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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 2, 9, and 15 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.
Claim 2, line 2, recites “wherein an amount of the releasing agent on the surfaces of the toner particles is 4% or less”. It is unclear what the basis for this limitation is (mass%, mol%, number%, area%, etc.).
Similar, claim 9, line 2, recites “wherein an amount of the resin particles on the surfaces of the toner particles is 5% or less”. It is unclear what the basis for this limitation is (mass%, mol%, number%, area%, etc.).
Claim 15 is rejected because it fully incorporates the subject matter of claim 2.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayaki et al. (US PGP 2009/0291380 A1), in view of Nakayama et al. (US PGP 2020/0292953 A1).
Ayaki teaches a toner comprising toner base particles containing at least a binder resin, a colorant, a wax (releasing agent), and an inorganic fine powder (Abstract). An image forming apparatus comprising a process cartridge containing a developer including the toner, and an image forming method using the image forming apparatus are also discussed ([0339]) (which reads on the corresponding limitations recited in instant claims 14 and 17-20).
In a loss tangent (tan
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
δ) curve obtained by a dynamic viscoelasticity test of the toner, a minimal loss tangent value δb in the temperature region of from 45.0 ºC to 85.0 ºC (Tb) is taught to be 0.60 or less ([0016]) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 1). The loss tangent δb is taught to preferably be 0.05 or more and 0.60 or less from the viewpoint of development stabilizing performance ([0029]). The toner is further taught to include an external additive, such as spherical resin particles, in order to improve cleaning performance ([0197]) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 1).
The storage elastic modulus (G’) of the toner in a temperature region of from 28.0 ºC to 60.0 ºC (Ta) is taught to be from 1.00 x 106 Pa to 5.00 x 107 Pa ([0016], [0025]) (which overlaps with the corresponding range recited in instant claim 4). According to MPEP § 2144.05, “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Ayaki appears to be silent to teach or suggest a proportion of an area of domains of the wax present from surfaces of the toner particles to a depth of 1 µm relative to a total area of domains of the wax, as recited in instant claim 1.
Nakayama teaches a toner including a wax. In cross-sectional observation of the toner using a transmission electron microscope, it is preferable that wax domains be observed in a cross section of a toner particle, and that As be from 5% to 40%, where As is a ratio of an area occupied by the wax in a region from the surface of the toner particle to a depth of 1.0 µm (which overlaps with the corresponding range recited in instant claim 1). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Nakayama teaches that the ratio of the area occupied by the wax can be controlled by the timing of wax addition during the toner particle production process and the combined use of a wax dispersant ([0116]). Nakayama teaches that wax present inside the toner particle and closer to the surface promotes softening of the binder resin at the time of fixing and contributes to improving the low-temperature fixability and offset property of the toner ([0117]).
Nakayama teaches that, by setting the area ratio to be within the range of from 5% to 40%, it is possible to provide a toner having a low-temperature fixing characteristic, which is excellent in a charge-up suppressing effect in a low-temperature and low-humidity environment and excellent in charge rising performance in a high-temperature and high-humidity environment ([00119]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the ratio of the area of domains occupied by the wax at a depth of 1 µm of Ayaki’s toner to be within the range taught by Nakayama, in view of improving the low-temperature fixability and offset properties of the toner.
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayaki et al. (US PGP 2009/0291380 A1), in view of Nakayama et al. (US PGP 2020/0292953 A1), and further in view of Gohda et al. (US PGP 2016/0274527 A1).
The teachings of Ayaki and Nakayama are discussed above and incorporated herein. Ayaki appears to be silent to teach an amount of the wax on the surface of the toner particle. Gohda teaches that the amount of wax existing at the surface of toner used as a developer should range from 0.1% to 4.0% by mass, in view of achieving a good combination of offset resistance, chargeability, developability, and filming resistance ([0101]) (which reads on the corresponding range recited in instant claim 2 and claim 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the wax on the surface of modified Ayaki’s toner particles to be within the range taught by Gohda, in view of achieving suitable offset resistance, chargeability, developability, and filming resistance.
Claims 3, 6-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayaki et al. (US PGP 2009/0291380 A1), in view of Nakayama et al. (US PGP 2020/0292953 A1), and further in view of Ishiyama et al. (US PGP 2004/0058267 A1).
The teachings of Ayaki and Nakayama are discussed above and incorporated herein. Ayaki appears to be silent to teach the specific properties of the spherical resin particles and the releasing agent. Ishiyama teaches a process for producing a toner including aggregating a resin fine particle dispersion containing first resin fine particles, a colorant particle dispersion containing colorant particles, and a releasing agent particle dispersion containing releasing agent particles ([0059]).
The releasing agent is taught to be contained in the toner in an amount of 5 to 25% by weight, in view of preventing the releasing agent from flowing out to the surface of the toner ([0071]) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 13). The diameter of the releasing agent is taught to be 1 µm or less, in view of the dispersibility of the releasing agent ([0080]) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 10). In the examples, polyethylene wax having a melting point of 103 ºC was used as the releasing agent ([0124]) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 11).
In the examples, a resin fine particle dispersion is produced using styrene, n-butyl acrylate, β-carboxyethyl acrylate, 1,10-decanethiol diacrylate, and dodecanethiol ([0118]). The resin fine particles are taught to have had a particle diameter of 196 nm (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 7). Since 1,10-decanethiol diacrylate (a crosslinking agent) was used, it can be assumed that the resin fine particles have a crosslinked structure (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 8).
The method of producing the resin fine particles of Ishiyama is sufficiently similar to the method disclosed in the instant specification (see [0119] of Ishiyama and [0157] of the instant specification). Given these similarities, the resin fine particles of Ishiyama would reasonably be expected to a sufficiently similar storage modulus at 60 ºC and a loss coefficient at 60 ºC, and thus would be expected to read on the corresponding ranges recited in instant claim 3). The resin fine particles would also be expected to be present within a similar amount, and thus would be expected to read on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 9.
According to MPEP § 2112, “[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977) (footnote and citation omitted).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the resin fine particles of Ishiyama as the spherical resin particles of Ayaki and to have further optimized the content of the releasing agent, the ratio of the area of the releasing agent to the area of the resin particles, and the ratio of the amount of the resin particles to the amount of the releasing agent in the toner, as recited in instant claim 6 and claim 12. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Ishiyama teaches that the amount of release agent contained in the toner affects the charging property and durability of the toner.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayaki et al. (US PGP 2009/0291380 A1), in view of Nakayama et al. (US PGP 2020/0292953 A1), and further in view of Tavernier et al. (US Pat. No. 4,842,972).
The teachings of Ayaki and Nakayama are discussed above and incorporated herein. Ayaki appears to be silent to teach or suggest the melt viscosity of the toner. Tavernier teaches that the melt viscosity of a toner has been discussed from the viewpoint of the fixing performance of the toner (Col. 3, lines 6-17). From the viewpoint of improving the low-temperature fixability, the melt viscosity of a toner is taught to preferably be 500 to 100,000 Pa.s (5 x 102 Pa.s to 1 x 105 Pa.s) (Col. 3, line 33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the melt viscosity of modified Ayaki’s toner particles to be within the range taught by Tavernier, in view of achieving suitable fixing performance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Boone A Evans whose telephone number is (571)272-1420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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 on (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.
/BOONE ALEXANDER EVANS/Examiner, Art Unit 1737
02/07/2026