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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12-13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 12 the Applicant has recited that the aggregation temperatures be equal to or higher than the glass transition temperature and then in parenthesis suggests two different temperatures (-15 °C and -3 °C). First it is unclear whether these temperatures represent a range of temperatures below the glass the glass transition temperature or the glass transition temperature of the resin particles. In claim 13, the same issue is present regarding the shell resin particles. The claim limitations have been interpreted to read that that aggregation temperature in claim 12 is a value equal to or between 3 and 15 °C less than the glass transition temperature of the core and in claim 13 is a value equal to or between 3 and 40 °C less than the glass transition temperature of the shell.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AU 2008-246237 (henceforth AU ‘237) in view of JP 2018-084678 (JP ‘678) and considered with CN 115125741 (henceforth CN ‘741).
AU ‘237 teaches an emulsion aggregation method comprising a first aggregation step whereby toner core components are dispersed and aggregated at a temperature at or below the glass transition temperature of the non-crystalline (amorphous) polyester binder resin and a second aggregation step whereby aggregation occurs at or below the glass transition temperature of the amorphous polyester shell resin ([0110-141]), especially [0110] and [0141]). The use of a nonionic surfactant is further taught such as a polyoxyethylene alkyl ether ([0115]). Coalescence of the aggregated core and shell particles is further taught to be achieved at a temperature that is equal to or higher than the glass transition temperature of core binder resin ([0110] and [0143]). While AU ‘237 does not teach that the coalescence temperature is below the cloud point of the nonionic surfactant, AU ‘237 does teach the same nonionic surfactants as the Applicant (polyoxyethylene alkyl ethers). Furthermore, in embodiments AU ‘237 teaches that the coalescence of the aggregated particles occurs at 90 °C ([0239]) while the Applicant teaches coalescence within the range of 85 to 100 °C (see Table 1-4 of the instant specification). As such, it is clear that the coalescence] step of AU ‘237 will occur at a temperature below the cloud point of the polyoxyethylene alky ether surfactant but above the glass transition temperature of the resin particles of the core and shell of the toner.
In embodiments, the core particles comprise 396 parts of core component materials and the shell comprises 150 parts of shell component materials. As such, the resin particles of the shell are present in an amount of 38% by weight of the core material components (150/396 x 100% = 38%; Table 5). Au ‘237 does not teach a difference in the solids concentration of the core and shell dispersions, however, adjusting the concentration of said dispersion would represent routine laboratory experimentation that is well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art. According to the MPEP, “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). (MPEP 2144.05 II A) Furthermore, AU ‘237 teaches that the dispersions are stirred in a homogenizer at a rotation number of the such that the slurry is sufficiently agitated ([0239]). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to adjust the stirring rate to a power within the Applicant’s range in the course of routine experimentation of finding a rotational speed sufficient to agitate the slurry as taught by AU ‘237. This applies equally to the limitations of pending claim claims 18-19.
AU ‘237 does not teach solubility parameter of the core and resin particle, but teaches that they may be the same type of resin and therefore the difference in solubility parameter would be 0. Furthermore, AU ‘237 does not teach the viscosity of the dispersion for core but does teach similar solids concentration and similar amounts of water used in forming the dispersions. As such, it is clear that the viscosity of the aqueous dispersion of AU ‘237 will be in the Applicant’s recited range as the Applicant teaches substantially similar dispersions (see [0229-242] of AU ‘237 and [0173-199] of the instant specification). AU ‘237 is silent regarding internal porosity and it is therefore assumed that absent any teaching to the contrary the core particles are not porous and therefore have an internal porosity approaching 0%.
JP ‘678 teaches a toner comprising a core-shell configuration wherein the toner is taught to have a glass transition temperature of 10 °C or higher and 40 °C or less (Abstract). The core is taught to comprise a crystalline and non-crystalline resin and the shell is taught to comprise a polymer having an oxazoline group. The ring-opened form of the oxazoline group present in the shell resin possesses an ester group (see [0041], Chemical Formula 3). The toner with these resins and glass transition temperature properties is taught to achieve both heat-resistant preservability and low temperature fixability ([0034]). In embodiments, the non-crystalline core resins are taught to have glass transition temperatures of less than 40 °C (see [0110-121]). Additionally, the use of Epocros WS 300 is taught as the shell resin comprising the oxazoline group. Epocros WS 300 is taught by CN ‘741 to have a glass transition temperature of 90 °C (see the Comparative Example 1 section of the provided translation). As such, the glass transition temperature of the shell resin is greater than the glass transition of the core resin. 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 core/shell resin of JP ‘678 in the toner of AU ‘273 or to have followed the guidance regarding suitable glass transition temperatures of the core and shell resins taught by JP ‘678 in the resins of AU ‘273 and it would have been further obvious to have optimized the stirring speed and viscosity of the dispersions in the method of AU ‘273 through routine laboratory experimentation.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AU 2008-246237 (henceforth AU ‘237) in view of JP 2018-084678 (JP ‘678) and considered with CN 115125741 (henceforth CN ‘741) as applied to claims 1-2, 5-16 and 18-20 above, and further in view of EP 1 273 976 (henceforth EP ‘976).
The completed discussions of AU ‘237 and JP ‘678 above are included herein. Neither prior art reference teaches a suitable difference between the glass transition temperatures of core and shell resin.
EP ‘976 teaches a toner comprising a core-shell configuration wherein the core comprises a binder resin having a low glass transition temperature and is covered by the shell comprising a binder resin with a glass transition temperature higher than that of the core ([0019]). Such a configuration is taught to optimize the low temperature fixability of the toner while improving the storability of the toner by preventing aggregation ([0019]). The glass transition temperature of the core resin is taught to be at most 60 C and the glass transition temperature of the shell resin is taught to be within the range of 50 to 120 °C ([0092-95]). Furthermore, the difference in glass transition temperature between the binder resin of the core and the shell is taught to be at least 10 °C ([0095-96]). The glass transition temperatures of the core shell resins are taught to be the controlling properties for the low temperature fixability and storage stability of the toner ([0092-96]). 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 core/shell resin of JP ‘678 in the toner of AU ‘273 or to have followed the guidance regarding suitable glass transition temperatures of the core and shell resins taught by JP ‘678 in the resins of AU ‘273 and further to have followed the guidance regarding setting a suitable difference between the glass transition temperatures of the core and shell resins. It would have been further obvious to any person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the instant application to have optimized the stirring speed and viscosity of the dispersions in the method of AU ‘273 through routine laboratory experimentation.
Conclusion
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, Mark Huff can be reached at (571)272-1385. 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 01/08/2026