DETAILED ACTION Status of Claims Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 21-25 are cancelled. 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 s 1 , 6, 9, 13, 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the device” may be more appropriately written as “the electrode device” for consistency. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 1-4 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the passage” may be more appropriately written as “the internal passage” for consistency. 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 10 , 13-14, 17 - 19 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. Claim 10 recites the limitation "the electrode power supply" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Regarding claim 13, the phrase “which may be mechanical or ultrasonic” is indefinite because it is unclear if the mechanical and/or ultrasonic is required. Based on the optional claim language “may” it is unclear what vibration is present. Regarding claim 14, the phrase “which may vary in size, shape and spacing” is indefinite because it is unclear if the claimed phrasing is required or not. Regarding claim 17, the usage of “electrode(s)” is indefinite because it is unclear how many electrodes are required. Claim 17 depends on claim 1. Claim 1 appears to include a single electrode. Regarding claim 19, the phrase “which may have a frequency of at least 1 Hz and at most 1000 Hz” is indefinite because it is unclear if the frequency range is required or not. The optional claim language including “may” renders the claim indefinite. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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(s) 1 -3, 5-7, 13 , 15 , 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pop et al. (US 5,695,621). Regarding claim 1, Pop discloses an electroplating device for treatment of the inside of a generator tube (22) (Col. 5 lines 5-9) (= an electrochemical surface treatment apparatus for the treatment of internal surfaces of a pipe; the claimed “for treatment of radioactively contaminated” does not further structurally limit the claimed apparatus, the phrasing is directed towards the intended use and also the material worked upon), the apparatus including : An anode tube (12) (Col. 4 lines 6-17) with an electrolyte solution (24) (Col. 5 lnines 10-18) circulating within an internal duct (20) (Col. 4 lines 46-51) (Figure 3) (= an electrode device, the device including an electrode, which, in use is located in electrolyte liquid within the pipe adjacent a treatment surface to be treated with a gap defined between the electrode and the treatment surface), the apparatus including a circulation arrangement, An anode tube (12) with internal duct (20) (= the electrode defining an internal passage), The arrows depicting an opposite flow of electrolyte (Col. 5 lines 26-32) (Figure 3) (= wherein, in use, the circulation arrangement causes a recirculating flow of electrolyte liquid through the gap in one direction and along the passage in an opposite direction). Figure 3 of US 5,695,621. Regarding claim s 2 and 5 , Pop discloses the electrode (12) is annular and the passage (20) is a central passage therethrough and having a circular cross-section (Figure 3, Col. 5 lines 10-18). Regarding claim 3, Pop discloses the passage (20) is open at each end (Figure 3). Regarding claim s 6 -7 , Pop discloses the device including the circulation arrangement including a pump (28), the pump having an inlet and outlet (Col. 5 lines 26-33) (Figure 3). Regarding claim s 13 and 20 , Pop discloses a resonant element (14) which is resonated or vibrated using ultrasonic energy to enhance the electroplating process. The resonator (14) is associated with the anode electrode to resonant within the electrolyte solution ( Col. 4 lines 35-51, Col. 6 lines 6-16). Given the use of ultrasonic energy along with the flow of electrolyte, the disclosure of Pop necessarily provides a flow sufficient to displace gas bubbles as applied to claim 20. In particular, the instant specification indicates that ultrasonic vibration may assist in remove of gas bubbles [0056]. Moreover, the instant claim does not require a particular flow rate. Regarding claim s 15 and 17, Pop discloses the anode as a counter electrode and the tube as a working electrode and a power supply (34) connecting the electrodes having opposing polarity . 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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pop et al. (US 5,695,621) in view of Hiraki et al. (JP 2005-314751). Regarding claim 4, Pop fails to disclose the passage is closed at or towards one end and a plurality of side holes as claimed. In the same or similar field of electrochemical treatment of internal surfaces, Hiraki discloses a device comprising an electrolyte (31) supplied to a hollow chamber of the electrode and an electrolyte outlet (24a) is formed in the outer hollow chamber [0016]. The part to be processed (10, 10a) having an inner surface of hollow part to be processed (12) [0018]. The electrolyte is circulated as depicted in the Figures (e.g. Figure s 3- 4). The device of Hiraki includes an electrolyte circulation pump (40). The direction of electrolyte flow is opposite (Figures 3-4). Hiraki discloses the arrangement of discharge outlets for providing less variation in film thickness of the product [0008]. As shown in the figures below, one end of the electrode is closed and the other is open. Figure 3b of JP 2005-314751. Figure 4b of JP 2005-314751. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a device comprising a passage is closed at or towards one end and a plurality of side holes as claimed because Hiraki discloses improving the flow of electrolyte such that there is less variation in film thickness of the product. Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pop et al. (US 5,695,621) . Regarding claim 8, Pop discloses the inclusion of a pump (28) that is within the circulation flow of electrolyte (Figure 3, Col. 5 lines 26-39). Although the pump is adjacent the internal passage, it is close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the same or similar predictable result of pumping the electrolyte through the circulation loop. The arrangement within or partly within the passage may for example reduce the footprint of the device. Regarding claim 16, the instant claim does not appear to further structurally limit the claimed apparatus. The electrodes of Pop are separated by a distance. Given the location and/or arrangement of the electrodes of Pop, the resistance is necessarily present as claimed since the arrangement aligns with the claimed invention. Moreover, the electrical resistance is directed towards the manner of operating the claimed device and the only structural terminology used in the instant claim refers to a distance. Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pop et al. (US 5,695,621) in view of Mizohata et al. (US 2004/0084315). Regarding claims 9-11, Pop discloses the pump as described above. Pop fails to disclose wherein the pump is electrically or pneumatically power ed from a power supply, in which the power for the pump is taken from the electrode power supply and/or the operation of the pump is intermittent or pulsed. It is initially noted that the operation of the pump is directed towards the manner of operating the claimed device and does not further limit the claimed device (as applied to claim 11). In the same or similar field of electrochemical treatment devices, Mizohata discloses a plating system comprising a pump to provide electrolyte liquid flow [0112]. Mizohata discloses that the pumps (P1-P4) are controlled by the system controller (155) at a specified flow rate [0112], [0180]. Mizohata discloses that the system controller (155) is connected to a motor controller (159) by a pulse-string input/output cable and connected to a pump controller (160) [0253]-[0254] (as applied to claim s 9 and 11) . The system controller (155) also controls the plating power source (82) [0167] (as applied to claim 10) . Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a device comprising wherein the pump is electrically or pneumatically power ed from a power supply, in which the power for the pump is taken from the electrode power supply because Mizohata discloses a main system controller that controls the operations of the pumping system and plating power system with the use of cables. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pop et al. (US 5,695,621) in view of Platt (GB 2324805). Regarding claim 12, Pop fails to disclose the circulation arrangement includes liquid or gas powered eductors . In the same or similar field of electroplating cylinders, Platt discloses an apparatus comprising an outer tank (2), inner bath (4), an electrolyte (6), pumps (8a, 8b) and tubing (10) for pumping electrolyte through eductors (12) disposed in a ring for driving the electrolyte (page 4 line 23 – page 5 line 12, Figure 3). Platt discloses the apparatus for treating a substantial region of the surface (page 1 lines 28-33). Figure 3 of GB 2324805. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a device comprising eductors because Platt discloses a similar device provided with eductors for driving electrolyte to a substantial part of the material worked upon. Liquid flows through the eductors and is therefore considered liquid powered. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pop et al. (US 5,695,621) in view of Sukenari (US 2017/0073833). Regarding claim 14, Pop fails to disclose a plurality of the electrode devices. In the same or similar field of electrochemical treatment of cylinders, Sukenari discloses wherein a counter electrode (22) is split into a large number of split ele ctrodes (22a to 22c) to control an electric potential to be applied to each of the end portions of the cylinder (300) and as a result, current concentration can be prevented at ends of the cylinder and the thickness can be controlled [0038]. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce an apparatus comprising a plurality of electrode devices because Sukenari teaches producing a device comprising a plurality of electrode segments and controlling the segments electric current provides a uniform distribution of current and thereby controlled thickness. The claimed may vary is not required. Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pop et al. (US 5,695,621) in view of Clarke et al. (US 5,865,964). Regarding claims 18-19, Pop discloses applying DC voltage (Col. 5 lines 54-41). The claimed frequency is not required based on the term “may” as applied to claim 19. Pop fails to disclose alternatingly polarizing the electrodes and an AC supply as claimed. In the same or similar field of electrochemical treatment, Clarke discloses that the ability to reverse polarity of electrodes or apply an AC current can be beneficial in maintaining a pH of the electrolyte and aiding in the solubilization of specific ions (Col. 2 lines 31-34). Clarke discloses AC techniques used to eliminate corrosion effect (Col. 2 lines 35-40). Clarke also disclose an AC overvoltage superimposing the DC driving current to enhance electromigration (Col. 3 lines 43-51). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce an apparatus comprising alternatingly polarizing the electrodes and an AC supply because Clarke discloses several advantages to using both DC and AC power supply and alternating the polarity between electrodes to eliminate corrosion effect and to maintain a pH of the electrolyte and aiding in the solubilization of specific ions. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2015/0275388 – side holes in electrode Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT STEFANIE S WITTENBERG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7594 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday, 7:00 am -4:00 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 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. /Stefanie S Wittenberg/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795