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. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of Group VII, claims 49 and 52-56 in the reply filed on 03/05/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the subject matter of Group VII is not so different from the subject matter of Groups VIII and IX such that it should not create an undue burden on the Patent Office for examination purpose . This is not found persuasive because claims 49 and 52-56 are method claims while Claim 50 is a product . The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claim s 1—48, 50 and 51 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/05/2026 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 49 recites the limitations “, wherein a bulk density of the porous carbon material is in a range of 0.2 grams/cm3 to 0.4” . Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim 56 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 52 recites the limitation “wherein a value of a pore of the porous carbon material based on an MP method is in a range of 0.04 cm3 per cm3 of the porous carbon material to 0.09 cm3 per 1 cm3 of the porous carbon material” . Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 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. Claim (s) 49 and 52-56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toida et al. (JP2011-093774 ; translation provided by Google 04/2026 ) in view of Yamada et al. (JP2003-147369 ; translation provided by Google 04/2026 ) . Regarding claim 49, Toida et al. teaches an activated carbon production method that uses plant biomass as the raw material wherein plant type biomass turns into a shaping, molding activation process which meets the limitation of method of manufacturing a pulverized product, the method comprising: preparing a porous carbon material (page 3). Toida et al. teaches dried plant material is pulverized and blended with a binder, stirred, kneaded and extruded to form a pre-carbonized product which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of solidifying a plant-derived material to form a solidified material (page 4). Toida et al. teaches carbonizing in an inert atmosphere at 200 to 900 ̊C which overlaps with heating the solidified material at a temperature ranging from 400°C to 1400°C to form a heated material (page 4). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Toida et al. teaches alkali treatment of a molded carbonized product which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of treating the heated material using an acid or an alkali (page 5). Toida et al. teaches a density of 0.31 g/cc which meets the limitation of wherein a bulk density of the porous carbon material is in a range of 0.2 grams/cm3 to 0.4 grams/cm3 (Table 1). Toida et al. teaches the activated carbon is pulverized with a known appropriate pulverizer which meets the limitation of and processing the porous carbon material to provide a pulverized form of the porous carbon material (page 6). Toida et al. does not teach wherein a value of an ignition residue of the porous carbon material ranges from 0.1 mass% to 20 mass % . Yamada et al. teaches method for producing the activated carbon wherein the activated carbon can be obtained by chemically activating a carbonaceous raw material t he carbonaceous raw material such as plants , hardwood and softwood and their debris, corn ears, coffee beans, rice, fruit seeds, fruit husks, residues such as molasses and lignin, coal, tar, pitch, asphalt , petroleum residues which meets the limitation of manufacturing a pulverized product, the method comprising: preparing a porous carbon material including a plant derived material (page 3). Yamada et al. teaches carbonaceous raw material, chemical activator, binder are kneaded and extruded which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of solidifying a plant-derived material to form a solidified material (page 3). Yamada et al. teaches a temperature range of 350 to 550 °C which overlaps with heating the solidified material at a temperature ranging from 400°C to 1400 °C to form a heated material (page 4). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Yamada et al. teaches caustic soda or phosphoric acid which meets the limitation of treating the heated material using an acid or an alkali (page 3). Yamada et al. teaches bulk density is 0.2 to 0.5 g/cc which encompasses wherein a bulk density of the porous carbon material is in a range of 0.2 grams/cm3 to 0.4 grams/cm3 (page 2, paragraph 6). Yamada et al. teaches and ignition residue is 10% or less which meets the limitation of wherein a value of an ignition residue of the porous carbon material ranges from 0.1 mass% to 20 mass% (page 2, paragraph 6). Yamada et al. teaches it is an object of the present invention to provide a preferable adsorption performance (BWC 13.5 g / BWC) for a steam discharge control device (canister) for adsorbing gasoline vapor (page 2, paragraph 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to limit the ignition residue of the activated carbon taught by Toida et al. when absorbing flammable vapors such as gasoline. Regarding claim s 52 and 56 , Toida et al teaches the total pore volume is 0.5-1.2 cc/g (page 1). Toida et al. teaches the activated carbon is comprised of mesopores and micropores wherein the mesopore volume ranges from 0.1 to 0.5 cc/g ( page 1 ). Toida et al. teaches a high mesopore volume ratio with respect to the micropore volume (page 6 ). Toida et al. teaches the ratio Vm / Va of the mesopore volume Vm to the total pore volume Va is preferably 0.2 to 0.5 (page 6 ). One can therefore deduce a value of a pore volume of the porous carbon material based on an MP method is in a range of 0.04 cm 3 per 1 cm 3 of the porous carbon material to 0.09 cm3 per 1 cm3 of the porous carbon material (page 6 ). Regarding claim 53, Toida et al. teaches the activated carbon is comprised of mesopores having a pore width of 2.0 nm or more and less than 50 nm wherein the mesopore volume ranges from 0.1 to 0.5 cc/g which overlaps with a value of a cumulative pore volume in a range of 0.05 µm to 5 µm in pore size of the porous carbon material based on a mercury press- in method is in a range of 0.04 cm 3 per 1 gram of the porous carbon material to 1.2 cm 3 per 1 gram of the porous carbon material (page s 1 and 6 ). Regarding claim 54, Toida et al. teaches shapes various types of shapes such as granular, columnar, deformed, four leaf honeycomb, etc. (page 4). Regarding claim 55, Toida et al. teaches a density of 0.31 g/cc which meets the limitation of wherein a bulk density of the porous carbon material is in a range of 0.2 grams/cm3 to 0.4 grams/cm3 (Table 1). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT GUINEVER S GREGORIO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5827 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-W 11 am - 9 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, Coris Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713 . 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. /GUINEVER S GREGORIO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 04/02/2026