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 07/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, the Applicant argues that, while the Office action stated that Iwasaki did not appear to teach or suggest the thickness of the conductive substrate, Iwasaki explicitly discloses that the thickness of the conductive substrate used in the examples was 1 mm ([0260] of Iwasaki). The Applicant then argues that Iwasaki would not recognize the technical challenges solved by the claimed invention directed toward photosensitive members including thicker supports because Iwasaki uses a thinner support. Accordingly, the Applicant concludes that Iwasaki and Yamashita are not combinable because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had no reason to substitute the thinner conductive support used in Iwasaki with the thicker support taught by Yamashita.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the Applicant is correct that Iwasaki teaches using a thinner conductive support having a thickness of 1 mm in its examples, Iwasaki does not preclude the use of thicker conductive supports. Aside from the 1 mm support used in the examples, Iwasaki appears to be completely silent to teach or suggest a preferred range for the thickness of the support.
According to MPEP § 2123(I), “A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).” MPEP § 2123(II) further states that “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971).”
Furthermore, there is no teaching or suggestion by Iwasaki that the use of a thicker substrate (e.g., greater than 1 mm) would render Iwasaki’s photoconductor inoperable for its intended purpose. According to Fujiki, conductive substrates are known to typically have a thickness of from 0.05 mm to 10 mm ([0035] and pg. 10 of the previous OA). And, as seen by the teachings of Yamashita, photoconductors including surface protection layers having similar compositions to that of Iwasaki (and the Applicant) have been known use substrates having a thicker substrate of 2 mm or more (see pg. 9 of the previous OA). Yamashita even further teaches that using a conductive substrate having a larger thickness (i.e., 2 mm to 5 mm) is “preferable” (see [0020]-[0024] of Yamashita).
According to MPEP § 2144.05, “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Similarly, "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claimed alloy held obvious over prior art alloy that taught ranges of weight percentages overlapping, and in most instances completely encompassing, claimed ranges; furthermore, narrower ranges taught by reference overlapped all but one range in claimed invention).”
Additionally, A range can be disclosed in multiple prior art references instead of in a single prior art reference depending on the specific facts of the case. Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1322, 73 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The patent claim at issue was directed to a weight plate having 3 elongated openings that served as handles for transporting the weight plate. Multiple prior art patents each disclosed weight plates having 1, 2 or 4 elongated openings. 392 F.3d at 1319, 73 USPQ2d at 1226. The court stated that the claimed weight plate having 3 elongated openings fell within the "range" of the prior art and was thus presumed obvious. 392 F.3d at 1322, 73 USPQ2d at 1228. The court further stated that the "range" disclosed in multiple prior art patents is "a distinction without a difference" from previous range cases which involved a range disclosed in a single patent since the "prior art suggested that a larger number of elongated grips in the weight plates was beneficial… thus plainly suggesting that one skilled in the art look to the range appearing in the prior art." Id.”
Also, MPEP § 2145 states that “A teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine references that is found in the prior art is an appropriate rationale for determining obviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.”
Additionally, while Iwasaki does not appear to recognize the same technical challenges disclosed in the instant application (e.g., page 3, lines 2-7 of the specification), the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Next, the Applicant argues that it is not appropriate to require the Applicant to demonstrate that Iwasaki’s photoreceptor(s) would not necessarily exhibit the claimed ratios and degree of cure of the protection layer because Iwasaki’s support substrate is structurally distinct (i.e., 1 mm thick).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In accordance with MPEP § 2112(V), once a reference teaching a product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning to show inherency/necessity, the burden of production shifts to the applicant.
As noted in the previous Office action, the instant specification discloses that the claimed properties of the protection layer are controlled by the curing conditions of the surface protection layer, specifically the curing temperature and curing time (see pg. 6-7 of the previous Office action). The Office action then discussed how the surface protection layer of Iwasaki was produced using a sufficiently similar method, using sufficiently similar (or the same) reactive group-containing charge transporting materials, sufficiently similar (or the same) acid catalysts, sufficiently similar (or the same) curing temperatures, and sufficiently similar (or the same) curing times.
Therefore, it was reasonable to conclude that the outermost surface layer (surface protection layer) of Iwasaki would necessarily exhibit “a ratio of a degree of cure of a conductive support-side surface of the surface protection layer to a degree of cure of an outer periphery-side surface of the surface protection layer”, a “degree of cure of the outer periphery-side surface of the surface protection layer”, and a “degree of cure of the conductive support-side surface of the surface protection layer” within the corresponding range(s).
MPEP § 2112 states that “the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art." Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (emphasis in original). In PAR Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. TWI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 112 USPQ2d 1945 (Fed. Cir. 2014)”. The similarities discussed above (on pg. 7-8 of the previous OA), meet the Office’s initial burden of presenting evidence that the photoreceptor of the prior art necessarily possesses the same—or sufficiently similar—characteristics as the claimed photosensitive member.
While the Applicant noted that Iwasaki’s photosensitive member included a conductive support having a thickness of 1 mm, there is no evidence on the record demonstrating that using a thinner substrate (e.g., having a thickness of less than 3 mm) would result in “ratio of a degree of cure of a conductive support-side surface of the surface protection layer”, the “degree of cure of the outer periphery-side surface of the protection layer”, or the “degree of cure of the conductive support-side surface of the surface protection layer” outside of the respective claimed ranges. Additionally, there is no evidence on the record demonstrating that the claimed thickness range is critical to the achieving the claimed ratio and degrees of cure.
In the Applicant’s examples, the photosensitive member of Reference Example 1 was disclosed as being prepared using the same method as Example 1, except that the thickness of the conductive support and the heating temperature and heating time set in the formation of the surface protection layer were changed as described in Table 1 (see pg. 74 of the instant specification). The Reference Example 1, which exhibited a degree of cure ratio (B/A)1 of 98.8%, was the only photosensitive member that utilized a conductive support having a thickness of less than 3 mm (i.e., 2 mm).
Similarly to the photosensitive member of Example 1, which utilized a conductive support having a thickness of 4 mm, the photosensitive member of Reference Example 1 exhibited no change in the initial abrasion loss to the long-term abrasion loss. The photosensitive member of Reference Example 1 also exhibited superior results in terms of the initial and long-term image defect evaluation (see Table 1 on pg. 80 of the instant specification).
Thus, Reference Example 1 is evidence that the thickness of the support appears to have little impact on the evaluation results of the photosensitive member including the claimed surface protection layer so long as the heating temperature and heating times of the surface protection layer are within the disclosed ranges. This also demonstrates that using a conductive support of less than 3 mm would not necessarily result in the protection layer having a degree of cure ratio (B/A) outside of the claim ranges of being 75% or more.
Furthermore, Reference Example 1 also shows that the claimed conductive thickness range of 3 mm or more is not a critical element of the photosensitive member, as Reference Example 1 performed just as well as, or even better than, many of the application’s working examples (which included conductive supports having a thickness of 3 mm or more) in the abrasion resistance and/or image defect evaluations.
Finally, the Applicant argues that the Office’s position that the skilled artisan would have arrived at the claimed ratio and degrees of cure through routine optimization is unsupported and conclusory because these features are not recognized as being result-effective variables.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Initially, this reasoning was applied as an alternative argument in the event that the Applicant sufficiently demonstrated that the photoreceptor(s) of Iwasaki’s experimental examples would not necessarily exhibit the claimed ratio and degrees of cure (see pg. 8 of the previous Office action). As discussed above, the Applicant has not yet demonstrated such.
In any event, the Office action did not argue that it would have been obvious to have optimized the ratio and degrees of cure, but that the skilled artisan would have arrived at these claimed parameters through routine optimization of the curing temperatures and curing times of the surface protection layer (see pg. 8 of the previous OA).
As discussed above, the instant specification explicitly discloses that the claimed properties of the protection layer (e.g., the ratio and degrees of cure) are controlled by the curing conditions of the surface protection layer, specifically by setting the curing temperature to 155 ºC or more and the curing time to 15 minutes or more (pg. 15 of the instant specification). Similarly, Iwasaki teaches controlling the curing temperature to be within the range of 120 ºC or more and 160 ºC or less, and the curing time to 20 minutes or more and 40 minutes or less to achieve a desired ratio (Peak 2/Peak 1) (see pg. 6 of the previous OA).
Therefore, while Iwasaki does not appear to recognize the claimed ratio and cures of degree, both Iwasaki and the instant specification recognize the curing temperature and curing conditions as result effective variables for achieving their respective desired properties of the surface protection layer. Since Iwasaki’s curing temperature and time fall within the scope of the Applicant’s curing temperature and time, the skilled artisan would have likely arrived at a photosensitive member exhibiting the claimed ratio and degrees of cure, absent any evidence to the contrary.
For the reasons discussed above, the rejections of the claims over the previously cited prior art are maintained, but are further modified to address the limitations of new claims 11-14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Newly presented claim 11 recites “wherein the degree of cure of the conductive support-side surface of the surface protection layer is 54% or more”. Similarly, new claim 12 recites that this degree of cure is 78.5% or more, and new claims 13 and 14 recites that this degree of cure is 79.5% or more.
However, the originally filed application provides no support for the upper limit of these ranges (i.e., 100%). The originally filed specification discloses that the range for the degree of cure of the conductive support-side surface is preferably 41% or more and 95% or less (see pg. 14 of the instant specification). Original claim 6 also recites this range (41% or more and 95% or less). In the examples, the highest degree of cure exhibited by the surface protection layer was 97.5% (Example B6). Thus, there is no support for a degree of cure greater than 97.5%. Accordingly, it is recommended to amend these claims to specify an upper limit that is supported by the original application.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
New claim 14 recites “wherein the degree of cure of the conductive support-side surface of the surface protection layer is 79.5% or more”. However, claim 13 (which claim 14 depends on) already recites this exact same feature. Therefore, claim 14 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends on in this regard. According, it is recommended to cancel claim 12 or omit this redundant limitation in claim 14.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki (US PGP 2013/0065169 A1) (previously cited), in view of Yamashita et al. (US PGP 2012/0114379 A1) (previously cited).
Iwasaki teaches an electrophotographic photoreceptor including a conductive substrate and a photosensitive layer on the conductive substrate. An outermost surface layer (“surface protection layer”) of the photoreceptor is taught to contain a polymer that is formed by polymerizing a cross-linkable charge transport material having an aromatic group and a -CH2OH group ([0006]). An image forming apparatus and a process cartridge including the claimed components and the aforementioned electrophotographic photoreceptor are also described ([0220]-[0229]) (which reads on the corresponding limitations recited in instant claim 9 and claim 10).
Iwasaki teaches that when a cross-linkable charge transporting material having a reactive hydroxyl group is heated in the presence of an acid catalyst, the terminal hydroxyl groups are easily dehydrated. If this reaction is used for the cross-linkable charge transport material having a polyfunctional hydroxyl group, a cured film can be obtained ([0019]).
PNG
media_image1.png
194
324
media_image1.png
Greyscale
An example of the cross-linkable charge transport material is taught to include a charge transport material represented by formula (I-8) below ([0145]):
According to the instant specification, the charge transport compound represented by formula (I-8) is a considered to be a “reactive group-containing charge transporting material” (see compound (2) on pg. 73-74 of the instant specification) (which reads on the corresponding limitations recited in instant claim 1, claim 9, and claim 10).
Other examples of charge transport materials are taught to include quinone-based compounds such as p-benzoquinone, chloranil, bromanil and anthraquinone, a tetracyanoquinodimethane-based compound, a fluorenone compound such as 2,4,7-trinitrofluorenone, a xanthone-based compound, a benzophenone-based compound, etc. These charge transport materials are taught to be used alone or as a mixture of two or more kinds ([0108]).
According to the instant specification, the charge transport compound materials listed in paragraph [0108] of Iwasaki are considered to be “unreactive charge transporting materials” (see pg. 26 of the instant specification) (which reads on the corresponding limitations recited in instant claim 1, claim 9, claim 10, and claim 14).
PNG
media_image2.png
530
642
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Iwasaki describes the reaction of the cross-linkable charge transport material (I-8) in the presence of an acid catalyst in the figure below ([0020]):
Iwasaki teaches that this reaction generates an aromatic aldehyde, which causes image deletion ([0021], “side reaction 2”). However, Iwasaki teaches that deleterious effects can be prevented by setting a ratio of a value of a peak area of an absorption peak of the aromatic aldehyde (“Peak 2”) to a value of a peak area of an absorption peak of an aromatic group (-CH=CH-) in the outermost surface layer of the photoreceptor within a specified range ([0022]).
Iwasaki appears to be silent to teach that a ratio of a degree of cure of a conductive support-side surface of the surface protection layer to a degree of cure of an outer periphery-side surface of the surface protection layer, or the degree of cure of the outer periphery-side surface of the surface protection layer and the degree of cure of the conductive support-side surface of the surface protection layer.
However, according to the instant specification, the method for controlling the degree of cure of the outer periphery-side surface, the degree of cure of the conductive support-side surface, and the ratio between the two can be controlled by setting the curing temperature to 155 ºC or more and the curing time to 15 minutes or more (see pg. 15 of the instant specification).
Similarly, Iwasaki teaches that the ratio (Peak 2/Peak 1) can be controlled by performing the reaction under a nitrogen atmosphere, setting the curing temperature to 160 ºC or less, and setting the curing time to 40 minutes or less, in order to inhibit oxidation (see “side reaction 2”) ([0026]-[0027]). Iwasaki teaches that the curing temperature is preferably 120 ºC or higher and the curing time is 20 minutes or longer ([0028]). In other words, Iwasaki’s curing temperature and time ranges from 120 to 160 ºC and 20 to 40 minutes, respectively.
The outermost surface layer is further taught to be formed by polymerizing the hydroxyl-group containing charge transporting compound with at least one kind of guanamine compound ([0151]-[0164]). An example of a commercially available guanamine compound is taught to include a benzoguanamine resin under the name “Nikalac BL-60” ([0164]). This commercial benzoguanamine resin is used in the production of the outermost surface layer in Iwasaki’s examples ([0288]-[0289]). According to the instant specification, the benzoguanamine resin “Nikalac BL-60” is considered to be a curable resin that serves as a “reactive group-containing non-charge transporting material” (see pg. 73 of the instant specification) (which reads on the corresponding limitations recited in instant claim 1, claim 9, and claim 10).
In Iwasaki’s Example 2, an outermost surface layer was produced using 75 parts of a reactive group-containing charge transporting material represented by formula (I-16), 23 parts of a reactive group-containing charge transporting material represented by formula (I-26), an acid catalyst commercially known as “NACURE 5225”, a curing temperature of 155 ºC, and a curing time of 30 minutes in a nitrogen atmosphere.
Similarly, the Applicant’s surface protection layer of Example 1 was produced using 70 parts of a reactive group-containing charge transporting material represented by formula (2) (formula (I-8) in Iwasaki), 15 parts of a reactive group-containing charge transporting material represented by formula (3) (formula (I-26) in Iwasaki), an acid catalyst commercially known as “NACURE 5225”, a curing temperature of 155 ºC, and a curing time of 23 minutes in a nitrogen atmosphere (see pg. 73-74 and Table 1 of the instant specification).
As mentioned above, the instant specification discloses that the method for controlling the degree of cure of the outer periphery-side surface, the degree of cure of the conductive support-side surface, and the ratio between the two can be controlled by setting the curing temperature to 155 ºC or more and the curing time to 15 minutes or more (see pg. 15 of the instant specification). Since the surface protection layer of Iwasaki was produced using a sufficiently similar method, using sufficiently similar (or the same) reactive group-containing charge transporting materials, sufficiently similar (or the same) acid catalysts, sufficiently similar (or the same) curing temperatures, and sufficiently similar (or the same) curing times, the outermost surface layer (surface protection layer) of Iwasaki would necessarily exhibit “a ratio of a degree of cure of a conductive support-side surface of the surface protection layer to a degree of cure of an outer periphery-side surface of the surface protection layer”, a “degree of cure of the outer periphery-side surface of the surface protection layer”, and a “degree of cure of the conductive support-side surface of the surface protection layer” within the corresponding ranges recited in instant claim 1, claim 2, claim 3, claim 4, claim 5, claim 6, claim 7, claim 9, claim 10, claim 11, claim 12, claim 13, and claim 14.
According to MPEP 2112, "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977) (footnote and citation omitted).”
In the event that the Applicant demonstrates that the photoreceptors of Iwasaki’s experimental examples (e.g., Example 2) would not necessarily exhibit the aforementioned claimed ratio and degree of cure values, the skilled artisan still would have arrived at an electrophotographic photoreceptor exhibiting the claimed ratio and degree of cure through routine optimization. Specifically, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to experiment with different curing temperatures and curing times within the ranges taught by Iwasaki (which are variables that the specification discloses as controlling the claimed ratio and degree of cure values), in view of optimizing Iwasaki’s ratio (Peak 2/Peak 1) in order to prevent the deleterious effects caused by the generation of the aromatic aldehyde in the side reaction.
"The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382. See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art." (citations omitted)).
Iwasaki does not appear to teach or suggest the thickness of the conductive substrate. Yamashita teaches an electrophotographic photoreceptor including an electrophotographic photoreceptor body containing a cylindrical electroconductive substrate. The electroconductive substrate is taught to have a thickness of approximately 2 mm or more at a center portion in an axial direction (Abstract). Yamashita further teaches that the thickness of the is preferably 2 mm or more and 5 mm or less ([0020]-[0024]) (which reads on the corresponding ranges recited in instant claim 1, claim 8, claim 9, and claim 10).
Similarly to Iwasaki (and the Applicant), the electrophotographic photoreceptor of Yamashita is taught to include a surface protection layer comprising a cured film containing at least one of a guanamine compound and a melamine compound, and a reactive group-containing charge transporting material ([0122]-[0124]). The examples of the charge transporting materials provided by Yamashita overlap in scope with Iwasaki and the Applicant’s charge transporting materials (see [0162] of Yamashita). The examples of the acid catalysts provided by Yamashita also overlap in scope with Iwasaki and the Applicant’s acid catalysts (see [0176] of Yamashita). Furthermore, Yamashita teaches that the curing temperature is within the range of from 100 to 170 ºC, which also overlaps in scope with Iwasaki and the Applicant’s curing temperature ranges (see [0180] of Yamashita).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a conductive substrate having a thickness within the range taught by Yamashita with a reasonable expectation of success of obtaining an electrophotographic photoreceptor that exhibits the benefits taught by Iwasaki.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki (US PGP 2013/0065169 A1) (previously cited), in view of Fujiki et al. (US PGP 2005/0238975 A1) (previously cited).
The teachings of Iwasaki are discussed above and incorporated herein. As discussed above, Iwasaki does not appear to teach or suggest the thickness of the conductive substrate. Fujiki teaches an electrophotographic photosensitive element comprising an electroconductive support and a photosensitive layer ([0029]). Fujiki teaches that the thickness of an electroconductive support is typically from 0.05 to 10 mm, and preferably from 0.05 to 8 mm ([0035]) (which reads on the corresponding ranges recited in instant claim 1, claim 8, claim 9, and claim 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a conductive substrate having a thickness within the range taught by Fujiki with a reasonable expectation of success of obtaining an electrophotographic photoreceptor that exhibits the benefits taught by Iwasaki.
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 Boone A Evans whose telephone number is (571)272-1420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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, Mark Huff can be reached on (571) 272-1385. 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.
/B.A.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/PETER L VAJDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737
10/09/2025
1 A ratio of a degree of cure of a conductive support-side surface of the surface protection layer (B) to a degree of cure of an outer periphery-side surface of the surface protection layer (A).