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 without traverse of claims 1-8 and 10 in the reply filed on 05/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakagawa et al. (US6004477A).
Regarding claim 1, Nakagawa et al. discloses an oxygen absorption composition which comprises a principal component of an oligomer in liquid form having an unsaturated group, an oxygen absorption-accelerating substance, said oligomer and said accelerating substance being supported on a carrier; and another gas absorbent i.e. gas-absorbing inorganic particles (col 2, lines 50-59). The oxygen absorber can include activated carbon in the form of a carrier (col 5, lines 33-37), other gas absorbent (col 5, lines 56-62), or a dehumidifying agent (col 6, lines 18-25).
Nakagawa et al. does not explicitly disclose an amount of principal component adsorbed on the other gas absorbent being 6.5 parts by mass or less per 100 parts per mass of the other gas absorbent, but it is the position of the examiner that Nakagawa et al. inherently satisfies this limitation for multiple reasons.
First, Nakagawa et al. discloses synthesis of the oxygen absorber (Example 1). A uniform solution is obtained by mixing butadiene oligomer in liquid form as the principal component and manganese naphthenate as the oxygen absorption accelerating substance (Table 1) (col 11, lines 12-16). The resultant uniform solution is supported on a natural zeolite carrier (col 11, lines 16-18). To the solution and carrier, crushed activated carbon (other gas absorbent) and magnesium oxide (dehumidifying agent) are added (col 11, lines 18-20) (Table 1). Since the butadiene oligomer is supported on a natural zeolite carrier and the activated carbon is added after the oligomer is supported, the amount of oligomer adsorbed on the activated carbon would be less than 6.5 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of the activated carbon and most likely zero parts by mass.
Second, Example 1 in the present application has an odor test value of 1, barely perceptible odor, and an amount of liquid butadiene oligomer adsorbed on silica gel of 0.2 or less mass % which satisfies the unsaturated liquid oligomer adsorbed on gas-absorbing inorganic particle limitation of claim 1. The amount of unsaturated group-containing liquid oligomer adsorbed by the gas-absorbing inorganic particles impacts the odor suppression effect of the oxygen absorber (paragraph 0026 specification). A larger amount adsorbed on the gas-absorbing inorganic particle will inhibit the odor suppression effect (paragraph 0026 specification). Example 1 in Nakagawa et al. has the property of being odorless as seen in Table 1. Therefore, since Example 1 in Nakagawa et al. is odorless, the amount of unsaturated oligomer adsorbed on the activated carbon is inherently less than 6.5 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of the activated carbon.
Regarding claim 2, Nakagawa et al. discloses the other gas absorbent can be oxides of an alkaline earth metal or silicates such as magnesium silicate (col 5, lines 56-67).
Regarding claim 3, Nakagawa et al. discloses the other gas absorbent can be silica-gel (col 5, lines 56-62).
Regarding claim 4, Nakagawa et al. discloses the oxygen absorption-accelerating substance can be a salt of a transition metal or a radical initiator (col 5, lines 11-16).
Regarding claim 6, Nakagawa et al. discloses examples of the oligomer in liquid form having an unsaturated group can be butadiene oligomer in liquid form, isoprene oligomer in liquid form, acetylene oligomer in liquid form, chloroprene oligomer in liquid form, unsaturated polyester resin in liquid form, or natural rubber (col 3/4, lines 65-5).
Regarding claim 7, Nakagawa et al. discloses suppressing heat generation of the oxygen absorbent by adding a solid which has a heat of fusion of at least 190 mJ/mg and a melting point in the range of 80 to 150 °C (col 7, lines 64-67). An example of the solid that can be added is polyethylene (col 8, lines 43-48).
Regarding claim 10, Nakagawa et al. discloses the form of a package in which the absorbent is packed with an air permeable packing material (col 9, lines 46-49).
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa et al. (US6004477) as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 10 above.
Regarding claim 1, if it is considered that Nakagawa et al. does not inherently anticipate an amount of unsaturated liquid oligomer adsorbed by the gas-absorbing inorganic particle being 6.5 parts by mass or less per 100 parts by mass of the gas-absorbing inorganic particles, then a rejection under 103 would apply.
Nakagawa et al. discloses the other gas absorbent is in the range of 1 to 5,000 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the principal component (col 7, lines 43-45). It is preferred the necessary amount of other gas absorbent is used so that the gases contained in the principal component prior to oxygen absorption as well as the gases generated during and after the oxygen absorption can be substantially removed (col 7, lines 39-43). Therefore, a larger amount of other gas absorbent relative to the principal component is preferred (the upper portion of the range).
If the upper limit of 5,000 parts by weight of other gas absorbent based on 100 parts by weight of principal component is used, then there will be less than 6.5 parts by mass of principal component per 100 parts by mass of other gas absorbent in the oxygen absorber. As a result, there will also be less than 6.5 parts by mass of principal component adsorbed on 100 parts by mass other gas absorbent. The examiner takes a ratio of components in the claimed range and Nakagawa et al. to compare. Calculations are shown below.
Claimed range:
6.5 parts by mass unsaturated oligomer/100 parts by mass gas-absorbing inorganic particles = 0.065
Nakagawa range:
100 parts by mass principal component/1 part by mass other gas absorbent = 100
100 parts by mass principal component/5000 parts by mass other gas absorbent = 0.02
The range of principal component relative to other gas absorbent in Nakagawa et al. can be less than 0.065 in the oxygen absorber, so less than 0.065 principal component relative to other gas absorbent can be adsorbed on the other gas absorbent. The range of parts by mass of principal component relative to parts by mass of other gas absorbent overlaps the claimed range. The subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to select the portion of the prior art’s range which is within the range of the applicants’ claims because it has been held prima facie case of obviousness to select a value in a known range by optimization for the results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ.
Regarding claim 2, Nakagawa et al. discloses the other gas absorbent can be oxides of an alkaline earth metal or silicates such as magnesium silicate (col 5, lines 56-67).
Regarding claim 3, Nakagawa et al. discloses the other gas absorbent can be silica-gel (col 5, lines 56-62).
Regarding claim 4, Nakagawa et al. discloses the oxygen absorption-accelerating substance can be a salt of a transition metal or a radical initiator (col 5, lines 11-16).
Regarding claim 6, Nakagawa et al. discloses examples of the oligomer in liquid form having an unsaturated group can be butadiene oligomer in liquid form, isoprene oligomer in liquid form, acetylene oligomer in liquid form, chloroprene oligomer in liquid form, unsaturated polyester resin in liquid form, or natural rubber (col 3/4, lines 65-5).
Regarding claim 7, Nakagawa et al. discloses suppressing heat generation of the oxygen absorbent by adding a solid which has a heat of fusion of at least 190 mJ/mg and a melting point in the range of 80 to 150 °C (col 7, lines 64-67). An example of the solid that can be added is polyethylene (col 8, lines 43-48).
Regarding claim 8, Nakagawa et al. discloses the other gas absorbent is in the range of 1 to 5,000 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the principal component (col 7, lines 43-45). It is preferred the necessary amount of other gas absorbent is used so that the gases contained in the principal component prior to oxygen absorption as well as the gases generated during and after the oxygen absorption can be substantially removed (col 7, lines 39-43). Calculations below convert parts by weight to a mass ratio to compare to the claimed range.
100 parts by weight principal component, 1 part by weight other gas absorbent
Mass ratio = 100/1 = 100
100 parts by weight principal component, 5000 parts by weight other gas absorbent
Mass ratio = 100/5000 = 0.02
Nakagawa et al.’s range of 0.02 to 100 overlaps the claimed range of 10/90 to 30/70 (0.11 to 0.43). The subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to select the portion of the prior art’s range which is within the range of the applicants’ claims because it has been held prima facie case of obviousness to select a value in a known
range by optimization for the results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, the subject matter as a
whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to
have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping
ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ.
Regarding claim 10, Nakagawa et al. discloses the form of a package in which the absorbent is packed with an air permeable packing material (col 9, lines 46-49).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa et al. (US6004477) as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 10 above, and further in view of Bayerl et al. (US6868343).
Regarding claim 5, Nakagawa et al. discloses the oxygen absorber with a silicate as an other gas absorbent (col 5/6, lines 56-3) or as a dehumidifying agent (col 6, lines 18-33), but does not disclose the silicate as a carrier or the average pore size of the silicate.
Bayerl et al. discloses a material for column chromatography (col 12, lines 39-40). The material is a carrier coated with amphiphilic molecules in the fluid phase (col 12, line 42). The carrier is a porous silicate structure with a 400 nm (4000 angstrom) pore size (col 12, lines 45-48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Bayerl et al.’s silicate carrier in the oxygen absorber because the carrier is pressure stable (col 12, lines 41-42). A stable carrier will prevent physical breakdown and ensure the oxygen absorber maintain its structure and absorption efficiency. Additionally, the use of nanoporous silicates makes it possible to obtain a high proportion of solid-supported membrane because of high surface/volume ratio (col 7, lines 1-4). As a result, the silicate carrier in the oxygen absorber will a support a large amount of the principal component unsaturated liquid oligomer prohibiting the oligomer to be adsorbed by the other gas absorbent which would reduce the effectiveness of odor suppression.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A CALDERON whose telephone number is (571)272-9866. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 5712721176. 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.
/DAVID ANDREW CALDERON/Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights