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 04/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant has argued that JP ‘895 and JP ‘292 are not combinable as JP ‘895 teaches a higher exposure ratio than JP ‘292. Specifically, the Applicant has argued that JP ‘292 teaches that the exposure ratio be limited to 2 to 20% in order to prevent wear on the developing sleeve. However, JP ‘292 was relied upon for teaching strontium titanate particles and a suitable mean width of a roughness profile (RSm) in order to suppress the wear and contamination of the surface of a developing sleeve while also suppressing the occurrence of density unevenness. The Applicant has not demonstrated or pointed to any teaching in JP ‘292 that would suggest that the exposure ratio of JP ‘895 would prevent these improvements from manifesting. Furthermore, as JP ‘292 is not relied upon for its teaching of the exposure rate of the core magnetic particles the difference in exposure ratio values would not have precluded one of ordinary skill in the art from applying the teachings of JP ‘292 relied upon in the rejection to the carrier particles of JP ‘895.
The Applicant has further argued that WO ‘677 teaches the use of composite particles comprising ferromagnetic iron oxide particles (understood to read on ferrite particles) and phenol resin while JP ‘895 teaches the use of ferrite core particles. As such, the Applicant alleges that surface topography of a composite core is physically incompatible with the topography of a ferrite core and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had no reasonable expectation of success in extracting a surface roughness parameter engineered specifically for the composite core particles of WO ‘677 and applying it to the solid ferrite carrier particles of JP ‘895. However, techniques for adjusting the surface roughness (Rz) of ferrite particles are well known in the art. There is nothing in WO ‘677 that teaches that the Rz values are beneficial exclusively to composite carrier particles. JP 2021-182073 (henceforth JP ‘073) teaches that the Rz value of ferrite carrier particles can be adjusted “by the oxygen concentration in the firing process.” (see the “Description of Embodiments” section of the provided translation). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that the Rz value of the ferrite particles of JP ‘895 could be tuned to desirable range taught by WO ‘677 by known conventional techniques. Please note that JP ‘073 is presented only to showcase the state of the art at the time of the Applicant’s filing date and is not relied upon in the rejection below. It is provided solely to address the Applicant’s argument that one of the ordinary skill in the art would not have known how to engineer the surface roughness parameter of ferrite core particles.
The Applicant also argues that Kawauchi teaches that the Rz value is the roughness of the uncoated bare ferrite core particles and that applying a resin coating significantly alters the surface topography of the carrier particles. However, the Applicant has not provided any evidence to substantiate this position. It is well known in the carrier art that resin coatings can translate the surface topography of the core particles by providing a thin coating uniform thickness thereby preserving the surface roughness/topography of the carrier core particles after coating. For all of these reasons the Applicant’s arguments are not found to be persuasive the rejections presented in the Office Action mailed 02/09/2026 are maintained. The rejections from said Office Action are restated below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2021-063895 (henceforth JP ‘895) in view of JP 2019-164292 (henceforth JP ‘292) and further in view of WO 2010-140677 (henceforth WO ‘677).
JP ‘895 teaches a coated carrier for use in electrophotography. The carrier is taught to comprise magnetic carrier core particles that are coated with a resin layer (Abstract). The carrier particles are further taught to comprise a ratio of exposure of the core material of from 50 to 80% based on the surface area of the carrier and an exposure height of the core material particle of 0.15 to 2.0 micrometers (Abstract). The exposure height corresponds to a portion of the Applicant’s Rz value recited in claim 1 however JP ‘895 does not specify the measurement process recited by the Applicant in claim 1. The coating layer is further taught to comprise conductive particles that are taught to be inorganic (see “-Conductive Particles-“ section of the provided translation). In Example 1 of JP ‘895 a resin solution 2 having a solid content of 20% is added in an amount of 8.3 parts per 100 parts (83 g per 1kg) of carrier core particles. Therefore, the solid content of the resin deposited on the surface of the carrier core particles is 1.67 parts (8.3 parts x 0.2 = 1.67 parts). The carrier particles of Example 1 are taught to have an exposure rate of 65% and therefore the carrier particles of Example 1 will possess a value of the Applicant’s ratio S/M recited in pending claims 4-5 of 39% (65% / 1.67 = 39%, see “(Example 1)” in provided translation as well as Table 2).
The coating layer of the carrier particles is further taught to include resin particles such as polyaniline which may be used in conjunction with the electrically conductive inorganic particles (see “-Conductive Particles-“ section of the provided translation). The core particles are taught to be ferrite particles (see “<Core Particle> section of the provide translation). The carrier particles are taught to be combined with toner particles to form a two component developer which is further taught to be used in a process cartridge, image forming apparatus and image forming method that read on the limitations of the applicant’s pending claims 13-15 (see “(Repleneshing Developer,” “(Process Cartridge),” and “(Image Forming Apparatus and Image forming Method)” sections of the provided translation). JP ‘895 further does not teach an RSm value for the carrier particles.
WO ‘677 teaches a carrier for a two component developer wherein the surface of the carrier possesses a ten-point mean roughness (Rz) of 0.3 to 2.0 micrometers (Abstract). The carrier is taught to possess excellent durability in terms of peeling or a resin coating and abrasion, is stable to mechanical stress applied thereto and does not create spent toner (abstract). As such, the carrier lifetime is improved and fogging nad density unevenness are prevented (Abstract). Furthermore, the surface roughness Rz is measured according to JIS B0601 (see the “[Measurement of dielectric constant]” section of the provided translation).
JP ‘292 teaches a carrier particle for use in a two component developer comprising a resin coated carrier comprising magnetic particles with a resin layer coating (Abstract). JP ‘292 further teaches that the resin coating further comprises strontium titanate particles and that optimizing a ratio of RSm (mean width of a roughness profile) and the average primary particle size of the strontium titanate particles suppresses the wear and contamination of the surface of a developing sleave and further suppresses the occurrence of density unevenness (see “<Electrostatic image developer>” section of the provided translation). The RSm value of the carrier particles is taught to be between 0.5 and 5.0 micrometers (see the “[Resin Coated Carrier]” section of the provided translation). The particle size of the strontium titanate particles is taught to be 10 to 100 nm in order to improve dispersion uniformity, spacer effect and lubricity (see “[Strontium Titanate Particles]” section of the provided translation).
As demonstrated above JP ‘895, WO ‘677 and JP ‘292 teach resin coated magnetic carrier particles. JP ‘292 teaches express benefits associated with regulating the RSm value to within the disclosed range and by further incorporating strontium titanate particles in the resin coating layer. WO ‘677 teaches express benefits of confining a surface roughness Rz within the range of 0.3 to 2.0 micrometers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to any person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the instant application to have imparted the carrier particles of JP ‘895 with the RSm values and strontium titanate particles as taught by JP ‘292 and the surface roughness Rz taught by WO ‘677 in order to impart the carrier particles of JP ‘895 with the associated benefits.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2021-063895 (henceforth JP ‘895) in view of JP 2019-164292 (henceforth JP ‘292) and further in view of WO 2010-140677 (henceforth WO ‘677) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-15 above, and further in view of Kawauchi et al. (US PGP 2014/0242511).
The complete discussions of JP ‘895 and JP ‘292 above are included herein. JP ‘895 does not teach a surface roughness Rz with range recited in pending claim 3.
Kawauchi teaches a carrier for use in a tow component developer wherein the carrier is taught to have a surface roughness value Rz of from 2.6 to 5.2 micrometers ([0034]). Providing the carrier particles with a surface roughness Rz within this range is taught to impart the carrier particles with ability to stably maintain high chargeability over a long time ([0157]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to any person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the instant application to have imparted carrier particles of JP ‘895 as modified by JP ‘292 and the surface roughness Rz taught by WO ‘677 above with an Rz value within the range taught by Kawauchi et al. in order to improve charging stability.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2021-063895 (henceforth JP ‘895) in view of JP 2019-164292 (henceforth JP ‘292) and further in view of WO 2010-140677 (henceforth WO ‘677) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-15 above, and further in view of Srinivasan et al. (US Patent 9,523,932).
The complete discussions of JP ‘895 and JP ‘292 above are included herein. JP ‘895 does not teach the use of silica particles on the surface of the carrier particles.
Srinivasan teaches a coated carrier particle for use in a two component developer (Abstract). Additionally, it is taught that tribocharge uniformity is achieved by treating the surface of the magnetic carrier particles with surface additives such silica (Abstract). In embodiments, Srinivasan teaches the addition of 1.61 grams of silica for 322 grams of a coated carrier particle (See Col. 13 ln. 34-62 and Col 14 ln. 25-37). The applicant utilizes 1.5 parts of silica particles per 100 parts of coated carrier particles (see Example 1 on pp. 52-53 of the instant specification). As such, Srinivasan teaches a substantially smaller amount of silica particles than the Applicant’s Example 1, which is shown to read on the elemental amount of Si recited in pending claims 7-8. As such, utilizing silica in the amount taught by Srinivasan would be expected to also produce a carrier particle with an elemental amount within the ranges recited in pending claims 7-8. As Srinivasan teaches express benefits of utilizing silica particles in the coating layer of a coated magnetic carrier it would have been obvious to any person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the instant application to have utilized silica particles in the coating layer of the carrier particles of the carrier of JP ‘895, as modified by JP ‘292 and Wo ’677 above, in the amount taught by Srinivasan in order to optimize tribocharge uniformity.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2021-063895 (henceforth JP ‘895) in view of JP 2019-164292 (henceforth JP ‘292) and further in view of WO 2010-140677 (henceforth WO ‘677) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-15 above, and further in view of Kamoto et al. (US PGP 2010/0248116).
The complete discussions of JP ‘895 and JP ‘292 above are included herein. JP ‘895 does not teach the method recited in pending claim 16.
Kamoto teaches a coated magnetic carrier for a two component developer. Additionally, Kamoto teaches a dry production process of adhering resin particles to a surface of the carrier core particles by applying heat and impact force in a rotary kiln (Abstract, [0020-23] and [0102-112]). This is taught to produce carrier particles that can stably charge a toner and can stably form high definition and high-quality images free of image defects such as fog ([0015]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to any person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the instant application to have produced the carrier particles of JP ‘895 as modified JP ‘292 and WO ‘677 above using the method taught by Kamoto.
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 PETER L VAJDA whose telephone number is (571)272-7150. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:00 PM.
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 at (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.
/PETER L VAJDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 06/08/2026
Prosecution Insights