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 .
This action is issued to include a copy of the Diamond reference that was absent in the previous Final Office Action. The issuance of this action will restart the Applicant’s time period for reply from the mailing date of this action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 07/24/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The Applicant has amended the claims in order to overcome the previously applied prior art. As such, the previously applied prior art rejections are hereby withdrawn. In response to the Applicant’s newly entered claim amendments new rejections are set forth below. As the new rejections are necessitated by the Applicant’s claim amendments this action is made final.
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) 1-4, 6, 10-16 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi et al. (US PGP 2015/0355560) in view of Diamond, The Handobook of Image Forming Materials and further in view of KR 2017/0067631 (henceforth KR ‘631).
Konishi teaches an image forming device comprising a positively charging photoreceptor comprising a laminated layer configuration comprising a charge generating layer, a charge transporting layer and a surface protective layer (Abstract, [0184-199]). The layers are all taught to comprise a binder resin and the charge transport layer comprises a charge transporting compound ([0174-182]). The outermost protective layer is taught to comprise a metal oxide particle such as silica that is surface treated with a silane coupling agent having a radical polymerizable (chain polymerizable) functional group ([0041-42] and [0114]). The outermost layer is further taught to comprise a curable binder resin ([0037-39]) which may be photocurable ([0130-131]). The content of the metal oxide particles in the surface layer is taught to be from 50 to 200 parts by mass based on 100 parts by mass of the binder resin ([0140]). The surface layer is further taught to have a thickness of from 0.2 to 10 micrometers and preferably 0.5 to 6 micrometers ([0141]). The surface layer is taught to be cured using an acylphosphine based photopolymerization initiator and/or a alkylphenone hydrogen abstraction type initiator ([0147-148]). The initiator is further taught to comprise from 0.5 to 10 parts by mass based on 100 parts by mass of the polymerizable compound ([0148]). The metal oxide particles are not taught to contain a phosphorous element. Konishi does not teach that the positively charging photoreceptor have a single layer photosensitive layer.
Diamond teaches that photoreceptors may have either a single layer or a multiple layer configuration. Single layer configurations are photoreceptors wherein the photoreceptor composition is constant throughout the film thickness (p. 398-399, 9.4.1). Diamond also teaches that dual layer photoreceptors have the disadvantage of added cost and that these materials can be used only with one polarity of surface potential.
KR ‘631 teaches an image forming apparatus comprising a positively charged single layer photoreceptor comprising a conductive support, a photosensitive layer comprising a binder resin, a charge generating compound, a hole transport compound and an electron transport compound (see “Description of Embodiments” section of the translation, specifically “Photosensitive layer”). The image forming apparatus is addition taught to include a contact charge device for supplying direct current voltage (see the “Electrophotographic image forming apparatus” section of the provided translation). The photoreceptor also comprises a surface protective layer comprising a photocurable compound (see “Protective Layer” section of the provided translation). The protective layer is further taught to include metal oxide particles (see “iv) metal oxide particles” section of the provided translation). The thickness of the protective layer is taught to be from 0.1 micrometer of 10 micrometers (see the “iv) metal oxide particles” section of the provided translation). As a hole transporting material in the single photosensitive layer KR ‘631 teaches the use of triarylamine compounds, which encompass tribenzylamine (see the “1-2) charge transport layer” section of the provided translation). The image forming apparatus is further taught to perform an image forming method that comprises the steps recited by the Applicant in pending claims 13-16 (see the “Electrophotographic image forming apparatus” section of the provided translation). As such, 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 a single layer type photosensitive layer in the photoreceptor of Konishi et al. as taught by KR ‘631 in order to obtain the benefits associated therewith taught by Diamond.
Claim(s) 7-9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi et al. (US PGP 2015/0355560) in view of Diamond, The Handobook of Image Forming Materials and further in view of KR 2017/0067631 (henceforth KR ‘631) as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 10-16 and 18 above, and further in view of Mizuta et al. (US PGP 2014/0093816).
The complete discussions of Konishi, Diamond and KR ‘631 above are included herein. While KR ‘631 teaches a positively chargeable single layer photoreceptor, KR ‘631 does not teach relative amounts of the charge generating compound, electron transport compound or hole transport compound with respect to the binder resin of the photosensitive layer. Additionally, KR ‘631 does not teach a suitable voltage for the direct contact charging member.
Mizuta teaches an image forming apparatus that comprises a positively chargeable single layer photoreceptor ([0047]). Mizuta further teaches that the photosensitive layer should comprise from 0.1 to 50 parts by mass of the charge generating compound, 5 to 100 parts by mass of the electron transport compound and 5 parts to 500 parts (preferably 25 to 200 parts) of the hole transporting compound, all based on 100 parts by mass of the binding resin ([0048]). The single layer photosensitive layer of Mizuta is taught to have simplified layer construction, high productivity, suppressed coating defects, improved optical characteristics, improved electron transportation performance and higher sensitivity ([0030]). Mizuta further contact charging means of the image for supplying a direct current voltage ([0060-61]). The direct current voltage is taught to preferably 1000 V or higher and the use of the contact charging member of Mizuta is taught to suppress a state of variation of a surface of the photosensitive layer due to wear during an initial stage of use of the positively charged single layer photoreceptor ([0061]). 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 utilized a single layer type photosensitive layer in the photoreceptor of Konishi et al. as taught by KR ‘631 in order to obtain the benefits associated therewith taught by Diamond and further to have looked to Mizuta et al. for guidance as to the relative amounts of the components of the single layer photosensitive member in order to obtain the improvements taught by Mizuta et al. and to have further utilized the direct current constant charger taught by Mizuta et al. in the image forming apparatus and method taught by KR ‘631 in order to obtain the improvements taught to be associated therewith by Mizuta et al.
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 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 11/12/2025