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 .
Response to Amendment
Claim 1 and Claim 2 have been amended. The Specification has been amended to as suggested in the prior office action to make the language at paragraph [0148] and in Table 1 consistent regarding alkyloxysilanes/alkyl(alkoxy)silanes and isobutyltrimethoxysilane. The objection to the Specification laid out in the prior office action is therefore withdrawn. No new subject matter has been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 2025-12-18, with respect to the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §103, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made over Awamura et al (JP 2007-233030) in view of Miyakawa (UP PGP 2005/0058924) (see rejection below).
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 - 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awamura et al (JP 2007-233030) in view of Miyakawa (UP PGP 2005/0058924).
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]).
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. 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 treated silica particles of Miyakawa, resulting in a toner satisfying Claim 1, Claim 2, 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.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awamura et al (JP 2007-233030) in view of Miyakawa (UP PGP 2005/0058924), further in view of Horiuchi et al (US PGP 2011/0287353).
The above discussions of Awamura and Miyakawa are incorporated herein.
Neither Awamura nor Miyakawa appears to teach a toner housing unit or the details of an image forming apparatus.
Horiuchi discloses an image forming apparatus (Abstract). The image forming apparatus comprises an image bearing member, a latent electrostatic image forming means, a developing means, a transferring means, and a fixing means ([0307]). The developing means contains a toner or developer, analogous to a toner housing unit, and delivers the same to the latent electrostatic image held on the image bearing means ([0325]). Horiuchi teaches that a one-component or two-component developer may be used in the image forming apparatus ([0328]).
Where Awamura and Miyakawa both make mention of an image forming apparatus, but fail to teach the specifics of such an apparatus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to the prior art for guidance as to an appropriate apparatus for use with the developer taught by Awamura and Miyakawa. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the developer of Awamura and Miyakawa in the image forming apparatus taught by Horiuchi, reading on Claim 6 and Claim 7.
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 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 02/05/2026