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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the Response, filed 05/20/2026, with respect to the previously applied 35 USC 102, 103 and 112 rejections and have been fully considered and are persuasive. All previously applied rejections have been withdrawn in response to the Applicant’s claim amendments. New rejections are applied below in response to said amendments. As the new rejections were necessitated by the Applicant’s claim amendments this action is made final.
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) 104-107, 110-116, and 123 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada et al. (US PGP 5,432,536) in view of Andriot et al. (US PGP 2020/0263053).
Andriot teaches a method of coating a metal beverage container with a polymeric coating composition wherein the coating composition may include toners ([0077-78]). Like Takada Andriot teaches coating food and beverage cans ([0098]). Andriot further teaches that it is also known to coat metal coils using a thermal curing process ([0103]). Despite teaching that the coating composition may include toners, Andriot does not teach an electrophotographic printing method.
Takada teaches an electrophotographic printing method for printing toner images in on cylindrical metal substrates such as aluminum (Abstract, Col. 1 ln. 27-40, Col. 3 ln. 20-Col. 4 ln. 6 and Col. 4 ln. 50-59). The printing method further comprises developing the substrate with multiple toner particles that are hardened into a polymer coating by application of heat (col. 3 ln. 20-60). The process of Takada is taught to comprise electrically grounding the substrate while directed at least one powdered toner to charged portions of the substrate (Col. 6 ln. 13 – Col. 9 ln. 17). Additionally, Takada teaches the electrophotographic process recited by the Applicant in pending claims 92-93 (Col. 6 ln. 13-Col. 9 ln. 17 and Col. 10 ln. 17-30). Takada further teaches one or more transfer means for directing different colored toners to the substrate by means of an electric or electromagnetic field (Col. 6 ln. 13-Col. 9 ln. 17 and Col. 10 ln. 17-30). The transfer means are further taught to employ electrostatic forces to affect the transfer of the toner to the substrate (Col. 6 ln. 13-Col. 9 ln. 17). Takada teaches that the electrophotographic printing method allows for the reproduction of accurate multiple tone color printed images with high resolution (Col. 2 ln. 15-24). Therefore, 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 electrophotographic printing process of Takada on the metal coils taught by Andriot. As both Takada teaches the electrophotographic printing process is also able to be utilized on the same cylindrical cans taught by Andriot one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a high expectation of success in applying the process of Takada to the metal coils of Andriot.
Claim(s) 120 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada et al. (US PGP 5,432,536) in view of Andriot et al. (US PGP 2020/0263053) and further in view of Takino et al. (US PGP 2019/0033745).
The complete discussions of Takada and Andriot above are included herein. Takada does not teach a suitable charging means such as a charging drum.
Takino teaches an electrophotographic image forming apparatus (Abstract). The image forming apparatus is further taught to comprise a charging roller to electrically charge a surface of a member that receives the electrostatic image ([0095]). This configuration allows the charging roller to be pressed against the a cylindrical photosensitive member to apply even charging to the surface of the cylindrical member ([0095]). Therefore, 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 charging roller taught by Takino in the image forming apparatus taught by Takada for coating the metal coil of Andriot.
Claim(s) 108-109, 111 and 120-122 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada et al. (US PGP 5,432,536) in view of Andriot et al. (US PGP 2020/0263053) and further in view of Inagaki et al. (US PGP 2007/0003853).
The complete discussions of Takada and Andriot above are included herein. Takada does not teach a suitable toner for use in the image forming apparatus.
Inagaki teaches a toner comprising a polymeric binder resin wherein the toner has a Dv50 of 3.0 to 9.5 micrometers ([0199], [0206] and Table 23). The binder resin is taught to have a molecular weight of 100,000 to 1,000,000 ([0232]). As suitable binder resins Inagaki teaches the use of styrene-acrylic based vinyl resins which are free of bisphenols ([0238-246]). The binder resins are further taught to include monomers having an acidic or basic group and therefore will act as charge control agents ([0247-252]). The toners of Inagaki do not comprise any components that would introduce formaldehyde into the toner particles and are therefore substantially free of formaldehyde ([0213-281]). The toner of Inagaki is taught to have an easily controlled particle size distribution with uniform surface properties of each particle without degrading transferability ([0216]). Therefore, 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 toner particles of Inagaki in the image forming procedure taught by Takada for coating the metal coil of Andriot.
Claim(s) 108, 111 are 118-122 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada et al. (US PGP 5,432,536) in view of Andriot et al. (US PGP 2020/0263053) and further in view of Zhou et al. (US PGP 2016/0200879).
The complete discussions of Takada and Andriot above are included herein. Takada does not teach a suitable toner for use in the image forming apparatus.
Zhou teaches a solvent free toner comprising a binder resin, a wax and a colorant ([0029-32]). The binder resin is taught to preferably include polyester resins many of which do not include bisphenol monomers ([0037-48]). The polyester resins may include a crystalline polyester resin with a molecular weight of 2,000 to 100,000 ([0044]) and an amorphous polyester resin with a high molecular weight and low molecular weight component, wherein the high molecular weight component has a molecular weight of 35,000 to 150,000 and low molecular weight component has a molecular weight of from 10,000 to 30,000 ([0052]). The amorphous binder resin is taught to have a glass transition temperature of from 30 to 80 °C ([0049]). The toner is further taught to include a charge control agent ([0115]). Additionally, the toner is taught to have a melt flow index in g/10 min of from about 70 to 175 ([0119]). Zhou does not teach a Dv50 value but does teach that the particle size distribution may be tuned using the disclosed production method ([0117]). The toner of Zhou is taught to produce solvent free resins while allowing for the control of predictable and desired particle size utilizing high viscosity resins ([0004]). Therefore, 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 toner of Zhou in the image forming apparatus of Takada for coating the metal coil of Andriot.
Claim(s) 109 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada et al. (US PGP 5,432,536) in view of Andriot et al. (US PGP 2020/0263053) and further in view of Zhou et al. (US PGP 2016/0200879) as applied to claims 87, 90, 97-99 and 101-102 above, and further in view of Inagaki et al. (US PGP 2007/0003853).
The complete discussions of Takada, Andriot and Zhou above are included herein. Zhou teaches that the particle size distribution of the toners can be controlled but is silent regarding desirable values.
Inagaki teaches a toner with a Dv50 of 3.5 to 9.5 micrometers. Such a Dv50 values is taught to enhance resolution of a fixed image. Therefore, 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 toner of Zhou with a Dv50 within the range taught by Inagaki in the image forming apparatus of Takada for coating the metal coil of Andriot in order to enhance image resolution.
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 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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571)270-3149. 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 08/05/2026
Prosecution Insights