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 2/6/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-5 remain pending. Claim 2 has been cancelled. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 6-12 have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6-10, filed 2/6/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Brenner (US 20020192585) in view of Takahashi (US 20140045113).
Applicant argues the amended claim 1 is no longer covered by Hirai in view of Takahashi because Takahashi teaches a protective layer is 50-150 nm, which had previously been applied in view of the metal oxide coating of the brilliant pigment taught by Hirai.
Examiner agrees, between Hirai and Takahashi, an oxide coating is not disclosed or taught in the amended range of 5-15 nm, in claim 1. Brenner disclose a toner comprising a luster (aka bright) pigment comprising a high refractive index material such as aluminum, and a low refractive index material, such as alumina in the range of 2-800 nm, as well as further comprising a binder resin. Brenner does not disclose the specific thickness of the binder, but the new Takahashi reference (the 2014 application) teaches the distance A from the top of the pigment particle to the surface of the toner in the range of 0.1-1.0 µm (aka 100-1000 nm). The distance A is equivalent to the thickness of the resin layer.
Applicant’s arguments, page 9-8, filed 2/6/2026 with respect to the newly added claims 6-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant further argues the newly added claims 6-8 are not would not be covered by Hirai in view of Takahashi (2017). The claims are now rejected under Brenner in view of Takahashi (2014).
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 6-12 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 9-12, 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 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.
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