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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 8/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-12 remain pending. Claims 13-14 have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see page 5-10, filed 8/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that while Brenner discloses a coating thickness of 2-800nm, the preferred range is disclosed as 200-600 nm, and outside of the preferred range a color flop does not occur. Applicant further argues the smaller thickness would result in different optical thicknesses, and therefore shifting the attenuated and amplified wavelengths from those of Brenner’s angle dependent effect depends.
Examiner disagrees, Brenner does not teach the lower end of the non-preferred range results in negative effects to the angle dependent effect. Furthermore according to the MPEP, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). “A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994) MPEP 2123 II.
Applicant argues Brenner only teaches the preferred range would produce a color flop. Examiner disagrees, Brenner states “the thickness of the layers consisting of the metal oxide of lower refractive index is generally 2 to 800 nm, preferably 200 to 600 nm. A pronounced color flop is then observed.” (Brenner [0010]). The statement does not limit the color flop to only the preferred range, it indicates the color flop has been observed in the range of 2-800 nm. Brenner further indicates routine experimentation can be applied to achieve different color flop forms, by varying the number of layers and the thickness of the layers ([0012]).
Applicant's arguments, see page 10-15, filed 8/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the criticality of the claimed range A+B ≤ 1,600 nm, specifically citing toners 15 -22, with Toners 20-22 having a value of A+B of more than 1600 nm. Applicant argues Toners 15-19 show improved lightness, L*, due to the combined thickness of the coating layer and the resin layer being under 1600 nm. Examiner disagrees, none of Examples 15-22 are commensurate in scope with the claims, which require A, the coating layer thickness, to be 5-15 nm. The noted toners all have an A value of either 490 or 760 nm. Furthermore, light absorbance through a material, such as resin, is known to increase with the path length/ aka the resin thickness, according to the Beer-Lambert Law, initially published in 1854, I(d) = I0 * exp(-αd), where the intensity after traveling through a medium, I(d) is related to the initial intensity I0, the Napierian absorption coefficient, α, and the distance, d, (Brouguer Beer Lambert Law, page 2). Therefore, one of skill in the art would not be expected to find a drop in lightness when light travels further through the resin layer.
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, 3-4, and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brenner (US 20020192585) in view of Takahashi (US 20140045113).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6-7, and 9-13, Brenner discloses an electrophotographic toner comprising a luster (aka bright) pigment. The pigment comprises a platelet shaped substrate, and several layers having different refractive indexes, including a high refractive index metal layer with a low refractive index metal oxide layer on top of it (Claims 1, 4, 7, [0006]-[0007], [0010]). Brenner further discloses the high refractive index metal can be aluminum, and the low refractive index metal oxide is alumina ([0010], claim 7). Brenner further disclose the low refractive metal oxide layer is 2-800 nm thick, (claim 11, [0010]). Brenner further disclose the toner may further comprise a binder as a coating (claim 13, [0013]). However, Brenner does not disclose a thickness of the binder coating, or the thickness of the low refractive index metal oxide and binder coating together as 1600nm or less.
Takahashi teaches a similar brilliant (aka bright) toner comprising a brilliant pigment which are flake shaped (aka platelet or scale shaped) ([0006], [0018], claim 1). Takahashi further teaches distance A, from the top of the pigment particle to the surface of the toner, which is equivalent to the thickness of the binder resin, the distance is 0.1-1.0 µm (Fig 1, [0021], [0024], claim 2). Takahashi further teaches when the distance from the pigment to the surface of the toner is maintained at an average of 0.1-1.0 µm the charge injection does not easily occur and the dielectric loss factor is controlled, resulting in a toner having excellent brilliant properties ([0021]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to ensure the distance from the pigment to the surface of the toner is 0.1-1.0 µm, as taught by Takahashi, to ensure the toner of Brenner has excellent brilliant properties.
PNG
media_image1.png
260
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Brenner in view of Takahashi would therefore have a value of A+B of 2+100 to 800+1000, or 102-1800 nm.
Regarding claims 3 and 8, modified Brenner discloses all limitations as set forth above. Brenner further discloses the platelet shaped substrate of the pigment is 2-200 µm, preferably 5-50 µm ([0010]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brenner (US 20020192585) in view of Takahashi (US 20140045113) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Veregin (US 20100330487).
Regarding claim 5, modified Brenner discloses all limitations as set forth above. However, Brenner does not disclose a dry coating method.
Veregin teaches a large pigment particle which is dry blended with dried resin latex particles to form a coating on the surface ([0011]). Veregin further teaches incorporating larger pigment particles into toners has proven difficult using conventional coating methos such as emulsion aggregation, resulting in toner particles which are large and inhomogeneous ([0005]). Veregin further teaches the coated pigment allows for inexpensive printing using the large pigment particles (in this case phosphorescent pigment) ([0081]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce the toner of modified Brenner using a dry coating method, as taught by Veregin, to produce a toner which is may suitably be used in a normal electrophotographic printer and can print large pigments inexpensively.
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 20140045113) in view of Takeshima (JP 2864244).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Takahashi discloses a brilliant toner comprising a metallic pigment covered with at least one kind of metal oxide ([0006],[0013]), the pigment may be selected from a group of metals including aluminum, and the metal oxide selected from a group including alumina ([0006], [0013], [0048]-[0049]). Takahashi further discloses the distance A, from the top of the pigment particle to the surface of the toner, which is equivalent to the thickness of the binder resin, the distance is 0.1-1.0 µm (Fig 1, [0021], [0024], claim 2). However, Takahashi does not disclose the thickness of the oxide coating layer on the pigment.
PNG
media_image1.png
260
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Takeshima teaches a pigment for a toner, obtained by dry coating the surface of a pigment with 10-100Å, or 1-10 nm thick, by sputtering (claim 1, summary page 3). Takeshima further teaches sputtering the surface of pigments in an argon atmosphere under reduced pressure adhesion of the dry coating is improve (page 3-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to ensure the pigment of Takahashi is dry coated with oxide, by sputtering to a thickness of 1-10 nm, as taught by Takeshima, the coating could exhibit improved adhesion.
Therefore, a toner of Takahashi in view Takeshima would result in a value of A+B of 1+100 to 10-1000, or 101 to 1100 nm thick.
Conclusion
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, 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.
/C.C.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/AMBER R ORLANDO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights