Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/234,466

FORMED ADSORBER FOR CANISTER

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Aug 16, 2023
Examiner
FIORITO, JAMES A
Art Unit
1731
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Nippon Paper Industries Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
502 granted / 711 resolved
+5.6% vs TC avg
Strong +29% interview lift
Without
With
+29.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
747
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
45.9%
+5.9% vs TC avg
§102
24.8%
-15.2% vs TC avg
§112
27.2%
-12.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 711 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 § 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 applicant regards as his invention. Claim 2 is 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. In claim 2, the phrase “wherein fineness of a fiber material serving as a precursor” is indefinite because the precursor is not part of the claimed product. The fiber material serving as a precursor contemplates some process of making the activated carbon fibers that is not described in the claims. Thus, it is unclear how the person having ordinary skill in the a would ascertain the scope of the claim. 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, and 3-10 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 activated carbon fibers in the sheet may have a size of 40mm (Example 1). JP ‘943 does not expressly state 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 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 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 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). Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2019218943 in view of Stabler US 2018/0297008 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2002161439. Regarding claim 2, JP ‘943 in view of Stabler does not expressly state that the fineness of a fiber material serving as a precursor of the activated carbon fiber ranges from 4.0 to 60 dtex. JP ‘439 teaches a process of making activated carbon fibers by processing a phenolic fiber precursor having a fineness of greater than of equal to 5 dtex (Abstract). At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to form the fibers of JP ‘943 in view of Stabler with the process of making taught by JP ‘439. The suggestion or motivation for doing so would have been to provide a process of making the activated carbon fibers that was required in JP ‘943 but not disclosed. Conclusion 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 16, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600626
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR OZONE DEGRADATION FOR A PLASMA TREATMENT SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600643
POWDER FOR ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595184
INORGANIC OXIDE PARTICLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583741
ALUMINUM COMPOSITE FOR HYDROGEN GENERATION AND METHODS OF PREPARATION THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576394
OXYGEN STORAGE/RELEASE MATERIAL AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+29.0%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 711 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month