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
The amendment filed 1/20/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-7 remain pending. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 8-20 have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see page 6-7, filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “plant derived” propylene glycol is distinguishable from propylene glycol derived by non plant based sources, citing the examples starting on page 21. However, the examples only teach propylene glycol as plant derived, with the remaining diols being bisphenol A alkyl adducts. There is no clear data to show plant derived propylene glycol possesses any different properties than propylene glycol derived from other sources. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, Wosnick (US 20120276478) will now be relied upon to teach using a bio-based resin.
Applicant's arguments, see page 7-10, filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant clarifies the missing sections from the specification for pages 27, 29, and Table 2. However, Applicant did not file an amended specification with the corrections. Examiner notes MPEP 714 and 37 C.F.R. 1.121 cover the rules for amending the specification.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10-11, filed 1/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-7 under 35 USC 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 in view of Sacripante (US 20140134534) in view of Wosnick (US 20120276478).
Applicant argues the claimed range of plant derived alcohol monomer in the amended claim 1 is outside that covered by Iwawaki. Examiner agrees, Iwawaki teaches 30% or more. Wosnick is now relied upon to teach the specific alcohol, noting the resin is 45-100% bio-based by weight, with propylene glycol being 5-50% by weight of the resin.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the specification, page 27, under Preparation of Oil Phase, the oil phase does not appear to contain any organic solvent, only a small amount of water included in the wax dispersion. One of skill in the art would expect an oil phase which undergoes a phase inversion emulsification, followed by solvent removal would include an organic solvent in the oil phase. The aqueous phase possesses a small quantity of ethyl acetate, though this is not unusual in the process and the oil phase would still be expected to include a solvent. Furthermore, page 8-9 state the core is made using an organic solvent, preferably methyl acetate, ethyl acetate, or methyl ethyl ketone.
Similar to above, on page 29, under Preparation of Shell Emulsion there is a step of purging the solvent, but no solvent is mentioned other than water, but phase transfer emulsification requires a water phase using an aqueous medium and an oil phase with an organic solvent.
Also on page 29, the specification states “Shell emulsions 3 to 10 were prepared in the same manner as shell emulsion 2” without any modification. It is unclear if the different shell emulsions are identical to shell emulsion 2 or if they are intended to be different. Furthermore, only “shell emulsion 1” is ever detailed as used in producing a resin particle, page 27-28. On page 28 the specification states “The resin particles 2 to 10 were prepared in the same manner as the resin particle 1 except that the type and number of wax, binder resin, PET, and PBT were changed as shown in Table 2”. Table 2 does not indicate the specific shell emulsion or amount used in each resin particle. Table 3 also does not mention the shell emulsion used. One of skill in the art would read this as all the resin particles are produce solely with “shell emulsion 1”.
Furthermore, as noted by Applicant, Table 2 on page 26-27 indicates Resin particle 1 uses Amorphous Pes resin “B-1”, though it should indicate “B-4”, and Resin particle 8 is listed as using “B-4”, instead of the correct “B-1”. Also, “Preparation of Shell Resin (1)” is missing from page 26.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sacripante (US 20140134534) in view of Wosnick (US 20120276478).
Regarding claims 1-4, and 7-16, Sacripante discloses a sustainable toner particle comprising a resin with a bio-based polyacid or polyol and a polyol comprising a depolymerized recycled plastic comprising PET ([0005]). Sacripante further discloses the toner may use a combination of recycled PET and bio-based materials ([0012]). Sacripante further discloses the toner may optionally include a shell ([0014]), and the shell may include a sustainable polyester comprising PET oligomers ([0103]). Sacripante further teaches the sustainability is the content of bio-based, reused, or recycled material in the toner, with a sustainable resin comprising at least 50 % sustainable content ([0012]). While Sacripante does disclose a bio based material may be used in the toner as well, but does not specifically disclose a resin comprising 5 to less than 30 percent plant derived alcohol ([0010]-[0012]).
Wosnick teaches a toner comprising a bio-based amorphous polyester resin which uses 45-100% by weight bio-based monomers, with camphoric acid specifically comprising 1-60% of the polymer by weight ([0008]-[0009]). Wosnick further teaches propylene glycol as a bio-based monomer which may also be used ([0009]-[0010]). Wosnick further teaches propylene glycol is used in an amount of 5-50% by weight of the resin (claim 2, [0024]), Wosnick further teaches examples of other diols include bis(2-hydroxypropyl)-bisphenol A (aka bisphenol A propylene oxide 2 mol adduct), and bis(2-hydroxyethyl)-bisphenol A (aka bisphenol A ethylene oxide 2 mol adduct) ([0040]). Wosnick further teaches the bio-based resin includes formulations derived from sources such as plant based stocks, such as plant oils ([0017]-[0018]). Wosnick further teaches bio-based polyesters reduce the need for carcinogenic monomers, and are more environmentally friendly ([0005], [0008]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to ensure the toner of Sacripante includes a bio-based polyester comprising propylene glycol, as taught by Wosnick, to reduce the amount of carcinogens used and be more environmentally friendly.
Regarding claim 1-19, modified Sacripante discloses all limitations as set forth above. Sacripante further discloses the toner particle may include an optional crystalline resin, which comprises recycled PET ([0006], claims 6 and 11). Sacripante further discloses when using an optional crystalline polyester, the ratio of crystalline polyester to amorphous polyester is in the range of 1:99 to 30:70 ([0027]). Sacripante further discloses the second amorphous resin comprises recycled PET and a bio-based polyester or polyacid reagent, and a sustainability content of about 70% ([0006], claim 7). In other words, even if the sustainability content is 70%, the amount of recycled PET is less than 70% because the resin also includes a bio-based component.
Regarding claim 20, modified Sacripante discloses all limitations as set forth above. Wosnick further teaches succinic acid as a suitable component for the bio-based polyester ([0009], claims 2, 10]).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sacripante (US 20140134534) in view of Wosnick (US 20120276478) as applied to claims 1-4 and 7-20 above, and further in view of Sugiura (US 20110097659).
Regarding claims 5-6, modified Sacripante discloses all limitations as set forth above. Sacripante does not specifically disclose the shell thickness being 1.005 to 1.5 as a ratio of the diameter of the resin particle to the diameter of the core.
Sugiura teaches a core-shell type toner having a shell thickness of 0.01 to 2.00 µm, preferably 0.4-1.5 µm (abstract, [0010], [0043]). Sugiura further teaches the toner average particle diameter is 2-7, preferably µm ([0018], [0288]). In other words the thickness viewed as a ratio of particle diameter to core diameter, as claimed, ranges from 7/6.99 to 2/0, or 1.001 to ∞, or using the preferred ranges 7/6.6 to 2/0.5, or 1.061 to 4. Sugiura further teaches when the thickness is too thin, the high-temperature storage and development stability deteriorate, and when the shell is too thick low temperature fixing deteriorates ([0043]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to ensure the shell thickness ratio in modified Sacripante is preferably 1.061 to 4, as taught by Sugiura, to ensure proper high temperature storage and development stability, and low temperature fixability.
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 CHARLES COLLINS SULLIVAN IV whose telephone number is (571)272-2208. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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.
/C.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/MARK F. HUFF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights