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 .
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(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2019218943 in view of Stabler US 2018/0297008.
Regarding claim 1, JP ‘943 teaches a formed adsorber that includes an activated carbon fiber sheet (Abstract). The activated carbon fiber sheet may include a binder (Retention of catalyst). The diameter of the precursor material s between 5 to 75 microns, which would result in a diameter in the activated carbon fibers that overlaps the claimed diameter of 13 microns or more (Section 3-1). In the case where the claimed ranges “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).
JP ‘943 does not expressly state the binder is fibrous nor the ratio of binder to activated carbon fiber in the sheet.
Stabler teaches a gas storage article that includes a binder in an amount of 0.5 to 30 weight percent of the binder (Paragraph [0017]), or 16 wt% (Example 1), or 14 wt% (Example 2), and the gas absorbing material may be activated carbon fibers (Paragraph [0040]). The binder in combination with the gas absorbing material provide excellent chemical resistance to the gas storage environment (Paragraph [0016]). The binder may be made of a thermoplastic polymer material (Paragraph [0001]), which is similar to the materials used in the instant specification (Specification, Pages 11-12) and at least a portion of the binder would be considered porous under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.
The time of invention it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to form the adsorbing article of JP ‘943 having the fibrous binder in an amount of 16 wt% in view of Stabler. The suggestion or motivation for doing so would have been to form a gas adsorbing material having excellent chemical resistant to a gas storage environment (Stabler, Paragraph [0016]).
Regarding claim 2, JP ‘943 in view of Stabler does not expressly state the effective adsorption-desorption ratio for n-butane. However, “the discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1258, 73 USPQ2d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 3, JP ‘943 teaches the surface area of the activated carbon fiber is 1400 to 2200 m^2/g (Abstract).
Regarding claim 4, JP ‘943 the total pore volume of the activated carbon fiber is 0.5 – 1.2 cm^3/g (Claim 2).
Regarding claim 5, JP ‘943 teaches the pore volume of the pores having a pore diameter of more than 0.7 nm and 2.0 nm or less is 0.20 to 1.20 cm 3 / g (Abstract).
Regarding claim 6, JP ‘943 teaches the lower limit of the existence ratio R 0.7 / 2.0 of the ultra micropore volume in the micropore volume is preferably 25% or more (Ratio of micropore volume to micropore volume: R 0.7 / 2.0).
Regarding claims 7-10, the adsorbing material may be a canister mounted on and automobile (Abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach or suggest the newly amended features of claim 1. In response, the newly amended features were addressed in the updated rejection analysis of claim 1 recited in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A FIORITO whose telephone number is (571)272-9921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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.
/JAMES A FIORITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights