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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuhata et al. (US PGP 2008/0292983 A1), in view of Kobayashi (US PGP 2020/0257215 A1).
Mizuhata teaches an image forming apparatus including a magnetic one-component toner for development of an electrostatic latent image and an a-Si (amorphous silicone) photoconductor drum (Abstract). In the examples, an image formation method comprising the steps recited in instant claim 8 were performed ([0051]-[0078]). Mizuhata teaches that, even if a linear velocity of the photoconductor is large, for example 400 to 500 mm/sec, dielectric breakdown can be prevented from occurring ([0065]). Therefore, the image forming apparatus is capable of use at a linear velocity of at least 300 mm/sec, as recited in instant claim 7.
The toner is taught to include an inorganic metal oxide as an external additive. Alumina is taught to be a preferable embodiment of the inorganic metal oxide. The volume resistivity of the inorganic metal oxide is taught to preferably be from 100 to 107 Ω.cm, in view of imparting suitable chargeability to the toner particles ([0104]) (which reads on the corresponding ranges recited in instant claim 1, claim 2, claim 4, and claim 8). Additionally, the inorganic metal oxide is taught to have an average particle size of from 0.01 to 1 µm (which reads on the corresponding ranges recited in instant claim 1, claim 2, claim 3, and claim 8).
The volume resistivity of the inorganic metal oxide is taught to be adjusted by forming a coating layer made of tin oxide and antimony oxide on the surface of the inorganic metal oxide and varying the thickness of the coating layer formed, or varying the content ratio of tin oxide to antimony oxide ([0107]) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 1 and claim 8).
The inorganic metal oxide is further taught to be subjected to a surface treatment using a hydrophobizing agent to impart hydrophobicity. Known hydrophobizing agents like titanate-based coupling agents are mentioned ([0116]) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 5). Examples of the titanate-based coupling agents are taught to include those having a carbon number of at least 8 and no greater than 20 as a hydrophobic group, like hexyldimethoxymethyl titanium (C = 9) ([0122]) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 6).
Mizuhata appears to be silent to teach or suggest an X-ray intensity ratio of the inorganic metal oxide being a ratio of an X-ray intensity of a peak derived from an antimony element to an X-ray intensity of a peak derived from a tin element. Kobayashi teaches a toner including external additives including a base, a conductive layer covering the base, and a surface treatment layer covering the conductive layer (Abstract). The conductive layer is taught to preferably contain antimony-doped tin oxide ([0037]).
A ratio of an amount of substance of antimony atoms to a total amount of substance of tin atoms and antimony atoms in the conductive layers is taught to preferably be at least 0.09 and no greater than 0.29, in view of imparting a suitable conductivity to the external additives ([0039]). The ratio of the amount of substance of antimony atoms to the amount of substance of tin atoms and antimony atoms is taught to be determined by analyzing the external additive particles using fluorescent X-ray analysis ([0140]). Therefore, a ratio of an amount of substance of antimony atoms to an amount of substance of tin atoms in the conductive layer can be calculated as ranging from about 0.0989 to 0.4091 (which reads on the corresponding ranges recited in instant claim 1, claim 4, 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 adjusted the X-ray intensity ratio of the inorganic metal oxide of Mizuhata to fall within the range taught by Kobayashi, in view of imparting a suitable conductivity to the inorganic metal oxide particles. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to experiment with different values within Kobayashi’s range because Mizuhata teaches that the volume resistivity of the inorganic metal oxide particles can be adjusted to a suitable value by varying the ratio of the tin oxide to antimony oxide covering the inorganic metal oxide particles.
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
02/06/2026
1 Kobayashi teaches the ratio X = Sb/(Sn+Sb), where X = 0.09 to 0.29. However, the claimed limitation is directed toward the ratio Y = Sb/Sn.
X = (Sb/Sn) / ((Sn/Sn) + (Sb/Sn)) = (Sb/Sn) / (1 + (Sb/Sn)) = Y / (1 + Y)
X(1 + Y) = Y -> X + XY = Y -> X = Y – XY -> X = Y(1 – X) -> Y = X/(1-X)
Ymin = 0.09 / (1 – 0.09) = 0.0989
Ymax = 0.29 / (1 – 0.29) = 0.409