CTNF 18/493,903 CTNF 100215 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. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites a range of values for the moisture absorption amount, quoted as cm 3 /m 2 , and then repeats “per 1 m 2 of BET specific surface area”. The range might be more clearly written as “0.010 cm 3 to 0.100 cm 3 per 1 m 2 of BET specific surface area” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 07-20-02-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 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuasa et al (US PGP 2002/0086229) in view of Kanae et al (JP 2007-217249) (machine translation of which is referred to henceforth) . Yuasa teaches a toner comprising a binder resin and externally added silica particles (Abstract). Toner particles provided following classification taught by Yuasa have a volume-average particle diameter in the range of 5 – 12 µm, reading on the range stated in Claim 1. The externally added silica of Yuasa is surface treated with polydimethylsiloxane such that the amount of siloxane which can be extracted from the particles by an organic solvent is minimized ([0151]). Yuasa teaches that a silicone oil-based treatment imparts hydrophobicity to the silica particles, thereby improving the durability and humidity resistance of the silica ([0153]). Yuasa gives examples of silicone oil-based treatment agents, which include epoxy-modified silicone oil, carbinol-modified silicone oil ([0162]), and dimethylsilicone oil having silanol groups at both ends ([0164]). An example procedure is given wherein, following treatment with a silicone oil-based treatment agent, the treated silica particles are heated to 260°C ([0163]). The addition amount of silicone oil-based treatment agent is preferably in the range of 0.1 – 8 parts by mass relative to 100 parts of silica particles ([0163]). Yuasa teaches that the weight-average particle diameter of the silica is 5 – 100 nm ([0041]). Yuasa does not appear to teach a preferred duration of heating following application of silicone oil-based treatment agent to the silica particles. Kanae teaches a surface-modified silica powder for use as an external additive to an electrophotographic toner ([0001]). Surface treatment agents based on organopolysiloxanes (silicone oils) are preferable because they impart sufficient hydrophobicity to the toner ([0003]). Such surface treatment reduces the number of silanol groups at the surface of the silica particles, enhancing moisture resistance in high-temperature and high-humidity environments ([0007]). Kanae describes a preferred silicone oil-based treatment agent conforming to a structural formula 1 ([0010]). This is a modified dimethylsilicone oil, wherein at least 80% of the alkyl groups in the siloxane chain are methyl groups, and wherein the number of siloxane units is between 15 and 500. Further, the termini of the chain may independently be silanol groups or silyl halide groups, among others. Kanae teaches that the surface-treatment of the silica powder with such a dimethylsilicone oil-based treatment agent results in chemical modification of the silanol groups at the surface of the silica particle ([0017]). Modification of the surface silanol groups to an insufficient degree results in lowered hydrophobicity of the silica particles, a decrease in toner fluidity, and increased dependence on environmental conditions (i.e. temperature and humidity) ([0019]). Kanae does not teach specific preferences for surface treatment temperature or time, but discloses preparative examples having treatment temperatures in the range of 180 - 350°C, and treatment times in the range of 30 – 120 minutes ([0032], Table 1). In preparing the toner of Yuasa, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to enhance the moisture resistance of the externally added silica particles in high-temperature and high-humidity environments by treating them with a silicone oil-based treatment agent, such that the surface silanol groups of the silica particles are chemically modified, as taught by Kanae. In the course of routine experimentation, one of ordinary skill in the art would have treated silica particles having a similar size (roughly 40 nm) with a similar treatment agent (silanol terminated dimethylsilicone oil having roughly 25 siloxane repeating units, similar to instant chemical formula (2)) in a similar amount (roughly 2.2 parts of treatment agent relative to 100 parts of silica particles) at a similar temperature (roughly 300°C) for up to 120 minutes. As seen from instant example silica fine particles 8 and 10 (Specification, Table 1), changing the reaction time from 240 minutes to 120 minutes does not substantially affect the properties of the resulting particles. Thus, the silica particles of Yuasa treated as taught by Kanae would necessarily be substantially similar to those of instant example silica fine particle 2, which possesses values for the ratio A/B and C lying in the ranges stated in Claim 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to prepare the toner of Yuasa, wherein the externally added silica particles are treated as taught by Kanae, resulting in a toner comprising silica particles described by Claim 1 . Where instant example silica fine particle 2 possesses a value for C greater than 5.0 (Specification, Table 1), the silica particles of Yuasa treated as taught by Kanae would necessarily possess a value for C satisfying the inequality of Claim 2 . As mentioned above, Yuasa teaches that the weight-average particle diameter of the silica is 5 – 100 nm ([0041]), lying inside the range stated in Claim 3 . Where instant example silica fine particle 2 possesses a value for moisture adsorption of 0.020, (Specification, Table 1), the silica particles of Yuasa treated as taught by Kanae would necessarily possess a value for moisture adsorption lying in the range of Claim 4 . Yuasa teaches a two-component developer, which includes the toner and a carrier. The carrier comprises a magnetic core coated with a coating resin, satisfying Claim 5 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuasa et al (US PGP 2002/0086229) in view of Kanae et al (JP 2007-217249), further in view of Iwasaki et al (US PGP 2015/0086917) . The above discussions of Yuasa and Kanae are incorporated herein. Neither Yuasa nor Kanae appears to teach inclusion of alicyclic (meth)acrylates or (meth)acrylate-based macromonomers as structural units in the carrier coating resin. Iwasaki teaches a toner and two-component developer (Abstract), which includes a carrier ([0086]). The carrier comprises a magnetic core ([0087]) and a copolymer resin coating the core ([0088]). In order to achieve the effects of the invention (which include stable charge quantity and image density under high-temperature and high-humidity environments, and stable image output over a long time period (Abstract)), the coating resin should contain a monomer unit of formula (1) and a macromonomer of formula (2) ([0088]). The monomer/macromonomer of formula (2) may be an alicyclic (meth)acrylate, or a (meth)acrylate-terminated polymer of methyl, butyl, or 2-ethylhexyl (meth)acrylate, the same as instant formula (B) ([0088]). Iwasaki discloses a preparative example of the carrier coating resin containing both cyclohexyl methacrylate and a methyl methacrylate-based macromonomer ([0177]). In preparing the two-component developer of Yuasa wherein the externally added silica particles are surface-treated as taught by Kanae, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve the stability of charge quantity and image density under high-temperature and high-humidity environments, and image output over time, by incorporating the carrier coating resin taught by Iwasaki. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to prepare the two-component developer of Yuasa and Kanae, wherein the carrier particles are coated with the resin taught by Iwasaki, satisfying Claim 6 . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Grant S Seiler whose telephone number is (571)272-3015. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 5:30 Pacific. 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. /GRANT STEVEN SEILER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1734 /PETER L VAJDA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 05/12/2026 Application/Control Number: 18/493,903 Page 2 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/493,903 Page 3 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/493,903 Page 4 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/493,903 Page 5 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/493,903 Page 6 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/493,903 Page 7 Art Unit: 1734
