric field. The closest prior art references relevant to at least independent Claim 1 are Lee (US 8,293,090) and Lee et al. (KR 20110076513, using the provided English machine translation for citation purposes). Lee teaches an electroosmotic dehydrator (Abstract). As illustrated in Figures 1-2, Lee teaches that the dehydrator comprises a rotating drum (1) having a cooling jacket (8) mounted to an inner surface thereof and a copper plate (4) mounted to an outer surface thereof, a fiber cloth belt (3), and a caterpillar (col. 2 lines 8-67). Lee teaches that the dehydrator dehydrates sludge , seated on the fiber cloth belt and guided by the caterpillar, by separating water contained in the sludge from the sludge itself through electrophoresis and capillary action by means of a voltage differen ce between the rotating drum and the caterpillar (col. 2 lines 8-67). Lee et al. teaches an electroosmotic dehydrator (Abstract). As illustrated in Figure 1, Lee et al. teaches that the dehydrator comprises a pressurized belt (40), a drum (50), and a caterpillar (60) (Page 5 of translation). Lee et al. teaches that the caterpillar is installed facing the drum so as to allow dehydration of sludge, seated on the pressurized belt and guided by the caterpillar, by electrophoresis by means of a potential difference between the caterpillar and the drum (Pages 5-6 of translation). While both Lee and Lee et al. disclose electroosmotic dehydrators which remove water via electrophoresis, each of said dehydrators is specifically configured to process and remove water from sludge as opposed to an active material. Accordingly, neither of said dehydrators specifically includes a “transfer member” (e.g. the fiber cloth belt of Lee or the pressurized belt of Lee et al.) which explicitly has a positive electrode active material seated thereon, and neither of said dehydrators is explicitly configured to dehydrate a cleaning solution remaining in said positive electrode active material using electrophoresis. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to use the dehydrators of Lee or Lee et al., which are specifically configured to process sludge which is not an active material let alone a positive electrode active material, to dehydrate an electrochemically active material such as a positive electrode active material. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7595 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 7AM-3PM EST M-F . 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 5712707871. 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. /MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728