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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Prior art disclosed in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed 07/29/2024 has been struck from the record for being duplicate of information provided in the IDS filed 07/12/2024.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japanese Patent Application No. 2007307451A (cited on IDS, provided English Machine Translation cited herein).
In regard to claim 1, JP-2007307451A (herein referred to as JP ‘451A) discloses an oxygen absorber comprising (a) an unsaturated fatty acid compound or a chain-like hydrocarbon polymer having an unsaturated group (i.e. a drying oil) (b) a catalyst, (c) a porous body, (d) an alkaline earth metal hydroxide, (e) a water donor, and (f) a deodorant [0011]; wherein it is preferable that the catalyst and oxidation reaction substance are impregnated into the porous body [0017]. JP ‘451A discloses that the porous body may be white carbon or colloidal silica [0018], which are understood in the art to be amorphous and synthetic in origin. JP ‘451A further discloses that the unsaturated fatty acid compound of (a) may be linoleic acid, linolenic acid, parinaric acid, or fatty acid obtained from vegetable and animal oils, namely linseed oil fatty acids, that oils and metal salts containing esters thereof can be used [0014]; and that the catalyst may be an inorganic or organic salt of Cu, Fe, Co, Ni, Cr, Mn, Pb, or Zn [0016]. It is the position of the examiner that the organic salts described in JP ‘451A constitute oil-soluble metal compounds. As all of the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed by JP ‘415A, the claim is anticipated.
In regard to claim 2, JP ‘451A discloses that the porous body may be white carbon [0018], which is disclosed in applicant’s specification as a precipitation-process wet silica (see [0039] of specification) and thus anticipates the claim limitation.
In regard to claim 3, JP ‘451A discloses that the unsaturated fatty acid compound of (a) in the oxygen absorber may be linoleic or linolenic acid, which are known components of linseed oil, or may be linseed oil derived fatty acids, and that oils containing esters thereof, such as linseed oil itself, may be used in the composition [0014].
In regard to claim 4, JP ‘451A discloses that compounds of iron and manganese are preferable amongst the named transition metals, and that naphthenates, octylates, rosinates, and acetylacetone (organic acids) salts of said metals can be used [0016].
In regard to claim 6, JP ‘451A is silent to the apparent density of the porous body utilized. However, JP ‘451A discloses that the porous body may be white carbon [0018]. Given that white carbon is a known amorphous synthetic silica, and thus would have been prepared in the same manner as the amorphous silica/white carbon cited in applicant’s specification, it is the examiner’s position that the white carbon taught by JP ‘451A would possess an apparent density of <0.5 g/mL, wherein apparent density is measured according to the relevant JIS/IOC standard.
In regard to claim 7, JP ‘451A discloses that a mass ratio of the unsaturated fatty acid compound (i.e. the drying oil) to the porous body (i.e. colloidal silica/amorphous silica) may preferably be between 50:50 (100 parts to 100 parts) and 70:30 (250 parts to 100 parts) [0011].
In regard to claim 9, JP ‘451A discloses that the oxygen absorber may be packed into a breathable packaging material, preferably a highly breathable packaging material to form an oxygen absorber package and facilitate practical uses of the oxygen absorber material [0024]. Based upon applicant’s specification [0029]-[0030], no special definition has been ascribed to “an air permeable packaging material” and thus any material which allows air to permeate, such as the breathable packaging material of JP ‘451A, is encompassed by the claim scope.
In regard to claim 10, JP ‘451A discloses that the oxygen absorber disclosed may be used to stably preserve pharmaceuticals [0010].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘451A as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suh (US Patent Application No. 20140252271A1 - cited on IDS).
In regard to claim 5, JP ‘451A does not disclose that the synthetic amorphous silica used has a particle size between 0.1-0.6 mm. However, Suh discloses an organic oxygen absorber comprised of an ascorbic acid compound and an oxygen absorption promoting material on porous silica powder (Abstract) which is characterized as an amorphous precipitated silica with a particle size of 200 µm, or 0.2 mm [0027]. Suh further discloses that porous silica powder employed has high absorbability [0003], is distinct in its properties from commonly employed silica gel [0027], and is an optimal carrier which is insoluble in both water and general solvents [0027]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time to modify the teachings of JP ‘451A, which broadly teaches a white carbon or colloidal silica as a carrier, to utilize the amorphous precipitated silica of Suh which was demonstrated to have an optimal flowability performance as a carrier in the specific application as a component of a packaged oxygen scrubber material (see Table 1 and the discussion in [0039]-[0044]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tomita et al. (US Patent No. 6,248,258 – cited on IDS).
In regard to claim 8, Tomita et al. discloses an oxygen absorbent comprising an aliphatic hydrocarbon with an unsaturated group or unsaturated fatty acid compound as the main ingredient (Col. 1, lines 61-65) and a catalyst comprising a salt of Cu, Fe, Co, Ni, Cr, or Mn and a salt of Ca, Pb, or Zn.
Tomita et al. specifically names unsaturated fatty acids such as linoleic acid, linolenic acid, and linseed oil fatty acid (Col 2., lines 54-65). It is understood in the art that linseed oil comprises linoleic acid, linolenic acid, or “linseed oil fatty acids” and thus would be a suitable aliphatic hydrocarbon source. Tomita et al. discloses that inorganic or organic salts (e.g. fatty acid, naphthenate, rosin acid, acac) of the two utilized metal species can be used (Col. 3, lines 33-39 and lines 55-61). Tomita et al. discloses it is preferable to support the aliphatic hydrocarbon and metal salts on a high surface area carrier substance which also functions as a gas absorbent or drying agent, and specifically discloses the use of silica (Col. 3, line 62 – Col. 4, line 11).
Tomita et al. discloses a finite number of inorganic and organic counterions which may be used to form the metal salts comprising the catalyst of the taught oxygen absorbent. Tomita et al. does not state that exclusively picking inorganic counterions, organic counterions, or a mixture of one inorganic salt and one organic salt would negatively impact the performance of the taught oxygen absorbent. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art could have selected from Tomita et al.’s disclosure two organic salts to comprise the catalyst component with a reasonable expectation of success and form an oxygen absorbent free of inorganic salts. Thus, it is the examiner’s position that a person of ordinary skill could have readily selected an organic salt of both the first catalyst salt and second catalyst salt to achieve a composition free of inorganic salts. Therefore, claim 8 would have been obvious in view of Tomita et al. at the time of filing. See MPEP § 2143.IE.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Medina Perilla et al. (US 20190291076 A1), which describes a composition comprising linseed oil and a transition metal salt encapsulated in an amorphous silica gel for use in packaging oxygen-sensitive substances.
Japanese Patent Application No. 2009006204A, which describes a composition comprising a reactive organic compound (linolenic acid, a main constituent of linseed oil, is cited) and a transition metal compound (organic salts of iron and manganese are cited) incorporated into inorganic oxide particles with a particle size of 100 nm or less (silica is cited as preferable) for use as an oxygen scrubber incorporated into packaging resins.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORDECAI M LEAVITT whose telephone number is (571)272-6637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-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 (571) 272-1176. 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.
/MORDECAI M LEAVITT/Examiner, Art Unit 1742
/MONICA A HUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights