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 5/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the teaching of Uchimura to reduce the residual diol cannot be applied to the polyester resin of Yoshizawa, as the synthesis steps are entirely different. The declaration filed 5/12/2026 states that the two-step polycondensation reaction of Uchimura involves inhibiting the hydrolysis of chloroformate groups and carbamate formation reactions in order to suppress the amount of diol residue, and that this method cannot be applied to the teaching of Yoshizawa, as Yoshizawa teaches a different method for forming a different kind of resin. However, the teaching of Yoshizawa does not require a different method in order to decrease the amount of residual diol. Yoshizawa teaches that the amount of free divalent phenol is preferably 50 ppm or less as well as method for achieving residual amounts within this range ([0162]). This encompasses the claimed range of 10 ppm or less. The teaching of Uchimura is applied simply to show that an amount of 10 ppm or less is known to be beneficial for the electrical characteristics of the photoreceptor. The method of Uchimura would not need to be applied to Yoshizawa, as the range of 50 ppm or less already includes amounts from 0 ppm to 10 ppm. It would have been obvious to perfect the range of Yoshizawa based on the more preferable range of Uchimura in order to improve the electrical characteristics of the photoreceptor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshizawa (US PGP 2019-0219938) in view of Uchimura (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2007-126493).
Yoshizawa teaches an electrophotographic photoreceptor comprising a conductive substrate and a photosensitive layer, and containing a polyester resin (Abstract). The photosensitive layer may be a lamination type containing a charge generating layer and a charge transport layer, or a single layer type ([0205]) with the polyester resin contained in the charge transport layer of the lamination type photoreceptor ([0206]). The polyester resin contains a diol unit represented by Formula (6) ([0024]), and a carboxylic acid unit represented by Formula (7) ([0026]).
PNG
media_image1.png
137
316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Formula (6) X1 may represent –CR6R7–, wherein R6 and R7 may represent a hydrogen atom, a hydrocarbon group, or may be bonded together to form a ring ([0122-123]). If R6 or R7 is an alkyl group it may have 10 or less carbon atoms ([0115] line 1-4). The content of the divalent phenol of Formula (6) is preferably 70 mol% or more based on the total of the divalent phenols ([0131]), and the examples use 100 mol% of Formula (6) for the diol portions of the resins ([0275],[0280],[0283-291]). Formula (7) when X2 is a single bond is representative of Formula (A) of the instant application wherein n1 is 2. The amount of the free divalent phenol, equivalent to Formula (1) of the instant application, is preferably 50 ppm or less from the viewpoint of electrical properties ([0162]).
The image forming apparatus comprises the electrophotographic photoreceptor, a charging device, an exposure device, a developing device, and a transfer device ([0267]). The photoreceptor is contained in a process cartridge, that is attachable to and detachable from the image forming apparatus ([0269]).
Yoshizawa teaches reducing the amount of diol to 50 ppm or less, but does not specify a further preferable range of 10 ppm less. Uchimura teaches a photoreceptor containing a polycarbonate resin and a diol represented by general formula (1) ([0028]). The diol is comparable to Formula (6) of Yoshizawa and the Formula (1) of the instant application. The amount of the diol is 10 ppm or less ([0016]). Reducing the amount of the diol is beneficial for the electrical and mechanical properties of the photoreceptor ([0059]). Although the type of resin in the photoreceptor is a polycarbonate instead of a polyester, the resins of Yoshizawa and Uchimura contain similar compounds and the free diol is present in both photoreceptors. Further, both references teach reducing the amount of the diol present in the final resin and point to the electrical characteristics of the photoreceptor being improved from the reduction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have perfected the range of Yoshizawa and reduced the amount of the diol in the resin to the 10 ppm or lower amount of Uchimura in order to further benefit the electrical characteristics of the photoreceptor.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 07/31/2026
Prosecution Insights