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 constrain the direction in which the circulating gas stream is flowing in the loop-type dryer where the second blowing port is positioned. New Claim 8 and Claim 9 have been added. No new subject matter has been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2025-12-24 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that neither of Nakamura or Malachowski (cited in the prior office action) teach a second blowing port introduced to the loop-type dryer at a position where the circulating gas is flowing vertically downward, rendering the present invention non-obvious over the prior art. However, as discussed in the updated rejection below, such a positioning and orientation amounts to a mere rearrangement of parts.
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). (MPEP §2144.04 (VI))
In the instant case, Applicant points to paragraph [0036] of the instant Specification to support the provision of propulsive force to the wet toner particles by a second blower positioned to introduce gas to the loop-type dryer where the circulating gas is flowing vertically downward. However, that paragraph makes no mention of the direction of circulating gas flow at the position where the second blowing port joins the drying pipe, or its importance to providing propulsive force to the wet toner particles. In fact, the phrase “vertically downward” does not seem to appear anywhere in the as-filed Specification. In the absence of an explanation in the Specification for the importance of such a configuration to the function of the dryer, or a comparative apparatus demonstrating the superior performance of such a configuration, the claimed orientation of the second blower appears to be little more than an incidental feature of a particular construction of the apparatus. 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 - 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al (JP-4466398) in view of Malachowski et al (US PGP 2004/0049941).
Nakamura teaches a method of producing and drying wet toner ([0001]). Nakamura gives emulsion aggregation, suspension polymerization, dispersion polymerization, and dissolution suspension processes as examples of methods by which a wet toner is provided ([0050]). The drying method of Nakamura comprises drying the toner as it is conveyed in an air flow inside the drying treatment region of a drying apparatus ([0010]). The treatment region of the device has a circulatable flow path, analogous to the loop-type path of the instant application, to which air flow is supplied by air flow introduction ports, analogous to the blowing ports of the instant application ([0010]). As shown in Fig. 1 of Nakamura, wet toner is supplied from a toner wet cake tank 15, via toner supply port 21, to the drying treatment region 20. In communication with toner supply port 21 is air flow inlet 1, which is upstream of the drying treatment region. The air flow supplied by inlet 1 is dehumidified by dehumidifier 12, accelerated by blower 11, and heated by heater 13 before entering the toner supply port and coming in contact with the wet toner ([0029] – [0031]). Downstream of the toner supply port and in communication with the drying treatment region is air flow introduction port 2, which provides a flow of dehumidified and warmed air in a similar manner to air flow introduction port 1. Another air flow introduction port 3 is in communication with the drying treatment region, located downstream of port 2, and also having similar, but independent, dehumidifying, accelerating, and heating components as in port 2. Dried toner is classified in classification region 26, and ejected from the drying treatment region via toner discharge port 22 ([0034]).
Nakamura teaches that the air flow supplied should decrease in temperature along the downstream direction ([0025]). The lowest end of this temperature gradient should be 30 - 50°C ([0012]). While Nakamura does not appear to teach a preferred upper limit on the temperature of the drying gas circulating through the drying treatment region, it is pointed out that the resultant toner performance can be preserved by avoiding too high of temperatures ([0015] – [0016]). However, the highest temperature reported for the drying gas in Nakamura’s examples is 80°C ([0082], Table 1). In example 5, the air temperature from all introduction ports is 80°C, satisfying the range stated in Claim 1. Through routine use of the drying unit, it would have been obvious to optimize the temperature of gas provided by each port to balance efficient drying and preservation of toner performance.
Nakamura teaches that the speed of air flow in the circulating in the drying treatment region is preferably set to be 10 – 40 m/s ([0037]), overlapping the range stated for the value of A, and encompassing the range stated for the value of B in Claim 1 of the instant application.
Nakamura does not appear to teach a preferred relative gas flow volume provided by each introduction port.
Malachowski teaches a method and apparatus for drying chemical toner particles in a circulating flow of drying gas ([0001]). The apparatus taught by Malachowski comprises a drying chamber ([0023]) and at least one drying gas inlet ([0024]). The temperature and flow rate of the heated drying gas are controlled before the drying gas is introduced into the drying chamber ([0025]). The dryer also comprises an exit path for dried toner particles ([0027]) and a feed inlet for providing wet toner particles to the dryer ([0028]). Malachowski teaches that the toner particles are deagglomerated in the course of drying in the drying apparatus ([0043]), and that the degree of deagglomeration can be controlled by the direction and flow rate of the toner particles’ travel ([0044]). Malachowski teaches that deagglomeration arises from various collisions, and these collisions can be controlled by manipulating the pressure and velocity of the drying gas provided by the inlets, and by changing the size, number, or position of the inlet nozzles ([0044]).
Where the apparatus of Nakamura comprises a plurality of drying gas inlets, wherein the flow rate and temperature of the drying gas provided by each is independently controlled, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, given the teachings of Malachowski regarding control of the inlet air pressure and velocity, to optimize the flow rate of the drying gas provided by each of the drying gas inlets. In addition, where the positioning of the second blower with respect to the flow direction of gas in the drying pipe as presently claimed amounts to a mere rearrangement of parts (see MPEP §2144.04 (VI) and response to arguments above), it would have also been obvious to position the second blower to join the drying tube in a region where the drying gas is flowing vertically downward. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to apply the teachings of Malachowski to the toner production method of Nakamura, resulting in a method comprising: drying of wet toner particles obtained from an aqueous medium by a drying apparatus; supplying of wet toner particles via a toner supply port (analogous to a toner inlet port) from a wet cake tank to a drying treatment region having a circulating flow path (analogous to a loop-type drying pipe); toner particles are conveyed and dried in an air flow provided by an air flow introduction port upstream of the drying treatment region (analogous to a first blowing port) and one or more downstream air flow introduction ports (analogous to one or more second blowing ports); wherein the second blowing ports join the drying pipe in a region where the drying gas is flowing vertically downward; dried toner particles are ejected from the drying treatment region via a toner discharge port (analogous to an outlet port); and wherein the air flow speed, supply volume, and temperature satisfy the formulae stated in Claim 1.
As discussed above, it would have been obvious, given the teachings of Malachowski, to optimize the air flow rate at each introduction port, resulting in relative flow rates that would satisfy formula (3)’ of Claim 2.
As discussed above, the air flow introduction ports 2 and 3 of Nakamura, being downstream from air flow introduction port 1, are analogous to a plurality of “second blowing ports”, satisfying Claim 3.
Nakamura teaches that the core-shell structured toner produced and dried in the disclosed method should have a glass transition temperature of 10 - 40°C at the core, and of 40 - 60°C on the shell ([0047]). Both of these ranges read on the limit stated in Claim 4.
Nakamura teaches a plurality of air flow introduction ports supplying air flow to the drying treatment region ([0025]), wherein these ports are analogous to second blowing ports, allowing for three or more such ports to be in communication with the drying chamber. While Figure 1 shows only two such ports, Nakamura teaches that the invention is not limited to that depiction ([0027]). Thus, the method of Nakamura as optimized in view of the teachings of Malachowski satisfies Claims 5 and 6.
Nakamura teaches that each of the air flow introduction ports are supplied with air flow by a blower ([0029]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the plurality of blowers, each supplying a single air flow introduction port, with a single blower whose supplied airflow is split by a manifold and delivered to each air flow introduction port (MPEP §2114.04 (VI)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to control the gas flow rate at each air flow introduction port by the gas flow rate adjusting valve of Claim 7.
The loop-type drying device of Nakamura possesses a particle disintegration treatment region 10 ([0029]) analogous to instant inlet pipe 6; air flow inlet 1 ([0030]) analogous to instant first blowing pipe 9; and an opening where those two structures meet (Fig. 1 of Nakamura), analogous to instant inlet port 7, satisfying Claim 8.
As discussed above, the positioning of the second blowing ports at a region of the drying pipe where the circulated drying gas is flowing in a downward direction would be an obvious arrangement. Where the gas blown by the second blowing ports of Nakamura follows the same directional path of the flow of circulating drying gas (see Nakamura Fig. 1), the gas provided by the second blowing ports of Nakamura would also be flowing in a vertically downward direction, satisfying Claim 9.
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 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 02/10/2026