DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the Response, filed 10/22/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-12 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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(s) of rejection is made below.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toshiyuki (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2010-139618) in view of Nakazato (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2014-209197).
Toshiyuki teaches an electrophotographic photoreceptor having a surface layer comprising a binder resin and a metal oxide particle (Abstract). An image forming apparatus contains a process cartridge which is removable from the image forming apparatus, and contains the photoreceptor and a developing unit ([0018]). The metal oxide particle may be titanium oxide that is surface treated with a silane coupling agent ([0033]). Exemplary titanium oxide particles have a surface treatment of methacryloxypropyltrimethoxysilane ([0209]), which has a methacryoyloxy group. The number average primary particle diameter of the metal oxide particles (“m”) is preferably 3 to 100 nm ([0068]), and exemplary photoreceptor 13 has a titanium oxide particle with a diameter of 50 nm (Table 1). The amount of the metal oxide in the protective layer is from 10 to 80 weight% ([0070]). Based off of this and the content of the metal oxide in the examples (Table 1), a content ratio (“p”) of the metal oxide with respect to the surface layer would fall in the range of 5 to 40 vol%, most likely the higher end of the range. Among the preferable compounds for the binder resin are an acrylic monomer or a methacrylic monomer ([0043]).
Toshiyuki is silent regarding a toner particle comprising a hydrotalcite external additive. Nakazato teaches a toner having a hydrotalcite particle as an external additive (Abstract). Hydrotalcite as an external additive prevents image defects such as decreases in image density and fogging ([0003]). The hydrotalcite is represented by the general formula Mg2+y1 M22+y2… Mj2+yj Al3+x1 L23+x2 … Lk3+ xk (OH) 2. (X/n) An- • mH2O ([0016]), which contains magnesium and aluminum. The hydrotalcite may contain F- as the n-valent anion, either alone or in combination with another anion ([0017]). Exemplary hydrotalcite particle A has a particle size (“h”) of 0.66 µm, or 660 nm ([0054]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the hydrotalcite containing toner of Nakazato in order to prevent image defects.
Regarding the expression of claim 5, |2(p-1/3-1)m| ≤ h ≤ |20(p-1/3-1)m|, the limitation would be satisfied with the values from the exemplary photoreceptors and hydrotalcite. The value m of the titanium oxide is 50, the value h of the hydrotalcite is 660, and the value p of 30 to 40. Using a value p of 30: |2(0.32-1)50| ≤ 660 ≤ |20(0.32-1)50| = 67.8 ≤ 660 ≤ 678; and a value p of 40: |2(0.29-1)50| ≤ 660 ≤ |20(0.29-1)50| = 70.7 ≤ 660 ≤ 707.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toshiyuki and Nakazato as applied to claims 1, 4, 5, 8-10 and 12 above, and further in view of Sugiyama (US PGP 2016-0154324).
Toshiyuki and Nakazato are silent regarding a charging roller with a specified universal hardness as part of the process cartridge. Sugiyama teaches an electrophotographic apparatus including a charging roller that is disposed in contact with the photoreceptor (Abstract). The photoreceptor and charging roller are within the process cartridge ([0016-18]). The direct charging system allows for a reduction in size of the image forming apparatus ([0042]) while performing uniform charging at high levels ([0044]). The charging roller includes an electroconductive support (metal core) and an electroconductive layer (elastic layer) on the surface of the support ([0073]). The universal hardness of the charging roller at 1 µm from the surface is 1.0 to 10.0 N/mm2 ([0078] line 1-4). This suppresses image defects caused by deformation of the charging roller and stability in downstream discharging ([0078] line 4-13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process cartridge of Toshiyuki to have included the charging roller of Sugiyama in order to reduce the size of the cartridge while providing uniform charge and suppressing image defects.
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 Jenna Kuipers whose telephone number is (571)272-0161. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:30 PT.
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.
/J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1734
/PETER L VAJDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 01/26/2026