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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the Response, filed 07/15/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10 under 35 USC 103 and 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the prior art set forth below.
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.
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(s) 1 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2012-177917 (henceforth JP ‘917) in view of WO 2022/009793 (henceforth WO ‘793) and further in view of JP 2017-40845 (henceforth JP ‘845).
JP ‘917 teaches a toner comprising a core/shell configuration. The core is taught to comprise an amorphous polyester resin and a crystalline polyester resin and further teaches that each of the resins may be biobased resin ([0004-13]). JP ‘917 further teaches that the content of the biobased resin is 50% by weight to 100% by weight by weight of the resin ([0012]). The toner is further taught to include a shell surrounding the core particles ([0059]). JP ‘917 does not, however, teach that the toner further contains a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin or a relationship between the crystalline polyester resin and shell resin SP values.
WO ‘793 teaches a toner comprising a PET resin (see Description of Embodiments section of the provided translation). The PET resin is taught to impart the toner with improved storage stability and fixing strength (see Background Art of the provided translation).
JP ‘845 teaches at oner comprising a core-shell configuration wherein the core comprises a crystalline polyester resin and the shell comprises an amorphous polyester resin (Abstract). The difference in SP value between the crystalline polyester resin (SP1) and the shell resin (SP3) is taught to be between 2 and 3 (Abstract). JP ‘845 further teaches that controlling the difference in SP value to a value within this range improves storage stability toner and compatibility of the core and shell (see the Description section of the provided translation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to any person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the instant application to have provide the toner of JP ‘917 with the PET resin taught by WO ‘793 in order to improve the storage stability and fixing strength of said toner and to have perfected the difference in SP value between the crystalline resin of the core and shell resin in the toner of JP ‘917 to a value within the range of JP ‘845 in order to improve the storage stability of the toner and the compatibility of the core and shell resins.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2012-177917 (henceforth JP ‘917) in view of WO 2022/009793 (henceforth WO ‘793) and further in view of JP 2017-40845 (henceforth JP ‘845) as applied to claims 1 and 4-7 above, and further in view of KR 2019-0125105 (henceforth KR ‘105).
The complete discussion of JP ‘917, JP ‘845 and WO ‘793 above are included herein. JP ‘917 does not teach a difference in solubility parameter between the amorphous and crystalline resin in the core.
KR ‘105 teaches at oner comprising toner core particles comprising a crystalline polyester resin and an amorphous polyester resin. Additionally, KR ’105 teaches that the difference in the solubility parameter of the amorphous and crystalline resins should be between 1.0 and 2.0 J/cm2 (see the Description of the Embodiments section of the provided translation). KR ‘105 teaches that when solubility parameters are similar compatibility between resins tends to be good and that optimizing the difference in solubility parameters within the above range results in a toner that can maintain a sharp melting property while providing a stable toner with excellent fixing gloss (see the Description of the Embodiments section of the provided translation). Additionally, KR ‘105 teaches an image forming apparatus that comprises a toner cartridge as well as the devices recited by the Applicant in pending claim 9 (the Description of the Embodiments section of the provided translation). The image forming apparatus is further taught to perform an image forming method entailing the same steps recited by the Applicant in pending claim 10 (the Description of the Embodiments section of the provided translation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to any person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the instant application to have optimized the solubility parameters of the crystalline and amorphous resins in the toner within the range taught by KR ‘105 of JP ‘917 as modified above by WO ‘793 in order to perfect the melting properties, toner stability and image gloss of the modified toner of JP ‘917 and to have used the modified toner in the image forming apparatus and method taught by KR ‘105.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PETER L VAJDA whose telephone number is (571)272-7150. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:00 PM.
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.
/PETER L VAJDA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 07/30/2026
Prosecution Insights