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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2026-07-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the limitation surrounding Expression (1) of instant Claim 1 is not shown either expressly or inherently in Uchino (secondary reference cited in the previous office action), and is not present in the combination with Nakazawa (primary reference) and Harada (secondary reference). Applicant points to the differences between the formulae for Uchino’s “exposed area ratio” and the instant “iron element content”, and also argues that the assertion in the previous office action lacks support for the necessary flow of a value for the “iron element content” lying in the range stated in Claim 1 from the preferred range of “exposed area ratio” taught by Uchino.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments surrounding the legal requirements for inherency, the previous office action does not rely on an argument of inherency, per se. The previous office action merely states that the two values, while calculated by slightly different formulae, are expected to be roughly similar. In support, as discussed in the advisory action dated 2025-10-23, Applicant’s “iron element content” appears to measure roughly the same thing as the more commonly reported “exposed area ratio” or “exposure ratio”. Therefore, for a given carrier particle, the value for each of those parameters calculated from measurement by XPS are expected to be roughly the same.
Further, Applicant points out preparative examples wherein the “iron element content” spans across the entire claimed range in response to changes in the carrier core particle and coating resin, and explains that the parameter varies with both the material of the carrier particle core and the amount of coating applied. In light of this explanation, attention is directed to Uchino’s description of the preparation of core particles 1 ([0240] – [0242]), which is essentially identical to the preparation of instant core material 1 (Specification, [0426] – [0427]). Other examples of preparation of core particles are disclosed by Uchino wherein the firing temperature is 1250°C ([0251]) or 1350°C (0255]). In addition, Uchino describes a method of applying the coating resin to the carrier particle cores ([0281]) which is essentially identical to that described for instant Carrier 1 (Specification, [0434]). Uchino also teaches a preferred mixing ratio of the coating resin of 1 – 10 parts by mass relative to 100 parts of carrier particle cores ([0104]), which encompasses the value used in the instant examples. Therefore, as reflected in the updated rejection below, the carrier particles of Uchino, being composed of the same mixture of metal oxide components, formed by similar kilning and firing processes, and coated with a similar amount of coating resin by a similar method to the instant Carrier 1, would necessarily possess a similar value for the “iron element content” as Carrier 1, which lies in the range stated in Claim 1.
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 – 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakazawa et al (US PGP 2010/0124715) in view of Harada et al (US PGP 2015/0376412), further in view of Uchino et al (US PGP 2016/0282742).
Nakazawa teaches a toner (Abstract) which may be used alongside a carrier in a two-component developer ([0166]). Nakazawa teaches that the volume-average particle diameter of the toner particles is preferably 5 – 9 µm ([0108]), encompassing the range stated in Claim 1. Nakazawa teaches that an external additive may be added to the toner particles ([0090]), which may be titanium oxide ([0091]). The external additive is preferably added in an amount of 0.01 – 20 parts by mass relative to 100 parts of toner particles ([0092]), reading on the range stated in Claim 1. Nakazawa teaches that the toner may include a colorant ([0081]), but does not give a detailed description of pigments having particular absorption maxima. Additionally, while Nakazawa does describe a carrier having a resin coating ([0169], [0171]), no preference is stated for the exposure ratio of the core particle of the carrier.
Harada teaches a black pigment composition for use as an alternative to carbon black in electrophotographic toners ([0002]). Use of the pigment composition taught by Harada improves the performance of a toner by suppressing charge leakage and resisting color fading ([0009]). Harada teaches that a pigment composition which achieves these improvements contains at least a first pigment having a λmax of 460 – 530 nm and a second pigment having a λmax of 600 – 700 nm ([0012]) when measured as a dispersion in MEK ([0018]), reading on the ranges stated for instant P1 and P2, respectively.
Uchino teaches a two-component developer containing toner particles and carrier particles ([0012]). The carrier particles comprise core particles with a coating on their surface ([0017]). Uchino teaches that the coating does not completely cover the surface of the carrier core particles, and that the exposed area of the core material which is not covered by the coating resin, as measured by XPS, is 10 – 18% of the surface ([0031], [0033] – [0034]). Controlling the exposed area ratio of the coated core particles of the carrier suppresses image defects and preserves the quality of printed images ([0031]).
While Uchino’s “exposed area” is calculated by a different formula than the “iron element content” of the instant application, the two values appear to measure roughly the same thing, which is the amount of carrier particle core material which is not covered by the coating resin. Therefore, the carrier particles of Uchino would have “iron element content” values roughly in the range of 10 – 18%, overlapping the range stated in Claim 1.
In addition, Uchino describes the preparation of core particles 1 ([0240] – [0242]), which are composed of a mixture of metal oxides identical to that used for instant core material 1 (Specification, [0426] – [0427]). A preferred range for the firing temperature of the carrier core material of 900 – 1300°C for a time of 5 – 30 hours is given ([0064]), reading on the firing conditions of instant core material 1. Uchino also teaches a preferred mixing ratio of the coating resin of 1 – 10 parts by mass relative to 100 parts of carrier particle cores, which sets an appropriate thickness of the carrier coating layer ([0104]), encompassing the value used in the instant examples. Therefore, the carrier particles of Uchino, being composed of substantially the same core material prepared in substantially the same way, and being coated in substantially the same way as instant Carrier 1, would necessarily possess substantially the same value for the iron element content as instant Carrier 1, which is 12% (Specification, Table III), lying in the range stated in Claim 1.
In preparing the two-component developer of Nakazawa, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to suppress charge leakage of the toner and resist color fading by incorporating the pigment composition taught by Harada. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to suppress image defects and enhance the quality of printed images by using the carrier taught by Uchino. 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 two-component developer of Nakazawa, wherein the toner includes the pigment composition of Harada and the carrier taught by Uchino, resulting in a developer described by Claim 1.
As mentioned above, Harada teaches a first pigment having a λmax of 460 – 530 nm ([0012]), reading on the range stated in Claim 2.
Harada points out as examples of pigments having a λmax of 460 – 530 nm C.I. Pigment Brown 23, 25, and 41, and C.I. Pigment Red 38 ([0033] – [0034]), covering the list stated in Claim 3.
Harada points out as examples of pigments have a λmax of 600 – 700 nm C.I. Pigment Blue 15, 15:1, 15:2, 15:3, 15:4, 15:5, 15:6, and 16 ([0035]), covering the list stated in Claim 4.
Harada also teaches that a third and/or fourth pigment may be included in the composition ([0036]). The optionally included third pigment has a λmax of 530 – 600 nm, the same as the range stated in Claim 5.
Harada points out as examples of pigments having a λmax of 530 – 600 nm C.I. Pigment Violet 19, 23 and 32; C.I. Pigment Red 31, 48:4, 57:1, 122, 146, 147, 150, 184, 238, 242, 254, and 269; and C.I. Pigment Orange 34, 36, 38, 43, 62, 68, 70, 72, and 74 ([0037]), covering the list stated in Claim 6.
Harada teaches that the optionally included fourth pigment has a λmax of 400 – 460 nm ([0038]), the same as the range stated in Claim 7.
Harada points out as examples of pigments having a λmax of 400 – 460 nm C.I. Pigment Yellow 74, 120, 139, 151, 155, 180, 181, 185, and 213; and C.I. Pigment Green 7 and 36 ([0039] – [0040]), covering the list stated in Claim 8.
Nakazawa teaches a binder resin of the toner containing a crystalline polyester (Abstract, [0022]), reading on Claim 9.
Uchino teaches that the coating resin on the surface of the carrier particle cores is derived from an alicyclic (meth)acrylate ([0068]), satisfying Claim 10.
Uchino teaches that another monomer may be copolymerized with the alicyclic (meth)acrylate ([0070]), and then states a preference for chain (meth)acrylates, which are the simple short-chain alkyl esters of (meth)acrylic acid ([0070]). Uchino teaches that the preferred mass ratio of alicyclic (meth)acrylate to chain (meth)acrylate content may be as large as 90:10, overlapping the range stated in Claim 11.
Uchino teaches that the core particle of the carrier preferably has a value for SF-1 of 100 – 130, overlapping the range stated in Claim 13.
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 08/10/2026
Prosecution Insights