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 .
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) 1-12 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) 13-20 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, 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.
/PETER L VAJDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 02/19/2026