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 .
Response to Amendment
Claim 1 has been amended to clarify the matrix-domain structure of the toner particles is clarified, overcoming the claim objection made in the prior office action, which is hereby withdrawn. Claim 1 now also reflects the limitation of Claim 5, which is cancelled by the present amendment. Claim 2 remains cancelled, and Claims 3, 4, and 6 – 13 remain as previously presented. No new subject matter has been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2026-02-04, regarding the allegation of non-obviousness of amended Claim 1 over the previously cited prior art, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, in essence, that where Suzumura teaches a rapid cooling rate (10°C/min. or more) of the coalesced toner particles in suspension, a practitioner of ordinary skill in the art would be taught away from adopting the teachings of Hama, who discloses crystalline resin domains having an aspect ratio in a range reading on that recited in amended Claim 1. In support, Applicant cites Hama’s discussion of control of the crystalline resin domain aspect ratio “by controlling the cooling temperature (cooling speed) after heat treatment of the toner surface, and the polarity difference between crystalline polyester material and amorphous polyester material.” However, Hama’s preparative examples are produced by a kneading and pulverization process, as opposed to Suzumura’s emulsion aggregation procedure, so it is not clear that the cooling rate taught by Hama would be at all relevant to the domains formed by Suzumura. Even still, Hama does not appear to make mention of a “low cooling rate” (Applicant’s terminology), or teach an upper bound on the cooling rate which is outside the range taught by Suzumura, so these teachings are not necessarily in direct conflict anyway. Therefore, a practitioner of ordinary skill in the art would not be discouraged from setting the aspect ratio of the crystalline resin domains of Suzumura within the range taught by Hama. For these reasons, the updated rejection below is not withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1 – 3, 9, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzumura et al (US PGP 2017/0160661) in view of Hama et al (US Patent 10,082,743).
Suzumura teaches a toner containing a binder resin, a crystalline polyester, and a release agent ([0017]). The toner of Suzumura may optionally comprise an external additive ([0222]). Suzumura describes crystalline polyester domains which can be seen in a cross-sectional image of a toner particle ([0019]). Preferably 60% or more by number of the crystalline polyester domains are located within a distance from the surface of the toner of 25% of the distance from the surface to the centroid of the toner ([0022]). That is, where r is the radius of the toner (or, the distance from the surface of the toner to the centroid), 60% or more of the crystalline polyester domains exist within 0.25r from the surface of the toner. Where d is the diameter of the toner, since d = 2r, a depth of 0.25r is equivalent to a depth of 0.125d from the surface of the toner. Therefore, the toner of Suzumura preferably has at a depth of less than 0.2d from the surface at least 60% by number of the crystalline polyester domains, overlapping the range stated in Claim 1.
Suzumura teaches that the toner may have a core-shell structure ([0172]), wherein the shell layer covers the surface of the core particles (0173]). The shell layer is preferably composed of amorphous polyester resin ([0176]). Suzumura teaches that up to 30 parts by mass of amorphous polyester may be used to form the shell layer, with respect to 100 parts by mass of core binder resin ([0185]). The resulting shell layer, having no crystalline polyester present, would have a depth from the surface of 0.042d. Therefore, down to a depth of 0.042d from the surface of such a core-shell structured toner, which is slightly less than the depth stated in Claim 1, there would be essentially 0% by number of crystalline polyester domains, satisfying the inequality stated in Claim 1.
V
o
l
C
o
r
e
=
1
=
4
3
π
r
3
3
4
π
=
r
3
3
4
π
3
=
r
C
o
r
e
=
0.620
V
o
l
C
o
r
e
-
S
h
e
l
l
=
1
+
0.3
=
4
3
π
r
3
1.3
*
3
4
π
=
r
3
3.9
4
π
3
=
r
C
o
r
e
-
S
h
e
l
l
=
0.677
0.677
-
0.620
0.677
=
0.084
r
=
0.042
d
Suzumura teaches that the binder resin of the core of the toner particle is not particularly limited ([0157]), and that it may be a vinyl or polyester resin ([0158]). In a preparative example, a glass transition temperature for the resulting toner is reported ([0381]), indicating that the binder resin of the core comprises an amorphous resin. Suzumura teaches that the amount of crystalline polyester is present in the toner particle at a content of 1 – 15 parts by mass relative to 100 parts of binder resin (0088). Suzumura appears to consider the domains of crystalline resin to be a separate feature from the binder resin of the toner, as opposed to being part of the binder resin (Abstract, [0017], [0027]). In addition, Suzumura may consider the “binder resin” to be only that resin present in the core, or may consider the resin of the core and the shell together. In the former case, given the possible core-shell structure for the toner describe above, the mass ratio of crystalline to amorphous resin may be 10/90.
100
p
a
r
t
s
a
m
o
r
p
h
o
u
s
c
o
r
e
+
130
p
a
r
t
s
a
m
o
r
p
h
o
u
s
s
h
e
l
l
=
130
p
a
r
t
s
a
m
o
r
p
h
o
u
s
r
e
s
i
n
15
p
a
r
t
s
c
r
y
s
t
a
l
l
i
n
e
p
o
l
y
e
s
t
e
r
130
p
a
r
t
s
a
m
o
r
p
h
o
u
s
r
e
s
i
n
+
15
p
a
r
t
s
c
r
y
s
t
a
l
l
i
n
e
p
o
l
y
e
s
t
e
r
*
100
%
=
10.3
%
b
y
m
a
s
s
130
p
a
r
t
s
a
m
o
r
p
h
o
u
s
r
e
s
i
n
130
p
a
r
t
s
a
m
o
r
p
h
o
u
s
r
e
s
i
n
+
15
p
a
r
t
s
c
r
y
s
t
a
l
l
i
n
e
p
o
l
y
e
s
t
e
r
*
100
%
=
89.7
%
b
y
m
a
s
s
In the latter case, the mass ratio may be 13/87.
15
p
a
r
t
s
c
r
y
s
t
a
l
l
i
n
e
p
o
l
y
e
s
t
e
r
100
p
a
r
t
s
a
m
o
r
p
h
o
u
s
r
e
s
i
n
+
15
p
a
r
t
s
c
r
y
s
t
a
l
l
i
n
e
p
o
l
y
e
s
t
e
r
*
100
%
=
13
%
b
y
m
a
s
s
130
p
a
r
t
s
a
m
o
r
p
h
o
u
s
r
e
s
i
n
100
p
a
r
t
s
a
m
o
r
p
h
o
u
s
r
e
s
i
n
+
15
p
a
r
t
s
c
r
y
s
t
a
l
l
i
n
e
p
o
l
y
e
s
t
e
r
*
100
%
=
87
%
b
y
m
a
s
s
These mass ratios satisfy the range stated in Claim 1.
Suzumura does not appear to teach a preferred aspect ratio for the crystalline polyester domains.
Hama teaches a toner comprising toner particles, which contain a crystalline polyester resin (Col. 2, lines 26 – 27). Hama describes crystals of polyester, analogous to crystalline polyester domains, and teaches that those at a depth from the surface of the toner particle of 0.3 µm or more preferably have an aspect ratio of 6 – 30 (Col. 4, lines 12 – 16), overlapping the range stated in Claim 1. The crystalline resin domains having an aspect ratio in this range improves charge rising and suppresses fogging and scattering.
In preparing the toner of Suzumura, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to seek to improve the charging, fogging, and scattering properties of the toner by setting the aspect ratio of the crystalline polyester domains in the range taught by Hama. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to prepare the toner of Suzumura wherein the crystalline polyester domains have an aspect ratio in the range of 6 – 30 as taught by Hama, satisfying Claim 1.
Suzumura teaches that domains of a release agent are preferably present in the toner ([0052]), and that they are located at the centroid of the toner ([0053]). In Fig. 2 (Sheet 2) of Suzumura, reference numeral 1 indicates a release agent domain ([0046]), and reference numeral 3 indicates a boundary at a distance of 0.25r from the surface of the toner, which would be 0.125d from the surface. As seen in Fig. 2, the release agent domains do not extend from the centroid to the boundary indicated by numeral 3, so they are contained even deeper than 0.125d. Suzumura teaches that it is most preferable to have 90% by number or more of the release agent domains present at the centroid of the toner, thereby satisfying Claim 3.
As stated in the Specification of the instant application, when crystalline resin domains are exposed on the surface of the toner particle, the external additive detaches easily from the exterior of the toner (Specification, [0016]). In contrast, when domains of crystalline resin are “seldom exposed” on the surface of the toner particle, the detachment rate of the external additive is low ([0017]). In an embodiment of the toner of Suzumura wherein the toner particle has a shell of amorphous resin covering the surface of the toner particle, there would be no domains of crystalline polyester exposed on the surface of the toner particle, substantially the same as “seldom exposed” or less. Therefore, the external additive on the toner of Suzumura would inherently possess a detachment rate of less than 50%, satisfying Claim 9.
Developing performance and utility of the toner of Suzumura is mentioned numerous times throughout the disclosure ([0086], [0172], [0227], [0230], [0234], [0235]). As such, the toner of Suzumura amounts to an electrostatic charge image developer, as required by Claim 10.
An image forming apparatus is described by Suzumura, which comprises an electrostatic latent image bearing member (analogous to an image holder), a charging member (analogous to a charging unit), a laser generator which forms an electrostatic latent image on the image bearing member (analogous to an image forming unit), a developing device, a transfer charging roller (analogous to a transfer unit), and a fixing unit, satisfying Claim 13.
Claims 4, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzumura et al (US PGP 2017/0160661) in view of Hama et al (US Patent 10,082,743), further in view of Hirano et al (JP 2016-184134) (machine translation of which referred to henceforth).
The above discussions of Suzumura and Hama are incorporated herein.
Neither of Suzumura or Hama appears to teach a preferred size or diameter of the release agent domains.
Hirano teaches a toner containing domains of a release agent ([0008]). The diameter of the domains of release agent are preferably 0.3 – 3.0 µm, encompassing the range stated int Claim 4. Hirano also teaches that the toner contains domains of a plasticizer ([0008]), which are preferably composed of crystalline polyester resin ([0049]). The diameter of the domains of plasticizer is preferably in the range of 0.045 – 0.9 µm. Hirano teaches that when the diameters of the plasticizer domains and the release agent domains lie in the stated ranges, the resulting toner has improved fixing separability, heat resistance, and durability ([0017]).
In seeking to impart the toner of Suzumura, having crystalline resin domains possessing the aspect ratio taught by Hama, with excellent fixing separability, heat resistance, and durability, one of ordinary skill in the art would have set the diameter of release agent domains in the range taught by Hirano. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to prepare the toner of Suzumura, having crystalline resin domains possessing the aspect ratio taught by Hama, wherein the diameter of the release agent domains is 0.3 – 3.0 µm, encompassing the range stated in Claim 4.
Suzumura teaches that the number-average major diameter of the crystalline polyester domains is preferably 50 – 300 nm ([0020]). Where the release agent domains as taught by Hirano have a diameter of 0.3 – 3.0 µm (which is 300 – 3000 nm), the diameter of the crystalline polyester domains would be smaller than the diameter of the release agent domains, satisfying the inequality in Claim 7.
The ratio of the diameter of the crystalline polyester domains taught by Suzumura (50 – 300 nm) to the diameter of the release agent domains taught by Hirano (300 – 3000 nm) is in the range of 0.017 – 1, encompassing the range stated in Claim 8.
50
n
m
C
r
y
s
t
a
l
l
i
n
e
p
o
l
y
e
s
t
e
r
3000
n
m
R
e
l
e
a
s
e
a
g
e
n
t
=
0.017
300
n
m
C
r
y
s
t
a
l
l
i
n
e
p
o
l
y
e
s
t
e
r
300
n
m
R
e
l
e
a
s
e
a
g
e
n
t
=
1
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzumura et al (US PGP 2017/0160661) in view of Hama et al (US Patent 10,082,743), further in view of Yawada et al (US PGP 2020/0310307).
The above discussions of Suzumura and Hama are incorporated herein.
Suzumura does not appear to teach a preferred aspect ratio for the release agent domains.
Yawada teaches a toner containing toner particles ([0010]). Yawada teaches that the toner particles preferably contain a release agent (0067). The release agent particles (analogous to domains) contained in the toner particles are described by Yamada as those having an aspect ratio of 5 or greater, and those having an aspect ratio less than 5 (0141). The ratio of those release agent particles having an aspect ratio of 5 or greater to those having an aspect ratio less than 5 is preferably 1 – 8, and most preferably 3 - 6 ([0141]). That is to say that preferably a majority of the release agent domains of Yawada have an aspect ratio of 5 or greater. Having release agent domains with an aspect ratio in this range improves toner performance in terms of fading and white spots ([0141]).
As discussed above, the aspect ratio of the crystalline polyester domains taught by Hama is preferably 6 – 30. Therefore, the ratio of the aspect ratios of the crystalline polyester domains and the release agent domains is at minimum 6, and has no theoretical upper limit.
C
r
y
s
t
a
l
l
i
n
e
P
o
l
y
e
s
t
e
r
A
s
p
e
c
t
R
a
t
i
o
R
e
l
e
a
s
e
A
g
e
n
t
A
s
p
e
c
t
R
a
t
i
o
=
30
5
=
6
In seeking to impart improved fading performance on the toner of Suzumura incorporating the crystalline polyester domains of Hama, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to include in the toner particle the release agent domains having an aspect ratio in the range taught by Yawada. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to refine the toner of Suzumura with the crystalline polyester domains of Hama and the release agent domains of Yawada. The resulting toner would have a ratio of the aspect ratios of crystalline polyester domains and release agent domains of 6 or greater, overlapping the range stated in Claim 6.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzumura et al (US PGP 2017/0160661) in view of Hama et al (US Patent 10,082,743), further in view of Tanabe et al (JP 2018-159864).
The above discussions of Suzumura and Hama are incorporated herein.
Suzumura does not appear to teach a toner cartridge or a process cartridge.
Tanabe teaches a toner cartridge which stores toner to be provided to the developing unit, and which is detachably attached to an image forming apparatus ([0142]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the toner of Suzumura, having crystalline resin domains possessing the aspect ratio taught by Hama, with the toner cartridge of Tanabe, satisfying Claim 11.
Tanabe teaches a process cartridge which comprises a developing unit, which contains the image developing toner, and which develops an electrostatic charge image held on an image holding member ([0138]). The process cartridge according to Tanabe is detachably attached to an image forming apparatus ([0138]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the toner of Suzumura, having crystalline resin domains possessing the aspect ratio taught by Hama, with the process cartridge of Tanabe, satisfying Claim 12.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Grant S Seiler whose telephone number is (571)272-3015. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 5:30 Pacific.
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.
/GRANT STEVEN SEILER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1734
/PETER L VAJDA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 03/26/2026
Prosecution Insights