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 § 102 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. Claim s 1-3, 5 and 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakagawa et al. (USP 6,004,477) . Regarding claim s 1 - 3 , 8-9 Nakagawa discloses an oxygen absorber composition comprising an oligomer in liquid form having an unsaturated group such as butadiene oligomer, and an oxygen absorbing-accelerating substance, being supported on a carrier, and another gas absorbent (abstract). Nakagawa discloses that the oxygen absorption-accelerating substance (i.e., catalyst) may be a salt of a transition metal (column 5, lines 11-27). Nakagawa discloses that the other gas absorbent that activated carbon may be used (claim 12) , and that the carbon material is crushed activated carbon (i.e., granular material) (Example 1). Nakagawa discloses that a solid having a high heat of fusion of at least 190 mJ/mg and a melting point in the range of 80 to 150 C is added to suppress heat generation (column 2,lines 23-39). Further, Nakagawa discloses that this solid may be a thermoplastic polyethylene (i.e., particles) having a crystallinity of at least 65 % (column 8, lines 43-64). With respect to the limitations of the analysis curve under pyrolysis conditions is a property of the composition, and as Nakagawa discloses an identical composition it would be expected to also have the same properties. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § § 2112- 2112.02. Regarding claim 5 Nakagawa discloses 125 parts by weight butadiene oligomer and 150 parts by weight polyethylene ( E xample 27), which is a ratio of 1.2. Regarding claim 7 Nakagawa discloses 150 parts by weight polyethylene and 100 parts by weight activated carbon (Example 27), which is a ratio of 1.5. Regarding claims 10-12 Nakagawa discloses the use of diatomaceous earth as the carrier (Example 9), which has a bulk density of 0.080.26 g/cm 3 . Regarding claim 13 Nakagawa discloses a method that would have the polyethylene particles substantially not absorbed on the granular activated carbon (Example 27). Regarding claims 14-15 Nakagawa discloses placing the oxygen absorbing composition into a small bag (i.e., bag shape) made of an air-permeable packaging material (Example 27). Regarding claim 16 Nakagawa discloses hermetically sealing the composition in a vessel under a dry inert gas (column 9, line 41 to column 10, line 17). 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. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa et al. (USP 6,004,477), as applied to claims 1-3, 5 and 7-16 above, in view of Powers et al. (US 2013/0231398) . Regarding claim 4 Although Nakagawa does not disclose the use of activated carbon from coconut shells, Nakagawa does disclose the use of activated carbon. However, Powers also directed to oxygen absorbing materials discloses that coconut shell activated carbon is preferred for its activity in catalyzing the oxygen absorption (para 0009). Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add to the teachings of Nakagawa by using coconut shell activated carbon as the activated carbon, with a reasonable expectation and the expected benefit of catalyzing the oxygen absorption, as suggested by Powers. Claim s 6 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa et al. (USP 6,004,477), as applied to claims 1-3 , 5 and 7-16 above . Regarding claim 6 Nakagawa discloses 125 parts by weight of the butadiene oligomer and 100 parts by weight of the activated carbon (Example 27),providing a carbon:oligomer ratio of 0.8. Although this does not overlap the claimed range, it is not so far away that the skilled artisan would expect a difference in properties, and a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties . Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . Regarding claims 17-18 Although, Nakagawa is silent as to the pressure of the inert gas the use of standard conditions or 1 ATM would be obvious which is greater than 0.10 M P a. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JAMES E MCDONOUGH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6398 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 10-10 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jonathan Johnson can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712721177 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT JAMES E. MCDONOUGH Examiner Art Unit 1734 /JAMES E MCDONOUGH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734