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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohmura et al. (US PGP 2002/0136976 A1).
Ohmura teaches an electrostatic image developing toner having a domain-matrix structure (Abstract). An electrostatic image developer comprising the toner and a toner cartridge detachably attachable to an image forming apparatus are also discussed ([0300]-[0302], [0313]-[0314]) (which reads on the corresponding limitations recited in instant claim 19 and claim 20). The toner is taught to comprise a resin, a colorant, and a crystalline material ([0019]). The domains are taught to include domains of the crystalline material and domains of the colorant ([0029]).
The cross section of the toner particles is taught to be divided into Voronoi
PNG
media_image1.png
474
720
media_image1.png
Greyscale
polygons, as shown in Figure 2 below ([0042], [0089]-[0092]):
The average of the area of a Voronoi polygon formed by the perpendicular bisecting line between centers of gravity of domains adjacent to each other in the domain-matrix structure is taught to be from 20,000 to 120,000 nm2 (0.02 to 0.12 µm2), or from 40,000 to 100,000 nm2 (0.04 to 0.10 µm2) ([0023]-[0025], [0098]-[0100]). Additionally, the variation coefficient of the average of the areas of the Voronoi polygon is taught to be no more than 25%, preferably no more than 20% ([0098], [0102]). The variation coefficient of the average of the areas is taught to be calculated based on the formula below:
Variation coefficient of the area of the Voronoi polygon = (S4/K4) x 100%
wherein S4 is the standard deviation of the area of the Voronoi polygon in the toner particle, and K4 is the average area of the Voronoi polygon ([0099]).
Therefore, the standard deviation of the area of the Voronoi polygon in the toner S4 can be determined by rearranging the above formula:
((Variation coefficient of the area of the Voronoi polygon) / 100%) x K4 = S4
In the examples, the toner particles are taught to have been produced by a three-step polymerization method including a step of producing a composite resin particle comprised of a core particle, an inter layer containing the crystalline material, and an outer layer shell comprising another resin ([0160]). The inter layer is taught to contain the crystalline material and resin particles containing a releasing agent ([0164]).
The diameter of the crystalline material dispersed in the toner is taught to be from 10 to 1,000 nm, and preferably 30 to 300 nm in view of controlling the shape coefficient and variation coefficient ([0170]) (which reads on the corresponding ranges recited in instant claim 5 and claim 9).
In the production method of Example 1, the core particle included a binder resin comprising a styrene-(meth)acrylic resin (consisting of styrene, n-butyl acrylate, and methacrylic acid monomers) ([0342]-[0345]), the inter layer included vinyl resin particles being composite particles of a crystalline material having releasing properties (Exemplified Compound (19)) and a styrene-acrylic resin (consisting of styrene, n-butyl acrylate, methacrylic acid, and n-octyl-3-mercaptopropionic acid ester monomers) ([0346]-[0350]), and the outer shell layer included vinyl resin particles comprising another styrene-(meth)acrylic resin (consisting of styrene, n-butyl acrylate, methacrylic acid, and n-octyl-3-mercaptopropionic acid ester monomers) ([0352]-[0355]). In other words, the resulting toner particles included a binder resin and vinyl resin particles (which reads on the corresponding limitations recited in instant claim 1).
The difference of the proportion of the structural unit derived from methacrylic acid in the vinyl resin particles of the inter layer and the outer (surface) layer and the proportion of the structural unit derived from methacrylic acid in the outer (surface) can be calculated as being about 4.96 mol%1 (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 10).
Ohmura appears to be silent to teach whether or not the vinyl resin particles in Example 1 have a crosslinked structure. However, crosslinking monomers are taught to be suitably used in order to improve the desired properties of the toner ([0214]) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 18).
Ohmura also appears to be silent to teach the ratio of an area of the vinyl resin particles to an area of the toner particles in a cross section of the toner particles. However, the vinyl resin particles (crystalline material) observed in the Voronoi polygon are taught to be present in the inter layer of the toner particles, which is further coated with an outer layer. While the thicknesses of the inter layer and the outer layer are unknown, the outer layer is taught to be coated directly onto the inter layer. In other words, the outer layer would necessarily have a larger area than that of the inter layer (and the core material).
As such, it can reasonably be assumed that the ratio of the area of the inter layer to the area of the outer layer is 0.50 or less. For example, assuming that the thickness of the inter layer and the outer layer are the same (and the toner particles are spherical for the sake of calculation), the ratio of the area of the inter layer (coating the core) to the area of the outer layer (coating the inter layer and the core) can be calculated as being about 0.252 (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 4).
Ohmura also appears to be silent to teach the number of a part of the vinyl resin particles appearing to overlap with one another. However, Ohmura teaches that the three-step polymerization method is employed in order to finely and uniformly disperse the crystalline material at the time of forming the inter layer ([0163]). Accordingly, it can reasonably be assumed that little to no overlap occurs (see also Fig. 2 above) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 7).
Ohmura also appears to be silent to teach a length of a part of an outline of the toner particles overlapping with the vinyl resin particles with respect to the length of the outline of the toner particles. However, since the vinyl resin particles are included in the inter layer, and there is no mention of the vinyl resin particles protruding from the outer surface layer, the part of the outline overlapping with the vinyl resin particles in a cross section would necessarily be 0% (see also Fig. 2) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 8).
Ohmura appears to be silent to teach or suggest the solubility parameter values of the binder resin and/or the vinyl resin particles. However, the binder resin of the core particle, the vinyl resin particles of the inter layer, and the vinyl resin particles of the outer layer were all produced utilizing a monomer composition comprising styrene, n-butyl acrylate, and methacrylic acid in similar proportions. Accordingly, the binder resin of the core particle and the vinyl resin particles of both layers would be expected to exhibit sufficiently similar solubility parameters. Accordingly, an absolute value of a difference in SP values of the binder resin and the vinyl resin particles of each layer would necessarily be 1.0 or less (which reads on the corresponding limitations recited in instant claim 14).
In the tables, the toner of Example 1 was taught to have exhibited an average area of the Voronoi polygon (of the crystalline material vinyl resin particles) of 84,200 nm2 (0.0842 µm2) and a variation of coefficient of the average areas of the Voronoi polygon of 10.5 (Table 2). Accordingly, the standard deviation of the area of the Voronoi polygon in the toner can be calculated as being about 8.84 x 10-3 µm2 3. In other words, the toner of Example 1 exhibited a standard deviation of the areas of the Voronoi polygon of less than or equal to 0.10, and less than or equal to 0.07 (which satisfies the formula (2) recited in instant claim 1, and the formula (21) recited in instant claim 3).
While the average areas of the Voronoi polygon are disclosed, Ohmura appears to be silent to teach or suggest the median areas of the Voronoi polygon. However, Ohmura emphasizes the importance of minimizing the variation coefficient of the average area of the Voronoi polygon to prevent fluctuation among the areas of the resulting Voronoi polygons from becoming excessing large, making it difficult to discern the effects of the toner during image formation ([0101]-[0104]).
Given how close the standard deviation of the area of the Voronoi polygon is to 0 in the case of Example 1, the median area of the Voronoi polygon would necessarily be about the same as the average area of the Voronoi polygon as a standard deviation of 0 indicates that the average (mean) and median in a dataset are identical. In other words, the toner of Example 1 necessarily exhibited a median of the areas of the Voronoi polygon of about 0.0842 µm2, which is greater than or equal to 0.03 but less than or equal to 0.20, and greater than or equal to 0.08 but less than or equal to 0.16 (which satisfies the formula (1) recited in instant claim 1, and the formula (11) recited in instant claim 2).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohmura et al. (US PGP 2002/0136976 A1), in view of Yamashita et al. (US PGP 2014/0272689 A1).
The teachings of Ohmura are discussed above and incorporated herein. Ohmura appears to be silent to teach or suggest the glass transition temperature of the vinyl resin particles. Yamashita teaches a toner including a shell layer comprising acrylic resin particles ([0129]). The acrylic resin particles are taught to have a glass transition temperature of 30 to 115 ºC, in view of achieving suitable toner preservability and fixability ([0128]).
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 glass transition temperature of the vinyl resin particles of Ohmura to fall within the range taught by Yamashita, in view of achieving the suitable effects taught by Yamashita.
According to MPEP § 2144.05, “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohmura et al. (US PGP 2002/0136976 A1), in view of Kunii et al. (US PGP 2010/0203440 A1).
The teachings of Ohmura are discussed above and incorporated herein. Ohmura appears to be silent to teach or suggest that the binder resin in the examples may include an amorphous polyester resin, let alone an amorphous polyester including isophthalic acid in an amount of 10 mol% to 50 mol%.
However, Ohmura does not teach away from using an amorphous polyester as a binder resin. According to MPEP § 2123, “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). "A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994)”.
Kunii teaches a toner including a resin binder containing an amorphous polyester resin. The use of a polyester containing an isophthalic acid compound is taught to improve smearing property and triboelectric stability of the toner ([0016]). The polyester resin is taught to include an isophthalic acid compound in an amount of 50% by mol or more, in view of improving transfer efficiency ([0019]-[0028]).
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 an amorphous polyester containing an isophthalic compound in the amount within the range taught by Kunii, in view of achieving the suitable effects taught by Kunii.
According to MPEP § 2144.05, “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13, 15, and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 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.
/BOONE ALEXANDER EVANS/Examiner, Art Unit 1737
04/27/2026
1 Total moles of polymerizable monomers in surface layer:
(300 g styrene / 104.15 g/mol) + (95 g n-butyl acrylate / 128.17 g/mol) + (15.3 g methacrylic acid / 86.09 g/mol) = 3.80 mol
Proportion of methacrylic acid monomer unit in the vinyl resin particles of the surface layer:
0.178 mol methacrylic acid / 3.80 total mol = 0.0468
Total moles of polymerizable monomers in inter layer:
(105.6 g styrene / 104.15 g/mol) + (30 g n-butyl acrylate / 128.17 g/mol) + (5.6 g methacrylic acid / 86.09 g/mol) = 1.31 mol
Proportion of methacrylic acid monomer units in the vinyl resin particles of the inter layer:
0.065 mol methacrylic acid / 1.31 total mol = 0.0496
Total amount of methacrylic acid monomer units in inter layer and outer layer:
0.0496 mol methacrylic acid inter layer + 0.0468 mol methacrylic acid outer layer = 0.0964 mol total methacrylic acid
Wa(S) – Wa(B):
0.0964 mol total methacrylic acid – 0.0468 mol methacrylic acid outer layer = 0.0496 mol methacrylic acid x 100% = 4.96%
2
A
i
n
t
e
r
A
o
u
t
e
r
=
4
π
r
i
2
4
π
r
o
2
=
r
i
2
(
r
i
2
+
r
i
2
)
=
r
i
2
2
r
i
2
=
r
i
4
r
i
=
1
4
=
0.25
3 ((10.5) / 100) x 0.0842 = 0.008841
Prosecution Insights