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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the Response, filed 01/21/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-16 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the prior art cited 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
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 02/05/2026