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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
In particular, Claim 1 and Claim 3 each recite a range for the integrated value of the intensity in a power spectrum obtained from a fast Fourier transform of a roughness curve of the conductive substrate, but the Specification does not detail how to achieve a value in the claimed range. Claims 2 and 4 – 20 each depend, either directly or indirectly, on either Claim 1 or Claim 3.
The as-filed Specification describes a step of reproducing a conductive substrate from a used photoreceptor (Specification, [0119] – [0121]), and a preference for the water jet method is stated. The water pressure, temperature, and amount are given as parameters which may be manipulated to achieve an integrated value S of 0.10 or less, but values for these parameters are not given. In addition, the preparation of examples is disclosed (Specification, [0148] – [0149]), but values for the pressure of the water jet are not given for the preparation of conductive substrates (1) – (3). Instead, the Specification states “Conductive substrates (1) – (3) with integrated values S different from each other are obtained by changing the water pressure of the water jet.” Table 1 gives the integrated value S, but does not report water pressure of the water jet.
Given this lack of guidance as to the parameters surrounding the water jet used to remove the layers of the photoreceptor from the conductive substrate, one of ordinary skill in the art would have no choice but to undertake undue experimentation to achieve an integrated value of the intensity in a power spectrum obtained from a fast Fourier transform of a roughness curve of the conductive substrate lying in the range stated in the claims.
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.
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.
Claims 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (US PGP 2023/0108399) in view of Tallman et al (US PGP 2010/0051065).
Yamazaki teaches an electrophotographic photoreceptor ([0048]) which comprises at least a conductive support ([0050]), an undercoat layer ([0053]), and a photosensitive layer ([0061]). The undercoat layer preferably has a thickness of 0.01 – 30 µm ([0059]), reading on the inequality stated in Claim 1. Yamazaki teaches that the conductive support may be a metal such as aluminum, and may take the form of a drum ([0050]). The surface of the support may be smooth or may be roughened ([0051]), but Yamazaki does not appear to give detailed preferences regarding the roughness.
Yamazaki does not appear to teach reproducing the conductive substrate from a used photoreceptor.
Tallman teaches a method of removing the layers from an electrophotographic imaging member (analogous to a photoreceptor) using high-pressure water (Abstract). Tallman teaches that photoreceptors can be salvaged for reuse, reducing the need to discard the photoreceptor, and lowering the cost of photoreceptor manufacturing ([0005], [0007]).
Tallman describes the method of removing the layers of a photoreceptor by the use of jets of water ([0011]). Various parameters are given which may be optimized, including the water pressure, distance of the nozzle from the photoreceptor surface, the angle of the nozzle, and the traverse rate of the nozzle ([0023]).
In preparing the photoreceptor of Yamazaki, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reclaims the conductive support from a used photoreceptor as taught by Tallman, so as to avoid discarding a useable photoreceptor and reduce manufacturing cost. The conductive support obtained as described by Tallman, being recovered by a water jet method substantially the same as that described in the instant application, would necessarily possess an integrated value S similar to that possessed by instant Conductive substrates (1) – (3), which lie in the range of 0.02 – 0.10. 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 photoreceptor of Yamazaki wherein the conductive support is reclaimed from a used photoreceptor as taught by Tallman, resulting in a photoreceptor comprising a conductive substrate having a value of S in the range stated in Claim 1; an undercoat layer having a thickness in the range stated in Claim 1; and a photosensitive layer, satisfying Claim 1.
As discussed above, Yamazaki teaches a preferred thickness of the undercoat layer of 0.01 – 30 µm ([0059]), reading on the inequality stated in Claim 2.
Yamazaki teaches that the undercoat layer may have metal oxide particles dispersed within the resin of the layer ([0053]), satisfying Claim 3.
Yamazaki teaches that the metal oxide particles may be titanium oxide, zinc oxide, or other metal oxides ([0054]), reading on Claim 4.
Yamazaki teaches that the metal oxide particles preferably have an average particle diameter of 10 – 100 nm ([0055]), encompassing the range stated in Claim 5.
Yamazaki teaches that the metal oxide particles may have a mass proportion relative to the binder resin of the undercoat layer of 10 – 500% by mass ([0058]), allowing the mass proportion of the metal oxide particles in the undercoat layer to lie in the range stated in Claim 6.
As discussed above, Tallman describes the method of reclaiming a conductive support from a used photoreceptor by removing the layers of the photoreceptor using water jets ([0011]). Yamazaki teaches the formation of the various layers of the photoreceptor by several known methods ([0166]). In a preparative example, an undercoat layer is formed on a conductive substrate ([0197]), and a single-layer photosensitive layer is then formed upon the undercoat layer ([0198]), reading on the method described in Claim 7, Claim 8, Claim 9, Claim 10, Claim 11, and Claim 12.
Yamazaki describes an electrophotographic receptor cartridge, analogous to a process cartridge, which may be detachably attached to an electrophotographic apparatus ([0194), reading on Claim 13, Claim 14, Claim 15, Claim 16, Claim 17, and Claim 18.
Yamazaki describes an image forming apparatus comprising at least the photoreceptor described above; a charging device; an exposing device (analogous to a latent image forming device); a developing device; and a transferring device ([0173]), reading on Claim 19 and Claim 20.
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 07/11/2026
Prosecution Insights