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 Species 1, directed to Figs. 4A and 4B in the reply filed on August 5, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the restriction requirement used the wrong standard. Specifically, it is argued that the restriction requirement based the restriction on the allegation that the species are “independent or distinct.” The Applicant argues that the standard is whether the species are both “independent and distinct.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The proper standard is whether the species are independent or distinct. This is because MPEP 806.04 says:
“Where an application includes claims directed to different embodiments or species that could fall within the scope of a generic claim, restriction between the species may be proper if the species are independent or distinct.” Emphasis added.
Also, paragraphs 3–6 from the Restriction Requirement dated June 5, 2026—which sets forth the restriction on the basis of the species being independent or distinct—is Form Paragraph 8-02. Form paragraph 8-02 indicates that the standard is whether the species are independent or distinct because it says:
“Claim(s) [1] is/are generic to the following disclosed patentably distinct species: [2]. The species are independent or distinct because [3]. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: [4]” Emphasis added.
The Applicant also argues that there is no serious search burden asserting that the restriction fails to identify class or subclass numbers for the respective species.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. A serious search or examination burden does not require a showing of separate classification. Instead, a serious burden can be established by showing that a different field of search is required. See MPEP 802.02(C—different field of search). Here, the Examiner established that searching the all of the species simultaneously would result in a serious search or examination burden because doing so would require a different field of search in a manner not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other inventions because of the structural differences of the retaining mechanisms.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
The claim set dated August 5, 2026 is objected to because the status of claim 11 is unclear as claim 11 is omitted. For the purpose of compact prosecution, claim 11 from the July 18, 2024 claim set is examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1–11 are 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.
Claim 1 recites:
1. A canister configured to adsorb and desorb fuel vapor generated in a fuel tank of a vehicle, the canister comprising:
a charge port configured to take in the fuel vapor;
a purge port configured to release the fuel vapor;
an atmosphere port open to an atmosphere;
a first adsorption chamber and a second adsorption chamber directly coupled to the charge port and the purge port, or indirectly coupled to the charge port and the purge port via an additional chamber;
a first adsorption member housed in the first adsorption chamber; and a second adsorption member housed in the second adsorption chamber, the first adsorption member including:
a core material; and
an adsorption sheet having properties to adsorb the fuel vapor and wound around the core material. Emphasis added.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear whether both the first adsorption chamber and the second adsorption chamber, or only the second adsorption chamber is “directly coupled to the charge port and the purge port, or indirectly coupled to the charge port and the purge port via an additional chamber.”
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claim is interpreted so that only the second adsorption chamber is “directly coupled to the charge port and the purge port, or indirectly coupled to the charge port and the purge port via an additional chamber.”
Claims 2–11 are indefinite because they depend from claim 1.
Also, claim 4 recites:
4. The canister according to claim 1, wherein an outer-circumferential surface of the core material has a cross-section of a shape similar to a shape of a cross-section of an inner-circumferential surface of the first adsorption chamber, the cross-section of the outer- circumferential surface of the core material and the cross-section of the inner-circumferential surface of the first adsorption chamber being perpendicular to an axial direction of the core material. Emphasis added.
Claim 4 is indefinite because “similar” is relative terminology that the disclosure fails to define and for which a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the meaning of. See MPEP 2173.05(b).
Claim 8 is indefinite for the same reasons as claim 4.
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.
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.
Claims 1–5, 7–9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi, US 2020/0248655 A1 in view of Freter, US 2020/0254868 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Yamaguchi teaches a canister 1 configured to adsorb and desorb evaporated fuel from a fuel tank in a vehicle, which reads on the claimed “canister configured to adsorb and desorb fuel vapor generated in a fuel tank of a vehicle.” See Yamaguchi Fig. 1A, [0021]. The canister 1 comprises:
A charge port 2A (the claimed “charge port”) configured to take in fuel vapor;
A purge port 2B (the “purge port”) configured to release fuel vapor;
An atmosphere port 2C (the “atmosphere port”) open to an atmosphere;
A sub chamber 4 (the “first adsorption chamber”); and
A main chamber 3 (the “second adsorption chamber”). See Yamaguchi Fig. 1A, [0021]–[0023].
The main chamber 3 is directly coupled to the charge port 2A and purge port 2B, as claimed. See Yamaguchi Fig. 1A, [0027]–[0028].
The canister 1 further comprises:
Activated carbon 7 (the “first adsorption member”) housed in the sub chamber 4; and
Activated carbon 7 (the “second adsorption member”) housed in the main chamber 3. See Yamaguchi Fig. 1A, [0027], [0033].
PNG
media_image1.png
797
1044
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yamaguchi differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the activated carbon 7 in the sub chamber 4 including a core material and an adsorption sheet having properties to adsorb fuel vapor and wound around the core material, as claimed.
But Yamaguchi suggests that various forms of activated carbon can be used as the activated carbon 7 in the sub chamber 4 because it says that well-known types of activated carbon may be used. See Yamaguchi [0049].
With this in mind, Freter teaches an adsorption filter element 1 that can be used to filter hydrocarbons from fuel vapor. See Freter Fig. 12, [0002], [0097]. The filter element 1 comprises a central rod 8 (the claimed “core material”) and a helically wound substrate material 2 having a sorbing material, such as active carbon, formed on at least one side of the substrate material 2, with the substrate material wound around the central rod 8 (the substrate material 2 reads on the “adsorption sheet having properties to adsorb fuel vapor and wound around the core material”). Id. at Fig. 12, [0009]–[0011], [0099]. The filter element 1 of Freter is beneficial because it has increased filter capacity. See Freter [0003].
PNG
media_image2.png
826
672
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to use the filter element 1 in place of the activated carbon 7 in the sub chamber 4 of Yamaguchi to provide an adsorption material with increase filter capacity. It also would have been obvious to use the filter element 1 in place of the activated carbon 7 in the sub chamber 4 of Yamaguchi because this would merely represent the simple substation of one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143, subsection I, B.
Regarding claim 2, Yamaguchi as modified teaches that the central rod 8 is non-air-permeable because it is designed such that nothing can flow therethrough. See Freter [0098].
Regarding claim 3, Yamaguchi as modified teaches that in the sub chamber 4, fuel vapor flows in an axial direction of the central rod 8, as claimed, because the central rod 8 runs through the axis of the filter element 1 of Freter while gas flows axially through the subchamber 4 toward between second space 4B and atmosphere port 2C. See Freter [0097]; Yamaguchi Fig. 1A, [0037].
Regarding claims 4 and 8, Yamaguchi as modified teaches that an outer circumferential surface of the central rod 8 has a cross-section of a shape similar to a shape of a cross-section of an inner circumferential surface of the inner winding of substrate material 2 with the cross-sections being perpendicular to an axial direction of the central rod 8, as claimed, as seen in Fig. 12 of Freter.
Regarding claims 5 and 9, Yamaguchi as modified teaches that the central rod 8 includes a rod 12 (the “retaining mechanism”) for retaining an inner end portion 10 of the substrate material 2, as claimed. See Yamaguchi Fig. 12, [0100].
Regarding claims 7 and 11, Yamaguchi as modified teaches that the sub chamber 4 is directly coupled to the atmosphere port 2C, as claimed. See Yamaguchi Fig. 1A, [0021].
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi, US 2020/0248655 A1 in view of Freter, US 2020/0254868 A1 and in further view of Heinonen et al., US 6,379,437 B1.
Regarding claims 6 and 10, Yamaguchi as modified teaches that the filter element 1 of Freter (the “first adsorption member”) includes a sorbing material, such as active carbon, dispersed on a surface of the substrate material 2 or incorporated into a structure of the substrate material 2. See Freter [0009]–[0010].
Yamaguchi differs from claims 6 and 10 because it is silent as to the material used to manufacture the substrate 2 of Freter and is silent as to the active carbon comprising granules. Therefore, there is insufficient information to teach the substrate 2 is formed of a fiber having properties to adsorb the fuel vapor with granules having properties to adsorb the fuel vapor arranged and dispersed on a surface of or inside of the adsorption sheet, as claimed.
But Heinonen teaches an adsorption filter for gases comprising a wound layer 1 of gauze-like nonwoven fabric (“formed of a fiber”) having a layer of granular adsorbent, such as active carbon, dispersed on a surface of the fabric. See Heinonen Figs. 5–6, col. 4, ll. 45–56, col. 6, ll. 18–34.
It would have been obvious to us the nonwoven fabric of Heinonen as the substrate material 2 of Freter because this would merely represent the selection of a known material based on the suitability of its intended use. Note that the fibers of the nonwoven fabric of Heinonen are interpreted as “having properties to adsorb the fuel vapor,” as claimed, at least because they have the granular adsorbent on their surface.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hiltzik et al., US 2024/0207813 A1 (emissions canister); Thomson et al., US 11,938,461 B2 (adsorbent canister); Hiltzik et al., US 6,540,815 B1 (emissions control system); Brownhill et al., US 4,289,513 (activated carbon sorption paper).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights