DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The breadth of pending claim 1 wherein the resin particles comprise a first emulsion, and a second emulsion different from the first emulsion, and a content of the styrene-based monomer based on a total content of the monomers in the first emulsion is different from a content of the styrene-based monomer based on a total content of the monomers in the second emulsion, is similar in breadth to what is described in the disclosure of Vanbesien. Vanbesien teaches that the second monomer composition may be different than the first monomer composition ([0060]).
Applicant cites paragraph [0143] of Vanbesien, wherein Example 1 comprises a first and second emulsion which are the same. One emulsion is prepared, a seed is formed with 5% of the emulsion, and the remainder of the emulsion is added thereafter as the second emulsion step. However, this is only one embodiment of the disclosure. A reference is relevant for all that it teaches. In re Heck, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983). "[I]n a section 103 inquiry, 'the fact that a specific [embodiment] is taught to be preferred is not controlling, since all disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be considered.'" Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting In re Lamberti, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976)). While the examples teach the use of one emulsion to produce the latex, it is only one specific embodiment of the disclosure ([0080]), and does not exclude or constitute a teaching away from the disclosure that the two monomer compositions may be different from one another.
Vanbesien does not provide any examples for the embodiment wherein the second monomer composition is different from the first monomer composition. Therefore, a person skilled in the art would have to determine how the second composition is different from the first. The examples that are included all comprise monomer compositions which include the same set of monomers, styrene, n-butyl acrylate, and beta-carboxyethyl acrylate ([0143],[0148],[0153],[0160]), wherein the difference between them is the ratio of styrene to n-butyl acrylate. As this combination of monomers is preferred, changing the ratio of styrene to n-butyl acrylate would be simplest way to make the second monomer composition different from the first monomer composition. This would result in a case wherein the content of the styrene to the total of the monomers in the first emulsion is different to the content of the styrene to the total of the monomers in the second emulsion.
In order to overcome this rejection, Applicant may amend claim 1 to include a more specific difference between the monomer compositions for the first and second emulsions that is commensurate in scope to the exemplary resin particles. For example, the exemplary resin particles of the instant application wherein the first and second emulsions are different all contain a greater proportion of styrene in the second emulsion than in the first emulsion (Examples 1, 3-5, 9-10, and 16).
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9, 12, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US PGP 2011-0136056) in view of Vanbesien (US PGP 2006-0286476) and further in view of Furukawa (US PGP 2017-0277053).
Zhou teaches a toner comprising a binder resin that contains a crystalline resin and at least one amorphous resin (Abstract). The crystalline resin is a polyester resin ([0019] line 3). The toner also contains a resin formed from styrene and an acylate ([0037]). The styrene-acrylic resin particles are produced by a two-step polymerization of styrene, n-butyl acrylate, beta-carboxyethyl acrylate and divinylbenzene ([0114-115]). The average particle size of the resultant is 48 nm ([0116] line 10-12). In the exemplary toners the styrene resin particles are present in an amount of 16.40g resin / 309.8g total = 5.3% ([0117-118]). The content of the binder resin (amorphous and crystalline resins) is 138.76g amorphous resin and 48.39g crystalline resin, 187.15g / 309.8g = 60.4%. The ratio (S/C) for a content S of the resin particles to a content C of the crystalline resin is 16.40 / 48.39 = 0.34. Zhou teaches a developer comprising the toner ([0099]).
Zhou is silent regarding the first emulsion in the polymerization of the styrene resin particles having a different monomer composition than the second emulsion. However, Vanbesien teaches a process of producing a latex for use in toners that improves properties such as gloss, fusing performance, crease performance, stripping performance, document offset, vinyl offset, and parent charging (Abstract). The process ([0010-13]) comprises preparing a seed from a first monomer composition ([0011]), and then feeding a second monomer composition to the latex seed ([0012]). The second monomer composition may be the same as or different from the first monomer composition ([0060]). The exemplary resins of Vanbesien and Zhou have similar composition with styrene and butyl acrylate as the main components (Vanbesien [0143], Zhou [0114]), therefore a person skilled in the art could easily take the method of Vanbesien and apply it to the resin of Zhou. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of producing the styrene resin of Zhou to have included 2 different emulsions in order to improve the above listed properties.
Zhou, Vanbesien, and Furukawa are silent regarding measurement of the loss coefficient of the styrene resin. However, Furukawa teaches a vinyl resin having a glass transition point of 20°C to 70°C in view of compatibility between low-temperature fixing properties and thermal resistance during storage of the toner ([0096]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the styrene resin of Zhou and Vanbesien to have a glass transition point as low as 20°C in order to balance the effects of low-temperature fixability and thermal resistance. As pointed out on page 12 of the Response, the glass transition temperature indicates the temperature at which the loss coefficient has a maximum value. Therefore, when a resin has a glass transition temperature of less than 30°C, the value of the loss coefficient of the resin would gradually reduce as the temperature is raised from 30°C to 50°C.
The resin particles of the instant application and the modified resin both contain styrene, n-butyl acrylate, and divinylbenzene as monomer units and have a 2-step polymerization method, wherein a smaller portion of monomers is polymerized initially, followed by a larger amount of monomers. The resin particles made with similar monomers, via a similar process, and with a low glass transition temperature would be expected to have similar values for the loss coefficient and satisfy the limitations of tanδS (30) of 1 or more, tanδS (50) of less than 1, and a relationship (tanδS (30) – tanδS (50)) of 0.8 or more and 3.0 or less.
Claims 4, 11, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou, Vanbesien, and Furukawa as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 9, 12, 14, and 19 above, and further in view of Takayuki (Japanese Application No. 2014-178473).
The entire discussion of Zhou, Vanbesien, and Furukawa above is included herein. Zhou, Vanbesien, and Furukawa do not teach a loss coefficient or SP value for the crystalline resin, or an SP value for the resin particles. Takayuki teaches a toner that includes a binder resin containing a crystalline resin as an essential component ([0005]). Exemplary crystalline polyester resin 2 is comprised of 1,9-nonanediol and 1,10-dodecandioic acid ([0108] line 3). The crystalline resin in the binder resin is used to improve low-temperature fixability ([0010] line 1-3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the toner of Zhou to have included the essential component of the crystalline resin of Takayuki in order to improve the low-temperature fixability.
This modified toner would be expected to satisfy the relationship between the loss coefficients of the crystalline resin and resin particles of (tanδS (50) / tanδC (50)) of 2.0 or more and 20.0 or less. As described above, the modified styrene resin particles of Zhou, Vanbesien, and Furukawa would have similar loss coefficient values as the resin particles of the instant application. The crystalline resin of the instant application and the crystalline resin 2 of Takayuki are both comprised of 1,9-nonanediol and 1,10-dodecanedioic acid as the monomer units, and would therefore inherently have the same loss coefficient values. Therefore, the relationship of (tanδS (50) / tanδC (50)) of 2.0 or more and 20.0 or less would be satisfied. The inherency of chemical properties is also applicable to solubility parameters for each resin. Therefore, the relationship between the SP value of the resin particles and the SP value of the crystalline resin must satisfy the relationship of (SP value (S) – SP value (C)) is 0 or more or 2.0 or less.
Zhou, Vanbesien, and Furukawa are silent regarding an appropriate image forming apparatus for use with the toner. Takayuki teaches an image forming apparatus (Fig. 4, [0089]) comprising an image holder (image bearing member, 3K), a charging unit (7K), an electrostatic charge image forming unit (image exposure light, L), a developing unit (40K), a transfer unit (66K), and a fixing unit ([0092] line 8). The image forming apparatus contains a process cartridge (Fig. 7, [0105]). The process cartridge comprises a developing unit ([0105] line 6) and is attachable to and detachable from the image forming apparatus (line 7). The toner is stored in toner bottles ([0099]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou, Vanbesien, and Furukawa as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 9, 12, 14, and 19 above, and further in view of Honda (WIPO Publication No. 2019-107088).
The entire discussion of Zhou, Vanbesien, and Furukawa above is included herein. Zhou, Vanbesien, and Furukawa do not disclose a relationship between the solubility parameters of the binder resin and the styrene resin particles. Honda teaches a toner having a polyester resin and styrene resin particles (vinyl resin) (Abstract). The relationship between the SP of the polyester resin, SP (a), and the solubility parameter of the vinyl resin, SP (b), is particularly preferable to be 0.2 ≤ | SP (a) – SP (b) | ≤ 1.0 ([0068] line 746-755). Satisfying this relationship, the compatibility of the polyester resin and the vinyl resin is improved and a sufficient fixing area is secured ([0068] line 755-756). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the toner of Zhou, Vanbesien, and Furukawa to have included the relationship between the solubility parameters of the binder resin and resin particles of Honda in order to ensure the compatibility between the resins.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jenna Kuipers whose telephone number is (571)272-0161. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:30 PT.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1734
/PETER L VAJDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights