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 § 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 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haruyama et al. (US PGP 2010/0247148 A1), in view of Arahira et al. (US Pat. No. 5,418,605).
Haruyama teaches an electrophotographic photoreceptor including an electroconductive substrate, an undercoat layer provided on the electroconductive substrate, a photosensitive layer, and a surface protective layer disposed on the photosensitive layer ([0017], [0024]-[0027], [0237]) (which reads on the corresponding structure recited in instant claim 1).
An image forming apparatus including the electrophotographic photoreceptor, an exposure device, a transfer device, and an intermediate transfer body, and a process cartridge that attaches to the image forming apparatus and supports the electrophotographic photoreceptor, the charging device, the developing device, and the cleaning device in the housing, are also discussed ([0347]-[0361]) (which reads on the corresponding limitations recited in instant claim 1 and claim 10).
The surface protective layer is taught to include a cured film of a crosslinked product of a composition including at least one compound selected from a compound having a guanamine structure and a compound having a melamine structure (corresponding to the claimed “compound X”), and at least one charge transporting material including at least one substituent selected from -OH, -OCH3, -NH2, -SH, and -COOH (corresponding to the claimed “compound Y”) ([0065], [0156]) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 1 and claim 10).
PNG
media_image1.png
210
326
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Specific examples of the charge transporting material are taught to include compounds represented by the following formula I-8 and formula I-16, shown below ([0103]):
PNG
media_image2.png
214
352
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The solid content concentration of the at least one selected from the guanamine compound and the melamine compound in the coating liquid is taught to be 0.1% by weight or more and 5% by weight or less, in view of achieving desirable film density and resistance properties ([0105]) (which reads on the corresponding ranges recited in instant claim 2 and claim 3). Similarly, the content of the at least one charging transporting material in the surface protective layer is taught to be 80% by weight or more ([0106]).
Haruyama teaches that the surface free energy of the surface protective layer is obtained by measuring the contact angle of the protective layer ([0439]-[0440]). However, Haruyama appears to be silent to teach these contact angles in the Tables.
PNG
media_image3.png
204
306
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regardless, the method of producing the surface protective layer taught by Haruyama is sufficiently similar to the method disclosed by the Applicant in the instant specification. Specifically, Haruyama teaches forming a surface protective layer including 0.5 part by weight of a benzoguanamine resin commercially known as “NIKALAC BL-60” and 9.4 parts by weight of a compound 2 represented by the following formula as a charge transport material containing an -OH group ([0374]):
The coating liquid is taught to be applied onto the photosensitive layer by a soaking coating process and dried at 155 ºC for 45 minutes to form a surface protective layer having a thickness of 7 µm ([0374]).
PNG
media_image4.png
166
586
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Similarly, the instant specification discloses forming a protective layer for photoreceptor 2 including the same benzoguanamine resin commercially known as “NIKALAC BL-60” and the same compound I-8 represented by the formula below as a charge transport material containing an -OH group:
The coating liquid is disclosed as being applied onto the photosensitive layer by a dip coating process and dried at 150 ºC for 40 minutes to form a protective layer having a thickness of 6 µm. The resulting surface layer is taught to have exhibited a water contact angle θ1 of 72º (see paragraphs [0214]-[0216] of the instant specification).
According to paragraph [0093] of the instant specification, the water contact angle θ1 can be adjusted by the kinds and the contents of each of the compound X and the charge transport material Y, and the drying conditions. Paragraph [0147] further states that when the total content of the compound X in the cured film is set to 0.5% by mass or greater, the water contact angle θ1 is easily adjusted to be within the range of 65º or more and 80º or less. Similarly, paragraph [0148] states that when the total content of the charge transport material Y in the cured film is set to 99.5 mass% or less, the water contact angle θ1 of the surface is also easily adjusted to be within the range of 65º or more and 80º or less.
Since the surface protective layer of Haruyama was produced using a sufficiently similar method including similar drying conditions and using the same kinds and similar contents of the compound X and the charge transport material Y as the protective layer of the Applicant’s photoconductor 2, the surface protective layer of Haruyama’s photoreceptor would be expected to necessarily exhibit a water contact angle θ1 within the scope of claim 1, claim 9, and claim 10, as the instant disclosure states that these factors result in achieving a water contact angle θ1 within the range of 65º or more and 80º or less, and the surface of the Applicant’s photoreceptor 2 exhibited a water contact angle θ1 of 72º. Applicant is respectfully invited to demonstrate or prove otherwise.
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).”
Haruyama also appears to be silent to describe the surface of the charging device, and therefore does not teach or suggest the water contact angle θ2 of a surface of the charging member.
Arahira teaches a charging device including a member to be charged, and a charging member for charging the member to be charged. The charging member is taught to include a surface layer which can contact the surface of the member to be charged. The contact angle with water γR of the surface layer of the charging member is taught to be greater than the contact angle with water γD of the surface of the member to be charged (Abstract). The member to be charged is taught to include a photosensitive member or the like (Col. 1, lines 1-10). In other words, the contact angle γD corresponds to the claimed contact angle θ1, and the contact angle γR corresponds to the claimed contact angle θ2.
When the contact angle of the surface of the photosensitive member γD is less than the contact angle of the surface of the charging member γR, adhesion of contaminants to the surface layer of the charging member can be prevented (Col. 5, lines 55-65). The contact angle which can maintain sufficient surface releasability for the photosensitive member is taught to preferably be at least 70º (which falls within the corresponding ranges recited in instant claim 1, claim 9, and claim 10), and the contact angle of the charging member is taught to preferably be at least 75º (Col. 6, lines 1-4).
In the examples, the surface layer of the charging member comprised a polyimide resin commercially known as “Toresin EF-30T” in which tin oxide was dispersed (Col. 6, lines 45-52). In other words, the surface layer of the charging member had a sea-island structure where “islands” containing tin oxide were dispersed in a “sea” containing polyimide resin (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 4).
The contact angle γD of the surface of the photosensitive member of Example 2 was taught to be 72º, and the contact angle γR of the surface of the charging member of Example 2 was taught to be 95º (Table 1). Therefore, a difference [γR – γD] between the contact angle γR and the contact angle γD was 23º (which reads on the corresponding limitations recited in instant claim 7 and claim 8).
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 a charging member having a surface water contact angle greater than the surface water contact angle of the surface of Haruyama’s photoreceptor, such as the one described in Arahira, in view of reducing the adhesion of contaminants and preventing deterioration of image quality.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haruyama et al. (US PGP 2010/0247148 A1), in view of Arahira et al. (US Pat. No. 5,418,605), and further in view of Urano (JP 2010211020 A) (references herein made with respect to English machine translation attached).
The teachings of Haruyama and Arahira are discussed above and incorporated herein. Haruyama and Arahira appear to be silent to teach or suggest a proportion of an area of an island portion in an area of a sea portion in the sea-island structure.
Urano teaches a rubber composition having a sea-island structure for a charging roller ([0007]). The area ratio of the island phase is taught to be 10% by more and less than 50% ([0015]). The area ratio is taught to be within the aforementioned range in view of achieving suitable distance between islands and maintaining the sea-island structure, thus achieving sufficient low-resistance effects.
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 area proportion of islands in the sea-island structure of modified Haruyama’s charging member, in view of achieving the effects taught by Urano.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haruyama et al. (US PGP 2010/0247148 A1), in view of Arahira et al. (US Pat. No. 5,418,605), further in view of Urano (JP 2010211020 A) (references herein made with respect to English machine translation attached), and further in view of Narita et al. (US PGP 2018/0011415 A1).
The teachings of Haruyama, Arahira, and Urano are discussed above and incorporated herein. Haruyama, Arahira, and Urano appear to be silent to teach or suggest a diameter of the island portion of the surface layer of the charging member.
Narita teaches a charging member including a support, a conductive layer disposed on the support, and a surface layer disposed on the conductive elastic layer (Abstract). The outer surface layer is taught to contain domains having an average size of 300 nm (0.3 µm) or less ([0024]-[0025]). The average size of the domains is taught to be controlled by using conductive particles with good dispersibility in the binder resin used to form the surface layer ([0025]). When the domains in the surface layer have the aforementioned size, small color lines in the image may be reduced ([0026]).
Tin oxide is taught to preferably be used as the conductive particles in the surface layer, as it is known to have good dispersibility in a binder resin and thus allows the average size of domains to be easily controlled ([0055]).
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 size of the domains in the surface layer of the charging member of modified Haruyama, in view of reducing small color lines.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached on (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.
/BOONE ALEXANDER EVANS/Examiner, Art Unit 1737
06/22/2026
Prosecution Insights