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. Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art. If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives. Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps. Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT the abstract is over 150 words long . A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In the Instant specification, page 42, para [0182], the application states “the dehydration condensation reaction is continued for 5 hours by maintaining 180°C. Subsequently, the temperature is slowly decreased at a reduced pressure (3kPa) until 230°C” (emphasis added). This is an increase in temperature, not a decrease. Appropriate correction is required. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT s 1-16 are 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. Claims 1-16 are indefinite for claiming the invention in terms of physical properties rather than the chemical or structural features that produce said properties. Ex parte Slob , 157 USPQ 172, states, “Claims merely setting forth physical characteristics desired in an article, and not setting forth specific composition which would meet such characteristics, are invalid as vague, indefinite, and functional since they cover any conceivable combination of ingredients either presently existing or which might be discovered in the future and which would impart said desired characteristics.” Also, “it is necessary that the product be described with sufficient particularity that it can be identified so that one can determine what will and will not infringe.” Benger Labs, Ltd v. R.K. Laros Co ., 135 USPQ 11, In re Bridgeford 149 USPQ 55, Locklin et al. v. Switzer Bros., Inc., 131 USPQ 294; furthermore, “Reciting the physical and chemical characteristics of the claimed product will not suffice where it is not certain that a sufficient number of characteristics have been recited that the claim reads only on the particular compound which applicant has invented.” Ex parte Siddiqui , 156 USPQ 426, Ex parte Davission et al. , 133 USPQ 400, Ex parte Fox , 128 USPQ 157. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" (a)(1) as being FILLIN "Insert either—clearly anticipated—or—anticipated—with an explanation at the end of the paragraph." \d "[ 3 ]" anticipated by FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 4 ]" Miyamoto (JP 2017058645) . Regarding claims 17-19, Miyamoto discloses a toner cartridge detachably mountable to an image forming apparatus ([0015]). Miyamoto further discloses a process cartridge equipped with a developing means to develop an electrostatic image into a toner image ([0016]). Miyamoto further discloses an image forming apparatus comprising an image carrier, a charging means for charging the surface of the image carrier, an electrostatic image forming means, a developing means for developing the electrostatic image into a toner image, a transfer unit to transfer the toner image to a recording medium, and a fixing means for fixing the toner image to the recording medium ([0017]). The applicant has recited the apparatus, toner cartridge, and process cartridge claims as also containing or comprising the toner of pending claim 1, via the developer of claim 12 . However, since a developer, or toner, is a material that is consumed by the apparatus and is not a permanent fixture of the apparatus, its inclusion in the apparatus claims does not represent a material limitation on the apparatus. Multiple different developers may be used in any xerographic apparatus and therefore the limitations of the developer in the present claims do not represent material limitations on the apparatus because the developer with these limitations could be substituted by another developer and not alter the mechanical functioning of the apparatus. § MPEP 2115. In accordance with MPEP 2114 an apparatus in a claim must be recited structurally and therefore the type of toner to be used possesses no patentability, only the material properties of the apparatus are patentable. In re Schreiber , 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Additionally, a claim containing a recitation in respect to the manner that an apparatus is intended to be used does not differentiate the claim from prior art. Ex parte Masham , 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). In further regards to the toner, MPEP 2115 states that, “expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault , 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). The toner is a material worked upon and consumed by the image forming apparatus. A material portion of the apparatus must be a permanent fixture of the apparatus that is not permanently changed by the regular operation of the apparatus. The toner, during the course of the imaging process, is changed from a particulate material to a melted and fused material. During fixing, heat and/or pressure is applied to the toner to bind it to the recording material such that the toner cannot be recovered and re-used in the apparatus. Therefore, the toner cannot be claimed as a structural member of the apparatus. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1, 3-5, 8-10, 12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Miyamoto (JP 2017058645) in view of Aoki (US 20120231384) and Mitsuhashi (JP 2003173042) . Regarding claim s 1 , 3 , and 8 , Miyamoto discloses a toner comprising an amorphous polyester and a crystalline polyester as the binder resin ([0008]). Miyamoto further discloses the crystalline polyester CP1 produced by combining 1,6-hexanediol and dodecanedioic acid in a molar ratio of 100:100 (aka a mass ratio of 118:130) , with a catalyst, stirring and reacting at 160°C, then heating to 180°C, before reducing the pressure to 3kPa, ending the reaction , resulting in a resin having a melting temperature of 74°C ([0150], Table 2 page 26). This process mirrors that of crystalline resin particle dispersion (1) from the Instant Application , which mixes 115 parts 1,6 hexanediol and 225 parts dodecanedioic acid, stirring and reacting at 160°C with a catalyst, reacting at 180°C, then reducing pressure to 3kPa (Instant Specification page 42-43, [0182]). Miyamoto does not disclose the ratio of Q1/Q2 for the heat absorption Q1 of the crystalline resin as measured by differential scanning calorimetry on the toner that has been melted at 150°C, then cooled to a temperature 10°C lower than the endothermic peak temperature Tc, retained for 1 minute to a heat absorption Q2 of the crystalline resin as measured by differential scanning calorimetry on the toner that has been melted at 150°C, then cooled to a temperature 10°C lower than the endothermic peak temperature Tc, retained for 30 minutes, as 0.15 or more. However, the heat absorption of the crystalline resin is a material property of the resin , therefore, one of skill in the art would expect the resin CP1 to inherently possess a Q1/Q2 matching that of crystalline dispersion 1 in the Instant Application. Miy amoto further discloses the mass ratio of the amorphous resin to the crystalline resin is 80:30 to 70:30 ([0009], [0034]). Miya moto further discloses the toner may contain other additives ([0038], . However, Miy amoto does not specifically disclose crosslinked resin particles or the maximum value of a loss coefficient tan δ at 50-70°C . Aoki teaches a toner comprising a dielectric dissipation facture (tan δL) of 3.0* 10 -2 and a maximum value (tan δH) in a temperature range of 60-140°C, which satisfies (tan δH – tan δL) ≤ 3*10 -2 ([0021]-[0023]). Therefore, the maximum value of tan δH is 3*10 -2 + 3*10 -2 , aka 0.06 or less. Aoki further teaches by setting the values of tan δ H and tan δ L in these ranges the toner has improved uniformity of triboelectric charging ([0039]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to ensure the maximum tan δ of the toner of Miyamoto is between 60-140°C is 0.06 or less, as taught by Aoki, to ensure improve charging uniformity of the toner. Mitsuhashi teaches a toner comprising resin fine particles adhered to the toner which are free from wax, preventing the fixing device from becoming soiled, improving the blocking resistance ([0043]). Mitsuhashi further teaches the resin fine particles have a volume average particle size of 0.02-3 µm, aka 20-3000 nm, and are preferably crosslinked ([0044]). 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 Miyamoto includes crosslinked fine resin particles with no wax in them, as taught by Mitsuhashi, to prevent the fixing device from becoming soiled and to improve the blocking resistance. Regarding claim 4, modified Miyamoto discloses all limitations as set forth above. Mitsuhash i further teaches the resin fine particles are 5 parts per 106.54 parts which make up the toner, or 4.7 mass% ([0060]). Regarding claim 5, modified Miyamoto discloses all limitations as set forth above. Mitsuhashi further teaches the primary resin particles are preferably styrene and butyl acrylate based, and the resin fine particles use the same monomers with a crosslinking agent ([0020], [0044]). Regarding claim s 9 and 10 , modified Miyamoto discloses all limitations as set forth above. Miyamoto further discloses the crystalline is produced with 100% of the dicarboxylic acid as dodecanedioic acid ([0150], Table 2 page 26). Miyamoto further teaches several amorphous resins which use sebacic acid, in amounts of 5-18 mol% of the acid component in the amorphous polyester, which using the molar amounts Table 1 equates to 5.74 , 21.10 , and 16.39 mass% of the dicarboxylic acids in resins H3, H4, and H5 respectively ([0147]-[0149], Table 1 page 24). Using these values the ratio R1/R2 can be calculated as 0.0574, 0.211, and 0.1639. Regarding claims 12 and 14-16, modified Miyamoto discloses all limitations as set forth above. Miyamoto further discloses an electrostatic image developer containing the toner ([0014]). Regarding claim 17, assuming arguendo, the toner is a material limitation of the toner cartridge modified Miyamoto discloses all limitations as set forth above. Miyamoto further discloses a toner cartridge detachably mountable to an image forming apparatus, including the developer of the invention ([0015]). Regarding claim 18, assuming arguendo, the toner is a material limitation of the process cartridge modified Miyamoto discloses all limitations as set forth above. Miyamoto further discloses a process cartridge which contains the developer, and is equipped with a developing means to develop an electrostatic image into a toner image using the developer, and is detachably mountable to an image forming apparatus ([0016]). Regarding claim 19, assuming arguendo, the toner is a material limitation of the image forming apparatus Miyamoto discloses all limitations as set forth above. Miyamoto further discloses an image forming apparatus comprising an image carrier, a charging means, an electrostatic image forming means for forming an image on the carrier, a developing means containing the developer to develop the electrostatic image into a toner image, a transfer unit to transfer the toner image on to a recording medium, and a fixing unit to fix the toner image to the recording medium ([0017]). Regarding claim 20, modified Miyamoto discloses all limitations as set forth above. Miyamoto further discloses an image forming method comprising a charging step, an electrostatic image forming step, a developing step using the developer to develop the electrostatic image into a toner image, a transfer step for transferring the toner image to a recording medium, and a fixing step for fixing the toner image to the recording medium ([0018]). Claim FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" Miyamoto (JP 2017058645) in view of Aoki (US 20120231384) and Mitsuhashi (JP 2003173042) as applied to claim FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 3 ]" 1 above, and further in view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Doi (JP 2016066017) . Regarding claim 6, modified Miyamoto discloses all limitations as set forth above. Miyamoto does not disclose the SP values of the amorphous or crystalline polyesters. Doi teaches a similar toner comprising a crystalline polyester resin and an amorphous polyester resin, the difference in SP value of the amorphous polyester and the crystalline polyester is 0.15-0.30 ([0007]-[0008]). Doi further teaches when the difference is within the range of 0.15-0.630 heat storage stability is improved and low temperature fixing is improved ([0028]). 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 modified Miyamoto used amorphous and crystalline polyester resins with a difference in SP value of 0.15-0.30, as taught by Doi, to ensure the toner possessed good heat storage stability and low temperature fixability. Claim FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" Miyamoto (JP 2017058645) in view of Aoki (US 20120231384) and Mitsuhashi (JP 2003173042) as applied to claim FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 3 ]" 1 above, and further in view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Kawamura (US 9740122) and Yamada (US 20150160577) . Regarding claim 7, modified Miyamoto discloses all limitations as set forth above. However, Miyamoto does not disclose the G’(t) at 50C or the temperature at which the storage modulus G’(t) reaches below 1*10 5 Pa. Kawamura teaches a storage modulus G’ at 50°C of 1*10 8 or greater (abstract, Col 2 line 20-21). Kawamura further teaches when the modulus G’ at 50°C is 1*10 8 Pa or more, the variation in hardness of the surface of the toner is suppressed (Col 3, line 57-62). 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 Miyamoto possessed an elastic modulus at 50°C of 1*10 8 Pa or greater, as taught by Kawamura, to prevent variation in surface hardness of the toner. Yamada teaches a toner comprising a storage modulus at 80°C of 1*10 5 to 1*10 7 (abstract, [0009]). Yamada further teaches when the storage modulus at 80°C is at or above 1*10 5 Pa High temperature offset can be prevented ([0051]). One of skill in the art would recognize if the modulus at 80°C is 1*10 5 Pa, then the modulus at 81°C would be expected to be below 1*10 5 Pa. 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 Miyamoto possess a storage modulus G’(t) at 80°C of at least *10 5 Pa, as taught by Yamada, to prevent hot offset. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CHARLES COLLINS SULLIVAN IV whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2208 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mark Huff can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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