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. 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. Priority 3. This application is a 371 of PCT/JP2022/003045 01/27/2022 . Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application JAPAN 2021-060715 03/31/2021 filed on 09/27/23 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS), filed on 12/27/23, 11/21/24, 04/15/25, 08/21/25, 09/24/25, 10/30/25, and 02/03/26 have been considered. Please refer to Applicant's copy of the 1449 submitted herewith. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 . Claim s 1-3, 6 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikazu (JP 2007117781) in view of Hiroyuki (JP 2004181351). Regarding claim s 1 , 6 , Yoshikazu discloses a dry ion exchange resin manufacturing method and/or device comprising: a purifier for obtaining a purified cation exchange resin by bringing a catio n exchange resin that represents a purification target into contact with a mineral acid solution having a metal impurity content of not more than 1 mg/L and a concentration of at least 5% by weight to purify the cation exchange resin, wherein a total metal impurity elution amount eluted when hydrochloric acid with a concentration of 3% by weight is passed through the purified cation exchange resin with a volume ratio of 25 times is not more than 5 µg/mL-R (para [0010]-[0011], [0014], [0020]). Yoshikazu further discloses dryer for drying the purified cation exchange resin by vacuum drying, shelf drying, and hot air drying until the moisture content is 10% or less (para [0014], [0018]). Yoshikazu does not disclose drying the purified cation exchange resin under reduced pressure ate 80 0 C or lower until the moisture content is not more than 5 wt %. However, Hiroyuki discloses a method for refining a non-aqueous liquid material by bringing the non-aqueous liquid material into contact with a cation exchange resin having a lower moisture content of 3-30% (claims) reducing the pressure to 1 mm Hg or less and drying at a certain temperature using an abderhalden dryer or the like as an example of a drying method (para [0013]), and discloses example 1 in which drying is carried out until the moisture content is 0.7-4.9%. In addition, it is indicated that in the case of an anion exchange resin, vacuum drying is carried out at a temperature of 60°C or lower in order to prevent degradation caused by drying at a high temperature (para [0020]). In addition, with respect to a method for producing a dry strongly acidic cation exchange resin by vacuum drying an H-type strongly acidic cation exchange resin at a temperature of 40-120°C (claims), it is indicated that a temperature that exceeds 120°C causes problems in terms of the heat resistance of an ion exchange resin (para [0018]). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of invention, to modify Yoshikazu by performing the drying under reduced pressure vacuum drying at a temperature of 60°C or lower until the moisture content is 0.7-4.9%, as taught by Hiroyuki . The rationale to do so would have been motivation provided by of Hiroyuki that to do so would prevent degradation caused by drying at high temperature. Regarding claim 2 , Yoshikazu discloses the amounts of sodium (Na), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg) and iron (Fe) in the mineral acid solution used during the obtaining of the purified cation exchange resin are each not more than 200 µg/L (para [0015]). Regarding claim 3 , Yoshikazu does not disclose mixing a dry cation exchange resin obtained during the drying of the purified cation exchange resin with an anion exchange resin having a moisture content of not more than 10% by weight. However, Hiroyuki discloses a method for refining a non-aqueous liquid material by bringing the non-aqueous liquid material into contact with a mixed ion exchange resin comprising a cation exchange resin having a moisture content of 3-30 wt % and an anion exchange resin having a moisture content of 30 wt % or less ( claims) , encompasses claimed range of not more than 10 wt % , and discloses test examples 2 and 4 (example 2) in which a mixed ion exchange resin is obtained by mixing a H-type cation exchange resin having a moisture content of 8.0% with an OH-type weakly acidic anion exchange resin having a moisture content of 6.2% (a mixing step is disclosed). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of invention, to modify Yoshikazu by mixing a dry cation exchange resin obtained during the drying of the purified cation exchange resin with an anion exchange resin having a moisture content of 30 wt % or less , as taught by Hiroyuki . The rationale to do so would have been motivation provided by of Hiroyuki that to do so would provide the refin ed liquid material . A prima facie case of obviousness exists for the method, wherein Hiroyuki discloses anion exchange resin having a moisture content of 30 wt % or less, encompassing the requirement of claim 3 . See In re Wertheim regarding prima facie cases with overlapping ranges (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) See MPEP § 2144.05). Regarding claim s 9-10 , Yoshikazu discloses a dry ion exchange resin manufacturing method and/or device but does not disclose a treatment target liquid purifying method and/or device comprising purifying a treatment target liquid having ionic impurities and a moisture concentration of not more than 1% by weight using the dry ion exchange resin obtained in the dry ion exchange resin manufacturing method and/or device. However, Hiroyuki discloses treating a non-aqueous liquid material having a moisture content of 1.0% or less (see paragraph [0015]). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of invention, to modify Yoshikazu to purify the liquid, as taught by Hiroyuki . The rationale to do so would have been motivation provided by of Hiroyuki to obtain purif ied liquid with a moisture concentration of 1 wt % or less. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikazu in view of Hiroyuki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sharma (WO 2020069558 ). Yoshikazu includes the features of claim 1 above. Regarding claim 4 , Yoshikazu disclose s weakly acidic catio n exchange resin (para [0014]) but does not disclose the cation exchange resin has aminomethyl - phosphonic acid groups or iminodiacetic acid groups as chelating groups. However, Sharma discloses Lanxess MDS TP208™ and TP 260™ resins, both weakly acidic macroporous cation exchange resins with chelating iminodiacetic acid groups and aminomethylphosphonic groups, respectively, were employed successfully in removing alkaline earth metal ions to an acceptable level at <100 ppb (para [0044]). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of invention, to modify Yoshikazu with Lanxess MDS TP208™ and TP 260™ resins, both weakly acidic macroporous cation exchange resins with chelating iminodiacetic acid groups and aminomethylphosphonic groups, respectively , as taught by Sharma. The rationale to do so would have been motivation provided by of Sharma that to do so would remov e alkaline earth metal ions to an acceptable level at <100 ppb . 9 . Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikazu in view of Hiroyuki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ito (JP 2004249238) and Atsuo (JP 2003026251). Yoshikazu includes the features of claim 1 above. Regarding claim 5 , Yoshikazu does not disclose the dry ion exchange resin is stored in a container in which an interior portion that contacts the dry ion exchange resin is coated with a metal-free material, and for which a 24-hour water vapor permeability is not more than 8 g/m². However, Ito discloses sealing a dried cation exchange resin in a container or a bag (para [0032], [0033]). With respect to packaging a moisture-absorbing ceramic, Atsuo indicates that by housing and sealing a mois t ure-absorbing ceramic in a packaging container having a moisture permeability of 2.0 g/m² day or less, it is possible to suppress changes in the characteristics of the ceramic during long term storage (para [0052]), and indicates that it is possible to use a container or the like formed from a laminate film in which an aluminum foil is laminated between a PET (poly(ethylene terephthalate)) film and a PE (polyethylene) film ( para [0025]). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of invention, to modify Yoshikazu to house a dried ion exchange resin in a container , as taught by Ito, wherein the container is a moisture-proof container as taught by Atsuo . The rationale to do so would have been motivation provided by of Ito and Atsou that to do so would provide a moisture free housing of a dried product. Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikazu in view of Hiroyuki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kimura ( JP 2012081411 ). Yoshikazu includes the features of claim 1 above. Regarding claim s 7-8 , Yoshikazu does not disclose the dryer comprises a heater installed so as to cover at least a portion of an exterior of a column inside which the purified cation exchange resin is packed, and a pump that reduces a pressure inside the column and wherein the dryer comprises a drying oven that stores and heats the purified cation exchange resin, and a pump that reduces the pressure inside the drying oven. However, Kimura discloses a solvent dehydration apparatus in which moisture contained in an organic solvent is adsorbed and removed by bringing the organic solvent into contact with an adsorbent material such as a cation exchange resin, wherein the apparatus has: an adsorption tank (corresponding to a column) filled with an adsorbent material; a depressurizer for reducing the pressure inside the adsorption tank; and a heating device (corresponding to a heater) for heating the adsorption tank (see claims), and discloses heating an adsorbent material 11 in a heating device 16, depressurizing an adsorption tank 15 by means of a depressurizer 24 (corresponding to a pump: see fig. 1), and discharging moisture adsorbed on the adsorbent material 11 from the adsorbent material 11 via an adsorption tank depressurization pathway 22 ( para [0011]). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of invention, to modify the dryer of Yoshikazu with heater, pump, and drying oven, as taught by Kimura for the proper operation of the dryer for drying the ion exchange resin. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KUMAR R BHUSHAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (313)446-4807 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9.00 AM to 5.50 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 RANDY P GULAKOWSKI can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1302 . 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. /KUMAR R BHUSHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766