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 Claims 2 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 recites “plate is provided”. It shall be “the plate is provided …” Claim 7 recites “a first side”. It shall be “the first side”. Appropriate correction is required. 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 1 , 2, 4, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Publication 2011/0061261 to Dahlheimer . In Reference to Claim 1 Dahlheimer discloses a dewatering system comprising: a platform (Fig. 2, 2) having a first side (Fig. 2, annotated by the examiner) configured to receive a material thereon and an opposing second side (Fig. 2, annotated by the examiner) , the platform having a plurality of pores (As showed in Fig. 2) extending between the first and second side, wherein the material comprises a solid portion and a liquid portion; and an ultrasound transducer ( Fig. 2, 3, and Paragraph 25 discloses the vibrator can be a ultrasound vibrator ) in communication with the platform and configured to vibrate the material on the platform such that the liquid portion passes through the plurality of pores and the solid portion remains on the platform. (As showed in Fig. 2, solid remains on the top side of the filter) In Reference to Claim 2 Dahlheimer discloses the ultrasound transducer comprises a mesh transducer having a vibrating mesh (Fig. 2, 1, the screen device which is a vibrating mesh) surface, and platform is provided by the vibrating mesh surface of the mesh transducer. In Reference to Claim 4 Dahlheimer discloses the solid portion of the material is in a slurry or suspension with the liquid portion of the material. (As showed in Fig. 2, the machine separates the media into solid and fluid, therefore, the material is in a slurry.) In Reference to Claim 11 Dahlheimer discloses a filter (As showed in Fig. 2, there are two screens, 2 and 8, the Office considers that top screen as a filter) on the platform, the filter configured to further filter the liquid portion from the solid portion. In Reference to Claim 12 Dahlheimer discloses the plurality of pores is sized and configured to allow the liquid portion to pass through the plurality of pores and to maintain the solid portion of the material on the platform. (As showed in Fig. 2, solid portion is left on the first side, the fluid passes through the screen) In Reference to Claim 14 Dahlheimer discloses a holder (Fig. 2, 100) configured to hold a dewatering device, the dewatering device comprising a platform (Fig. 2, 2) having a first side (Fig. 2, annotated by the examiner) configured to receive a material thereon and an opposing second side (Fig. 2, annotated by the examiner) , the platform having a plurality of pores (As showed in Fig. 2) extending between the first and second side, wherein the material comprises a solid portion and a liquid portion; and an ultrasound transducer (Fig. 2, 3, and Paragraph 25 discloses the vibrator can be a ultrasound vibrator) in communication with the platform and configured to vibrate the material on the platform such that the liquid portion passes through the plurality of pores and the solid portion remains on the platform. (As showed in Fig. 2, solid remains on the top side of the filter) In Reference to Claim 15 Dahlheimer discloses a supplier (as showed in Fig. 2, the flow 200 supplies the material) configured to supply the material to the platform. In Reference to Claim 16 Dahlheimer discloses the material supplier comprises a syringe (As showed in Fig. 2, the supplier comprising a tube 4 , the tube is a kind of syringe ). In Reference to Claim 17 Dahlheimer discloses the holder (Fig. 2, 2) is configured to hold the platform and the ultrasound transducer in a vertical configuration. (As showed in Fig. 2) In Reference to Claim 23 Dahlheimer discloses a dewatering method comprising: providing a material on a platform (Fig. 2, 2) , the platform having a first side (Fig. 2, annotated by the examiner) configured to receive the material thereon and an opposing second side (Fig. 2, annotated by the examiner) , the platform having a plurality of pores (As showed in Fig. 2) extending between the first and second side, and the material comprises a solid portion and a liquid portion (As showed in Fig. 2, the solid portion remain above the plate) ; and sonicating the material with an ultrasound transducer ( Fig. 2, 3, and Paragraph 25 discloses the vibrator can be a ultrasound vibrator) in communication with the platform and that is configured to vibrate the material on the platform such that the liquid portion passes through the plurality of pores and the solid portion remains on the platform. 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. 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. 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlheimer . In Reference to Claim 3 Dahlheimer discloses the screen plate vibrated by a ultrasound transducer. Dahlheimer does not teach frequency of the vibratio n . The Office considers the operational frequency as functional language. The use of the function language only requires that apparatus is capable of performing the function, and does not add any specific structural limitations to the apparatus. Since Dahlheimer disclose an ultrasound vibrator , it must provide a vibration with certain vibration with meets the functional limitation. Furthermore, “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). (See MPEP 2114)) . Claim s 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlheimer in view of US Patent8,075,786 to Bagajewicz . In Reference to Claim 5 Dahlheimer discloses the ultrasonic vibrator to provide a vibration of a mesh surface with plurality of pore (Fig. 2, 2) . Dahlheimer does not teach the type of the ultrasonic vibrator. Bagajewicz teaches an piezoelectric element can be used as a vibrating source. (Col. 6, Line 54-60) It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Bagajewicz into the design of Dahlheimer . Doing so, would result in a piezoelectric element being used as the vibration source to drive the vibration mesh screen. Both invention of Bagajewicz and Dahlheimer having a vibrating screen for removing fluid with a ultrasound machine, Bagajewicz provides a method with a predictable result of success. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlheimer in view of US Patent 5,164,094 to Stuckart . In Reference to Claim 7 Dahlheimer discloses the plurality of pores on platform. Dahlheimer does not teach the detail shape of the pore. Stuckart teaches the plurality of pores has a graduated diameter that is larger on a first side of the platform and decreases as the pores ( As showed in Fig. 2b) extend to the second side of the platform. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Stuckart into the design of Dahlheimer . Doing so, would result the pore with a larger inlet and a smaller outlet formed as through pore of Dahlheimer . Both inventions of Dahlheimer of Stuckart are for separating plate. Stuckart teaches a design facilitating to collect the subject to be removed via gravity. Claim s 8 , and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlheimer . In Reference to Claim 8 Dahlheimer discloses the pores. Dahlheimer does not teach the size of the hole. According to MPEP: the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Reference to Claim 1 0 Dahlheimer discloses the dewatering device as recited. Dahlheimer does not teach the material compr ising cellulose nanofiber. The Office considers “ the cellulose nanofiber " as functional language. The use of the function language only requires that apparatus is capable of performing the function, and does not add any specific structural limitations to the apparatus. Since the Dahlheimer teaches the structure as recited , it provide the functional limitation. Furthermore, “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Allowable Subject Matter Claims 9, 13, 18-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DEMING WAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1410 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon- Thur : 8 am to 6 PM . 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 Michael Hoang can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 57122726460 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT DEMING . WAN Examiner Art Unit 3762 /DEMING WAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 3/14/26