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. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, at least one of an microfiltration device, an ultrafiltration device and a nanofiltration device, a coagulation bath of a cellulose product, a crystallization device, a control device connected to at least one of the microfiltration device, ultrafiltration device and nanofiltration device and a control device connected to the crystallization device to control conditions in the crystallization device, a high-pressure reverse osmosis device connected to the crystallization device and at least one of the microfiltration device, ultrafiltration device and nanofiltration device must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). See claims 21-22. No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections Claims 12-14 and 20-21 are objected to because of the following informalities: FILLIN "Enter appropriate explanation" \* MERGEFORMAT -Claim 12, Line 1: “NMMO” should be corrected to “N- methylmorpholine N-oxide (NMMO)” . -Claim 12, Line 7: “ 2NMMO·5H 2 O ” should be corrected to “ NMMO· 2. 5H 2 O ”. -Claim 13, Line 4: “the” before “lyocell” should be deleted. -Claim 14, Line 1: “wherein” should be deleted. -Claim 14, Line 4: “and” before “ the ” should be corrected to “wherein”. -Claim 20, Line 1: “NMMO” should be corrected to “N- methylmorpholine N-oxide (NMMO)”. -Claim 21, Line 1: “NMMO” should be corrected to “N- methylmorpholine N-oxide (NMMO)”. -Claim 21, Line 9: Between “device” and “to”, “configured to” should be inserted. -Claim 21, Line 12: “ 2NMMO·5H 2 O ” should be corrected to “ NMMO· 2. 5H 2 O ”. 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. Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 17 recites that “the ultrafiltration has molecular weight cut off 1100 ~ 100000 Dalton”. Claim 17 is indefinite because ultrafiltration is a process and does not have a molecular weight cut off . Rather an ultrafiltration device or membrane has a molecular weight cut off. Claim 18 recites that “the nanofiltration has molecular weight cut off 150 ~ 1000 Dalton”. Claim 18 is indefinite because ultrafiltration is a process and does not have a molecular weight cut off. Rather an nanofiltration device or membrane has a molecular weight cut off. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Navard et al., Journal of Thermal Analysis, Vol. 22 (1981), pages 107-118 (hereinafter “ Navard ”) or Wu et al., Journal of Lanzhou University of Technology, Vol. 31, No. 2, pages 73-76 (April 2005)(hereinafter “Wu”) . C laim 20 is directed to " a NMMO hydrate crystal obtained by the purification method according to claim 1 2 " . Claim 20 is a product-by-process claim. The NMMO· 2. 5H 2 O hydrate crystal is known from Navard ( see "Complex C" of page 116, 1st paragraph and Table 1 ) or Wu ( see page 75: T able 1) . It is not considered that a production method makes the obtained hydrate form a different product and thus the claimed NMMO· 2. 5H 2 O hydrate crystal cannot be differentiated vis-a-vis the NMMO· 2. 5H 2 O hydrate crystal disclosed in Navard or Wu . "[E] ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . "[T] he lack of physical description in a product-by-process claim makes determination of the patentability of the claim more difficult, since in spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations, it is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. We are therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith." In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 12-1 6 and 21-22 are allowed. Claims 17-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: English translation copy of Chinese Patent Publication No. 101280476 A to Feng et al. (hereinafter “Feng”) is considered the closest prior art to a purification method of N- methylmorpholine N-oxide (NMMO) of claim 12. Feng discloses a purification method for NMMO in the coagulation bath of cellulose products, including: concentrating the coagulation bath of cellulose products containing NMMO to the concentration of NMMO is 86.6%, and NMMO monohydrate crystals ( NMMO·H 2 O ) are obtained by cooling crystallization (see paragraphs [0019]-[0024] ). However, none of the prior art of record teaches or suggests the purification method of N- methylmorpholine N-oxide (NMMO) of claim 12 comprising: concentrating the coagulation bath of the cellulose product containing the NMMO until the mass concentration of the NMMO is 56.5% ~ 84.5%, and then performing cooling crystallization between −20° C. and 39° C. to obtain NMMO hydrate crystals; wherein the mass concentration of the NMMO in the coagulation bath of the cellulose product is 1 ~ 50%, the NMMO hydrate crystals are NMMO· 2. 5H 2 O . English translated copy of Chinese Patent Publication No. 112876429 A to Ma et al. (hereinafter “Ma”) is considered the closest prior art to a purification system of N- methylmorpholine N-oxide (NMMO) of claim 21. Ma discloses a recovery system (see Figure 4) for N- methylmorpholine N-oxide (NMMO) comprising: a flocculation se dimentation device A, a microporous filter device B, an ultrafiltration treatment device C, a primary nanofiltration treatment device D and a secondary nanofiltration treatment device E and a reverse osmosis apparatus F connected in sequence (see Figures 1-4; paragraphs [0082]-[0095]). Feng teaches implicitly a control device connected to a crystallization device for cool crystallization of NMMO to NMMO monohydrate crystals ( NMMO·H 2 O ) (see paragraph [0024]). However, none of the prior art of record teaches or suggests the purification system of N- methylmorpholine N-oxide (NMMO) of claim 21 comprising : a crystallization device connected to at least one of the microfiltration device, ultrafiltration device and nanofiltration device, and a control device connected to the crystallization device and configured to control crystallization conditions in the crystallization device, allowing the NMMO filtrate to undergo cooling crystallization between −20° C. and 39° C. to obtain NMMO hydrate crystals, wherein the NMMO hydrate crystals are NMMO· 2. 5H 2 O . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JOHN KIM whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1142 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Maxi Flex . 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 IN SUK BULLOCK can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-5954 . 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. /John Kim/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777 JK 3/11/26