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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2023-048933, filed on 3/24/2023.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1, 3-11, 13-14, and 18-20 in the reply filed on 3/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 18-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 4, 6-9, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 18-20 of copending Application No. 18/456,089 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite the same limitations. Claims 1, 3, and 4 recite the same limitations in each application, claims 6-9 of ‘089 recite the same limitations as claims 5-8 of the instant application, claims 11 and 12 of ‘089 recite the same limitations of claims 10 and 11 of the instant application, claims 14 and 15 of ‘089 recite the same limitations as claims 13 and 14 of the instant application, and claims 18-20 recite the same limitations in each application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 1, 3-11, 13-14, and 18-20 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, 3-11, 13-14, and 18-20 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 1 recites the toner in terms of a glass transition temperature obtained by Fox equation from a ration of all of the constituent monomers in the entire resin particle, Tg(C1), and from a ratio of constituent monomers calculated from a surface analysis of the resin particles, Tg(C2), as well as a glass transition temperature measured by DSC, Tg(E). While the Tg(C1) may possibly be calculated from exemplary resins in the prior art with the disclosed monomer compositions; it would still require the glass transition temperature for each of the monomers, which may or may not be known. Likewise, Tg(C2) would not be easily calculated, as a surface analysis of the resin particle would have to be measured before any calculation could be attempted. As such, the claims are indefinite as presented as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to readily ascertain, absent undue experimentation, what prior art toners will read on the claims. Furthermore, as presented, the claims are not recited that the claim reads only in the particular toner that the applicant has invented. The Applicant may overcome this rejection by additionally reciting components in the inventive toner that give rise to these properties, in this case the composition of the resin particles that produces the glass transition temperature values. Appropriate correction is required.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jenna Kuipers whose telephone number is (571)272-0161. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:30 PT.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1734
/PETER L VAJDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 04/20/2026
Prosecution Insights