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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2026-03-24 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument in the remarks filed 2026-03-24 regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(b), stated in the prior office action, is persuasive in light of the present amendment to Claim 1. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) is withdrawn.
However, Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges that the rejection stated in the prior office action relies on an assumption that the properties and performance of the carrier flow solely from the chemical composition of the resin coating layer of the carrier particles. However, in the response to Applicant’s arguments and in the detailed rejection laid out in the prior office action, it was shown that the method disclosed by Anno reads on not only the materials used in the method described by the instant application, but also on the apparatus and settings used in the coating method.
Applicant further argues that the ranges claimed for the viscosity of the coating liquid and the dynamic stirring work (which depends in part on the viscosity of the coating liquid) are critical to the evaluation performance of the present invention. However, as laid out in the arguments in the prior office action, Comparative Examples 1 – 4 of the instant application achieve poor evaluations of “Color dullness suppressing property”, but also possess values for the content of carbon black in the coating liquid diverging widely from those for the preparative examples. Therefore, it is not clear that the superior performance of the preparative examples flows reliably from either the viscosity of the coating resin or from the amount of stirring work, and the claimed ranges for these parameters cannot be considered critical. For these reasons, the updated rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 is not withdrawn.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In particular, while a preference is stated surrounding the superficial velocity of the fluidizing gas relative to the minimum fluidization velocity (Specification, [0044]), neither of these values or their ratio is reported for any disclosed preparative example, either in the disclosed procedures or in Table 1. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to tell which disclosed preparative examples do or do not conform to the limitations of Claim 14.
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.
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.
Claims 1 – 7, 9 – 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anno et al (US PGP 2019/0094787).
Anno teaches an image forming apparatus having a developing unit, which accommodates a toner and a carrier (Abstract). Anno describes a carrier comprising a core particle having a resin coating ([0103]). The core particles may be magnetic metal or metal oxide particles ([0136]). Anno describes several methods of forming the resin coating layer on the core particles, including kneader coater method, wherein core particles are mixed with a resin coating layer solution in a kneader coater, followed by removal of a solvent from the solution ([0152]).
Anno discloses the preparation of an example Carrier 2-1 ([0285] – [0290]), wherein a resin coating solution is prepared by mixing in a sand mill 3 parts by mass of cyclohexyl methacrylate/methyl methacrylate copolymer (95:5 molar ratio) (a (meth)acrylic resin), 0.3 parts by mass carbon black (conductive particles), and 14 parts by mass of toluene (an aromatic hydrocarbon). This mixture would thus have a content of the resin in the coating liquid of 17.6% by mass, and a content of carbon black of 1.76 parts by mass relative to 100 parts of coating liquid. This resin coating liquid would be composed of the same components in amounts lying between those reported for instant Example 1 and Example 4 (Specification, Table 1, Example 1). Those instant preparative examples possess a value for µ of 118 mPa·s and 65 mPa·s, respectively. Therefore, the coating liquid of Anno would inherently possess a value for µ lying in the range 65 – 118 mPa·s, reading on the range stated in Claim 1.
3
p
a
r
t
s
c
o
p
o
l
y
m
e
r
3
p
a
r
t
s
c
o
p
o
l
y
m
e
r
+
14
p
a
r
t
s
t
o
l
u
e
n
e
*
100
%
=
17.6
%
0.3
p
a
r
t
s
c
a
r
b
o
n
b
l
a
c
k
3
p
a
r
t
s
c
o
p
o
l
y
m
e
r
+
14
p
a
r
t
s
t
o
l
u
e
n
e
*
100
p
a
r
t
s
c
o
a
t
i
n
g
l
i
q
u
i
d
=
1.76
p
a
r
t
s
Further, the whole of the resin coating solution of Anno is added alongside the core particles to the kneader, giving a value for W (parts by mass of resin coating layer versus 100 parts of core particles) of 3.3 (3 parts of resin plus 0.3 parts of carbon black, added to 100 parts of core particles). The value of µ/W for the carrier of Anno would thus lie roughly in the range 20 - 36, reading on the range stated in Claim 1.
65
3.3
=
19.7
118
3.3
=
35.8
Anno describes mixing the magnetic core particles with the resin coating solution in a vacuum degassing kneader, which is a type of mixer having a stirring blade, and the removal of toluene by distillation, which entails the evaporation of toluene, the solvent. The kneader blade diameter, the blade rotation speed, and the stirring time are all parameters which would be obvious to optimize to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in the course of routine laboratory experimentation, to adjust these parameters in such a way that the product of the amount of stirring work and the viscosity of the resin coating solution (which, as discussed above, lies in the preferred ranges of the instant application) would satisfy Expression 1 of Claim 1. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application, a practitioner preparing the carrier of Anno would have necessarily carried out a method for producing a carrier described by Claim 1.
As stated above, the resin coating solution of Anno has a value for W of 3.3, lying in the ranges stated in Claim 2 and Claim 3.
As stated above, the resin coating solution of Anno inherently possesses a value for viscosity (µ) of 118 mPa·s, lying in the ranges stated in Claim 4 and Claim 5.
As stated above, the resin coating solution of Anno has a value for µ/W of 36, lying in the range stated in Claim 6.
As discussed above, the resin coating solution of Anno, which is equivalent to the mixture excluding magnetic particles, is composed of 3 parts of methacrylate copolymer, 0.3 parts of carbon black, and 14 parts of toluene. This gives a value for S of 19%, lying in the range stated in Claim 7.
Given that a vacuum degassing kneader is used in the mixing and drying step disclosed by Anno ([0290]), it would be well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art that the coating solution solvent would be distilled under reduced pressure at a temperature lower than the standard boiling point of the solvent. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in the course of routine laboratory experimentation, to control the strength of vacuum applied to the mixture, and concomitantly the temperature required inside the kneader to achieve drying, resulting in a temperature in the range stated in Claim 9.
The carrier of Anno has 0.3 parts of carbon black (conductive particles) added to 100 parts of magnetic core particles, lying in the range stated in Claim 10.
Anno teaches a developer comprising a toner and a carrier (Abstract), and exemplifies preparation of a developer ([0400] – [0401]) using Carrier 2-1 described above and a toner (page 17, Table 3, Developer 1K-1), satisfying Claim 11.
Anno describes an image forming apparatus comprising an image forming unit ([0011]). The image forming unit comprises an image holding member ([0013]), a charging unit ([0019]), an electrostatic charge image forming unit (analogous to an exposure element) ([0019]), a developing unit which accommodates a developer and develops an electrostatic latent image ([0013] – [0014]), a transfer unit ([0015]), and a fixing unit ([0074] – [0075]), satisfying Claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Grant S Seiler whose telephone number is (571)272-3015. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 5:30 Pacific.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/GRANT STEVEN SEILER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1734
/PETER L VAJDA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 04/15/2026
Prosecution Insights