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 .
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) 1-3 and 5-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2013-246364 (henceforth JP ‘364) in view of JP 2017-107004 (henceforth JP ‘004).
JP ‘364 teaches an electrophotographic photoreceptor comprising a conductive support, a photosensitive layer and a protective layer formed sequential on one another (Abstract, [0064]). The photosensitive layer is taught to comprise a hole transport material, however JP ‘364 does no teach whether the difference between a HOMO level and a LUMO level of said hole transport material is greater than 3.6 eV and 4.0 eV or less. In the instant specification the Applicant teaches a hole transport compound have the Formula (F) which is taught to have an energy difference between the HOMO level and the LUMO level of 3.65 (see [0168-169] and [0183], Table 2). JP ‘364 teaches an analogous charge transport layer in photoreceptor of Example 4 that has the following hole transport compound, which is the same as disclosed by the Applicant in Formula (F):
PNG
media_image1.png
310
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
As the above compound is the same as the Applicant’s Formula (F) it will inherently possess the same energy difference between the HOMO and LUMO levels. The protective layer of JP ‘364 is taught to comprise a binder resin and inorganic oxide particles such as alumina and silica particles, but HP ’364 does not teach a suitable content of said inorganic particles ([0062]). The photosensitive layer is taught to be a laminate type photosensitive layer comprising a charge generating layer and a charge transporting layer ([0052]). As seen in the formula above, the hole transport compound is an enamine compound that reads on Formula (I) of pending claim 11. The photosensitive layer is further taught to include an electron transport material (radical acceptor compound; [0024]). JP ‘364 does not teach the energy difference between the HOMO and the LUMO of the electron transport material, but does teach the same compounds taught by the Applicant to have a difference in energy of 3.0 eV or less (see [0075] of the instant specification and [0027] of JP ‘364). The content of the electron transport compound is taught to be 0.2 to 30 parts by mass of the charge transport layer ([0025]). The photoreceptor is further taught to be a negatively charging photoreceptor ([0065]). Additionally, JP ‘364 teaches an image forming apparatus and process cartridge for housing the photoreceptor ([0066-81]).
While JP ‘364 teaches a protective layer as the topmost layer of the photoreceptor, JP ‘364 does not teach a photocurable protective layer or a Martens hardness of said protective layer. JP ‘004 teaches a negatively chargeable photoreceptor comprising a protective layer formed on a laminated photosensitive layer (Abstract, [0038-47] and [0097]). The protective layer is taught to comprise a photocurable resin and a metal oxide (abstract). The photocurable resin is further taught to comprise an acryloyl group ([0021]) and polymerization is taught to be effected using a polymerization initiator ([0078]). Additionally, the photoreceptor is taught to have a Martens hardness which in embodiments is above 270 mN ([0050], [0134] and Table 2). The content of the metal oxide particles is taught to be from 1:100 to 100:100 ([0076]). JP ‘004 teaches that the protective layer described above has improved lubricity and thereby reduces the wear of the photoreceptor ([0013]). 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 the protective layer of JP ‘004 in the photoreceptor layer of JP ‘364.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 11/14/2025