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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant has argued that Srinivasan teaches away from the presence of dark decay on the surface of the photoreceptor and seeks to minimize it. The Examiner agrees with this assessment of the teaching of Srinivasan. The Applicant has additionally pointed to Table 3 of Srinivasan to show that a photoreceptor with a dark decay of 47 V/sec is deemed superior to a comparative photoreceptor with a dark decay of 112 V/sec. However, Table 6 also teaches that Photoconductor 2B with a dark decay of 91 V/sec is deemed to be inventive and suitable for use as a photoconductor possessing superior dark decay suppression (see Col 11 ln. 10-36). As such, Photoconductor 2B which is an inventive example has a dark decay (91 V/sec) which reads on the Applicant’s range of 87 V/sec or greater. Therefore, Srinivasan is not deemed to teach away from the Applicant’s recited dark decay range.
The Applicant has also argued that the recited ranges of the thicknesses of the protective layer and charge transport layer are more defined than what is taught by the prior art. As an initial matter, the protective layer is recited as having a thickness of 1 micrometer or greater whereas JP ‘546 teaches a discrete range of 1-7 micrometers. Furthermore, the thickness of the charge transport layer of Srinivasan is taught to be from 10 to 40 micrometers which nearly fully encompasses the Applicant’s recited range of 9 to 15 micrometers. The range of Srinivasan is not appreciably larger than that of the Applicant, particularly when compared with the extremely large range recited for the Applicant’s protective layer (greater than 1 micrometers covers all values larger). Furthermore, Srinivasan is able to generate suitable dark decay values with charge transport layers having a film thickness between 10 and 40 micrometers and neither Srivinasan nor JP ‘546 teach away from the use of a protective layer as increasing dark decay nor do they teach a relationship between protective layer thickness and increased dark decay. The Applicant has not pointed to any data or teaching to corroborate the assertion that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have applied a protective layer such as that taught by JP ‘546 to the photoreceptor of Srinivasan based on dark decay considerations. The Applicant has also not pointed to any data that demonstrates that the recited limitations of the claim 1 produce unexpectedly superior results over what would have been expected from the teachings of JP ‘546 and Srinivasan. For all of these reasons the Applicant’s arguments are not found to be persuasive.
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.
Claim 21 is 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 21 recites that the photoreceptor has a developing electric field with a “charge period of 10 mm or less.” However, it is unclear what is meant by charge period. The Examiner believes that the charge period may mean the amount of time the electric field is applied, but the charge period is given the units “mm” which are understood to represent millimeters. As such, it is unclear what is mean by the charge period.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasan et al. (US Patent 6,214,502) in view JP 2019-211546.
Srinivasan teaches a photoreceptor comprising a conductive substrate, a charge generating layer and a charge transporting layer (Col. 3 ln. 31-41). Additionally, Srinivasan teaches dark decay values of the photoreceptors in Table 6. Several of the inventive photoreceptors taught in Table 6 have dark decay values above 100 V/sec. The charge transport layer of Srinivasan is further taught to have a thickness of 10 to 40 micrometers (Col. 7 ln. 47-49). Srivinivasan does not, however, teach a surface layer for the photoreceptor.
JP ‘546 teaches a photoreceptor comprising a conductive substrate, a charge generating layer, a charge transporting layer a surface protective layer (Abstract). Additionally, the relative thickness of the protective layer and the charge transport layer is taught to be result effective in preventing peeling while improving image sensitivity and abrasion resistance (Abstract, [0002]). JP ‘546 teaches that the film thickness of the protective layer and the charge transport layer should be in the range of 10 to 17 micrometers while the average film thickness should preferably be from 8 to 20 micrometers and the average thickness of the protective layer should preferably in the range of 1 to 7 micrometers ([0024], [0055], [0063-64]). In addition to the prevention of peeling these film thicknesses are taught to improve the electrophotographic characteristics of the photoreceptor. In Example 1 the charge transport layer is taught to have a thickness of 12 micrometers and the protective layer is taught to have a thickness of 3 micrometers for a ratio according to the limitations the Applicant’s pending claim 7 of 4 (see Example 1 [0080-81] of the provided translation). JP ‘546 further teaches a process cartridge and image forming apparatus ([0070-74]). As JP ‘546 teaches that the use of a protective layer and charge transport layer with optimized film thicknesses improves sensitivity, abrasion resistance and film peeling it would have been obvious to any person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the instant application to have utilized the protective layer and film thicknesses taught by JP ‘546 in the photoreceptor of Srinivasan.
Claim(s) 13-14, 16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasan et al. (US Patent 6,214,502) in view JP 2019-211546 and further in view of Yoshida et al. (US PGP 2020/0096899).
The complete discussions of Srinivasan and JP ‘546 above are included herein. JP ‘546 teaches an image forming apparatus comprising all of the components recited by the Applicant in pending claims 13-20 but does not teach a DC voltage supplying contact charger.
Yoshida teaches an image forming apparatus comprising a contact charging roller and containing all of the elements recited by the Applicant in pending claims 13-20 (Abstract, [0011-43]). The charging roller is further taught to apply only a DC voltage to the photoreceptor (photosensitive drum; [0004]). Furthermore, Yoshida teaches that by utilizing such a charging roller imaging characteristics are improved such as the prevention of printing lateral stripes and production of uniform image density ([0036-43]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to any person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the instant application to have utilized the protective layer and film thicknesses taught by JP ‘546 in the photoreceptor of Srinivasan and to have used this modified photoreceptor in the image forming apparatus of Yoshida.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER L VAJDA whose telephone number is (571)272-7150. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:00 PM.
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.
/PETER L VAJDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 08/13/2026
Prosecution Insights