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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2026-04-14 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1 and 3 – 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awamura et al (JP 2007-233030) in view of Miyakawa (US PGP 2005/0058924), further in view of Ikeda et al (JP 2012-123196) (machine translations of foreign documents are referred to henceforth).
Awamura teaches a toner comprising toner particles comprising a binder resin, which bear at least resin fine particles on their surfaces ([0010]). The toner also comprises a colorant ([0034]) and a wax as a release agent ([0037]). Awamura teaches that the coverage of the resin fine particles on the surface of the toner particles is preferably 20 – 80%, encompassing the range stated in Claim 1. Awamura teaches that silica particles, among other inorganic oxides, may also be included as external additives ([0042]), but does not appear to teach metal oxide particles coated with a metal hydroxide.
Miyakawa teaches a negatively chargeable toner comprising resin particles and an external additive (Abstract). The silica particles impart negative chargeability and fluidity to the toner ([0068]). The silica particles of Miyakawa are surface-modified by metal oxides or hydroxides, and aluminum is given as one of the optional metals ([0071]), allowing for treatment with aluminum hydroxide. The silica particles surface-modified with a metal (hydr)oxide are then subjected to hydrophobic treatment by an alkoxysilane ([0072]). Miyakawa does not appear to teach isobutyltrimethoxysilane or decyltrimethoxysilane as silane treatment agents.
Ikeda teaches a toner having externally added silica-alumina composite particles ([0017]). Where the hydrophobicity of these particles is controlled well ([0018]), the fluidity, charge stability, developability, and transferability of the toner can be improved ([0019]). The composite particles may be prepared by coating silica particles with alumina ([0041]). In order to preserve environmental stability, the composite particles should be treated with a hydrophobic treatment agent ([0031]), and examples are given which include i-butyltrimethoxysilane (the same as isobutyltrimethoxysilane) and decyltrimethoxysilane ([0037]), the same as those listed in Claim 1.
In preparing the toner of Awamura, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve the fluidity of the toner by externally adding the silica particles taught by Miyakawa, which also impart negative chargeability. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to preserve the environmental stability and hydrophobicity of the silica particles by using the surface treatment agents taught by Ikeda. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to prepare the toner of Awamura externally added with the aluminum hydroxide-modified silica particles of Miyakawa, which are surface-treated with the silane agents taught by Ikeda, resulting in a toner satisfying Claim 1, Claim 3, and Claim 4.
Awamura teaches that the toner may be used as a one-component developer ([0019]), or as part of a two-component developer ([0061]), reading on Claim 5.
Awamura teaches that the externally added inorganic fine particles are preferably used in an amount of 0.1 – 5% by weight, overlapping the range stated in Claim 9.
Claims 6, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awamura et al (JP 2007-233030) in view of Miyakawa (US PGP 2005/0058924), further in view of Ikeda et al (JP 2012-123196), further in view of Kamada et al (US PGP 2021/0356877).
The above discussions of Awamura et al, Miyakawa, and Ikeda et al are incorporated herein. None of Awamura, Miyakawa, or Ikeda appears to teach externally added fine resin particles having a core-shell structure.
Kamada teaches a toner including a toner base particle and resin particles on the surfaces of the toner base particles (Abstract). Where the resin particles are distributed substantially uniformly on the toner particle surface, low-temperature fixability, heat-resistant storage stability, and cleanability can be enhanced ([0016]). The resin particles preferably have a volume-average diameter of 5 – 100 nm ([0045]). Kamada teaches that the resin particles are preferably comprised of a core resin and a shell resin ([0047]). A preferred range for mass ratio of the two resins is given, which allows the resin particles to deposit effectively on the toner particles and impart heat-resistant storage stability to the toner ([0139]). The resin particles disclosed by Kamada in preparative examples ([0477], [0478], [0493] – [0495]) appear to be identical to those disclosed in the instant application (Specification, [0403] – [0404]).
In preparing the toner of Awamura externally added with the aluminum hydroxide-modified silica particles of Miyakawa, which are surface-treated with the silane agents taught by Ikeda, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to enhance the low-temperature fixability, heat-resistant storage stability, and cleanability of the toner by incorporating the core-shell structured resin particles taught by Kamada. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to prepare the toner of Awamura externally added with the aluminum hydroxide-modified silica particles of Miyakawa, which are surface-treated with the silane agents taught by Ikeda, and also externally added with the resin particles of Kamada, resulting in a toner described by Claim 10.
Kamada describes a toner stored unit, which may be a toner stored container, a developing device, or a process cartridge ([0419]), reading on the toner housing unit of Claim 6.
Kamada describes an image forming apparatus, which includes an electrostatic latent image bearer, an image forming unit, a developing unit ([0427]), a transferring unit, and a fixing unit ([0446]), reading on the apparatus of Claim 7.
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 05/19/2026
Prosecution Insights