CTNF 18/418,622 CTNF 96364 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki et al. (US PGP 2012/0052430 A1), in view of Iwasaki et al. (US PGP 2016/0334728 A1) . Yamasaki teaches an electrostatic image developing toner including a toner particle that includes a core particle containing a binder resin and a coating layer containing a resin having a crosslinked structure derived from at least one of boric acid and boric acid derivatives ([0008]). The boron crosslinked resin is taught to be a resin having a crosslinked structure resulting from reactions between boric acid or the like and two OH groups in the polymer compound. A crosslinked structure having a -O-B-O- structure is taught to be formed as a result of a dehydration reaction, and the -O-B-O- structure is considered to function as a link that bonds the two OH groups to each other ([0009]). Therefore, in TOF-SIMS measurement of the toner particle, a fragment peak derived from a boron atom and a fragment peak derived from a boron-oxygen structure would necessarily be detected, absent any evidence to the contrary (and would read on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 1 ). According to MPEP § 2112(V), "[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). The toner is taught to include an external additive added to surfaces of the toner particles. Examples of suitable external additives are taught to include strontium titanate ([0110]). The external additives are taught to be surface-treated with a hydrophobing agent, in view of improving powder flowability and suppressing dependency of charging and carrier contamination ([0111], [0112]). The hydrophobing agent is taught to not be particularly limited, but includes known agents like silane coupling agents, silicone oil, titanate coupling agents, and aluminum coupling agents. Yamasaki teaches that one hydrophobing agent may be used alone, or in combination with other hydrophobing agents ([0112]). However, Yamasaki appears to be silent to explicitly teach a fatty acid as a suitable hydrophobing agent. Iwasaki teaches a toner including positively chargeable strontium titanate particles (Abstract). The strontium titanate particles are taught to be surface treated with a fatty acid or a metal salt thereof ([0077]). The fatty acid is taught to preferably be a C14-C22 saturated fatty acid such as myristic acid, pentadecyclic acid, palmitic acid, margaric acid, tuberculostearic acid, arachidic acid, or behenic acid ([0078]) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 6 ). 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 strontium titanate particles surface-treated with a fatty acid, such as those described in Iwasaki, as the external additive of Yamasaki, in view of controlling the fixing rate and charging properties of the external additive. It would have also been obvious to have used two of the fatty acids having different carbon numbers taught by Iwasaki as surface-treatment agents, as Yamasaki teaches that multiple hydrophobing agents used in combination is a known practice (and thus would read on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 7 ) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki et al. (US PGP 2012/0052430 A1), in view of Iwasaki et al. (US PGP 2016/0334728 A1), and further in view of Iga et al. (US PGP 2003/0022086 A1) . The teachings of Yamasaki and Iwasaki are discussed above and incorporated herein. Yamasaki appears to be silent to teach or suggest the content of boron element on a mass basis of in the toner, as recited in instant claim 2 . Iga teaches a toner comprising at least one element selected form the group consisting of boron and phosphorous in a content of 0.1 to 100 ppm (Abstract) (which is identical to the corresponding range recited in instant claim 2 ). When the content of boron is within the above range, prevention of image defects and image quality are improved ([0025]). 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 boron element content of modified Yamasaki’s toner to fall within the range taught by Iga, in view of preventing image defects and improving image quality. In Iwasaki, the content of the fatty acid surface treatment agent is taught to be 0.5 part by mass or more and 10 parts by mass or less with respect to 100 parts by mass of the strontium titanate particles ([0079]). Additionally, the content of the strontium titanate particles is taught to be 0.2 part by mass or more and 1.0 part by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the toner particles ([0083]). Therefore, it would have also been obvious to have adjusted the content of the fatty acid surface-treatment agent and the content of the surface-treated strontium titanate particles of modified Yamasaki, using the corresponding ranges taught by Iwasaki, in view of controlling the fixing rate and charging properties of the external additive. In doing so, the skilled artisan would have arrived at a ratio X/Y of the abundance of boron atoms in the toner to a content of the strontium titanate particle in the toner within the range taught by instant claim 3 , and a ratio X/Z of the abundance ratio of boron atoms in the toner to a content of the fatty acid having from 12 to 30 carbon atoms on the surface of the strontium titanate particles within the ranges taught by instant claim 4 and claim 5 . 1 07-21-aia AIA Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki et al. (US PGP 2012/0052430 A1), in view of Iwasaki et al. (US PGP 2016/0334728 A1), and further in view of Oshiba et al. (US PGP 2012/0064454 A1) . The teachings of Yamasaki and Iwasaki are discussed above and incorporated herein. Yamasaki appears to be silent to teach or suggest the circularity of the toner. Oshiba teaches that the average circularity of a toner should be 0.930 to 1.000, and more preferably from 0.945 to 0.995, in view of improving transfer efficiency ([0138]). The shape of the toner particles is taught to be controlled, for example, by using a shape control treatment ([0111]). 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 average circularity of the toner particles of modified Yamasaki, to fall within the range taught by Oshiba, in view of improving the transfer efficiency of the toner particles . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki et al. (US PGP 2012/0052430 A1), in view of Iwasaki et al. (US PGP 2016/0334728 A1), and further in view of Obara et al. (US PGP 2018/0120721 A1) and Tanaka et al. (US PGP 2014/0322640 A1) . The teachings of Yamasaki and Iwasaki are discussed above and incorporated herein. In addition to the strontium titanate particles, titania (titanium oxide) is taught to be another example of a suitable external additive ([0110]). However, Yamasaki appears to be silent to teach or suggest the diameter and/or aspect ratio of the titania particles. Obara teaches a toner including titanium oxide nanoparticles having an average aspect ratio in the range of from 2 to 15. When the average aspect ratio is within the aforementioned range, control of the charging characteristics of the toner can be achieved ([0062]). Tanaka teaches a toner including titania (titanium oxide) particles present on the surface of toner particles (Abstract). The particle diameter of the titania particles is taught to be at least 100 nm and no greater than 800 nm, in view of inhibiting electrostatic aggregation of the external additives ([0071]-[0075]). 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 titanium oxide particles having an aspect ratio taught by Obara and a large particle diameter taught by Tanaka, in view of controlling the charging characteristics of the toner and inhibiting electrostatic aggregation of the external additives. 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 05/30/2026 Application/Control Number: 18/418,622 Page 2 Art Unit: 1737 Application/Control Number: 18/418,622 Page 3 Art Unit: 1737 Application/Control Number: 18/418,622 Page 4 Art Unit: 1737 Application/Control Number: 18/418,622 Page 5 Art Unit: 1737 Application/Control Number: 18/418,622 Page 6 Art Unit: 1737 Application/Control Number: 18/418,622 Page 7 Art Unit: 1737 Application/Control Number: 18/418,622 Page 8 Art Unit: 1737 1 Iga: X = 0.1 to 100 ppm boron element ([0025]) Iwasaki: Y = 0.2 part to 1.0 part by mass strontium titanate particles ([0083]) Z = 0.5 part to 10 parts fatty acid ([0079]) (X/Y)max = 100 ppm / 0.2 part = 500 (X/Y)min = 0.1 ppm / 1.0 part = 0.1 0.1 ≤ X/Y ≤ 500 (X/Z)max = 100 ppm / 0.5 part = 200 (X/Z)min = 0.1 ppm / 10 parts = 0.01 0.01 ≤ X/Z ≤ 200
Prosecution Insights