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.
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 1-3, 6, 8-10, 13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazmaier et al. (US PGP 2012/0237865 A1), in view of Suzuki et al. (US PGP 2019/0086834 A1), further in view of Sawada et al. (US PGP 2021/0018855 A1), and as evidenced by the PubChem Compound Summary for “Solvent Red 49” NPL.
Kazmaier teaches a toner set comprising a plurality of toners. A developer set comprising the plurality of toners, an image forming apparatus comprising a process cartridge containing a cartridge set including the toner set, an image forming method, and a printed material comprising a recording material wherein the toner images at least partially overlap are also discussed ([0070]-[0085]) (which reads on the corresponding limitations recited in instant claim 8, claim 9, claim 10, claim 13, claim 15, claim 16, claim 17, claim 18, and claim 19).
At least one, but not all, of the toners of the toner set is comprised of binder, colorant, and a fluorescence agent, and the remaining additional toners are comprised of binder, colorant, and free of fluorescence agent. When multiple toners include the fluorescence agent, a first toner grouping and a second toner grouping are taught to contain different amounts of the fluorescence agent. Upon exposure to activating energy, the fluorescence agent fluoresces to cause a visible change in the color of a pattern formed in an image by the first toner grouping as compared to the second toner grouping ([0012]).
The toner set is taught to be emulsion aggregation toner set comprised of a plurality of emulsion aggregation toners ([0026]). In the toners of the toner set including a fluorescence agent, the fluorescence agent is taught to be a material that responds to activating energy, such as ultraviolet or black light, to emit or fluoresce at a different color than the material exhibits at ambient light ([0054]). Suitable fluorescence agents are taught to include fluorescence dyes, fluorescent pigments, and inorganic surface functionalized quantum dot materials ([0056]).
Kazmaier appears to be silent to explicitly teach that suitable fluorescence agents include aggregation-induced emission (AIE) colorants, and it is unknown if any of the specific examples of fluorescence agents listed in paragraph [0056] are AIE colorants.
Suzuki teaches a toner set including a fluorescent toner and a color toner. The fluorescent toner is taught to comprise a binder resin and a fluorescent agent (Abstract). The fluorescent agent is taught to be appropriately selected according to its purpose, and includes fluorescent coloring materials and fluorescent colorants. Examples of fluorescent coloring materials are taught to include Pigment Yellow 101, Solvent Yellow 44, Solvent Red 49, and Solvent Green 7 ([0038]).
In the examples, a fluorescent toner 1 was prepared comprising Solvent Red 49 as the fluorescent agent, and a fluorescent toner 4 was prepared comprising Pigment Yellow 101 as the fluorescent agent ([0185]-[0194], [0197]-[0206]). According to paragraphs [0038]-[0039] and [0164] of the instant specification, Pigment Yellow 101 is an aggregation-induced emission colorant. In other words, the fluorescent toner 4 of Suzuki is a fluorescent toner including only an aggregation-induced emission colorant as the fluorescent colorant (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 1).
Similarly, the fluorescent toner 1 of Suzuki is a fluorescent toner including a fluorescent dye and free of an aggregation-induced emission colorant (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 3). According to the PubChem Compound Summary for “Solvent Red 49” NPL, Solvent Red 49 is known to have a molecular weight of about 442.5 g/mol (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 6).
In the examples, the content of the Pigment Yellow 101 (i.e., the AIE colorant) in the fluorescent toner 4 was about 4.7% by mass1 (which reads on the corresponding range for the “content A” recited in instant claim 2). Similarly, the content of the Solvent Red 49 in the fluorescent toner 1 was about 1.4% by mass2 (which reads on the corresponding range for the “content B” recited in instant claim 3). In other words, the content of the Pigment Yellow 101 (i.e., AIE colorant) in the fluorescent toner 4 was greater than the content of the Solvent Red 49 in the fluorescent toner 1 (which reads on the corresponding relationship “A > B” recited in instant claim 3).
Kazamaier and Suzuki appear to be silent to explicitly teach the fluorescent emission spectra of the fluorescent agents.
Sawada teaches a toner comprising Solvent Red 49 (Abstract). Sawada teaches that Solvent Red 49 emits fluorescence of from 580 nm through 640 nm, and Pigment Yellow 101 emits fluorescence of from 500 nm to 600 nm ([0033]). Sawada teaches that when a combination of Solvent Red 49 and Pigment Yellow 101 are used, characteristics of both colorants compensate with each other and hence both high fluorescence and high-temperature and high-humidity resistant storage stability can be obtained ([0032]).
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 included a fluorescent toner including Solvent Red 49 and a toner including Pigment Yellow 101, such as those taught by Suzuki, in the toner set of Kazamaier. In doing so, a difference between wavelengths of a fluorescent light emitted by toners including Solvent Red 49 and Pigment Yellow 101 would necessarily be 50 nm or more, based on the ranges taught by Sawada and the instant specification. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so in order to cause a visible change in the color of a pattern formed in an image by the first toner grouping as compared to the second toner grouping in Kazamaier’s toner set.
Claims 4-5 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazmaier et al. (US PGP 2012/0237865 A1), in view of Suzuki et al. (US PGP 2019/0086834 A1), further in view of Sawada et al. (US PGP 2021/0018855 A1), still further in view of Iioka et al. (JP 2022044075 A) (references herein made with respect to English machine translation attached), and as evidenced by the PubChem Compound Summary for “Solvent Red 49” NPL.
The teachings of Kazmaier, Suzuki, Sawada, and the PubChem Compound Summary for “Solvent Red 49” NPL are discussed above and incorporated herein. The combination of prior art appears to be silent to teach the volume average particle size of the fluorescent colorants, including the Pigment Yellow 101 (AIE colorant).
Iioka teaches a toner including a fluorescent agent ([0008]). Examples of suitable fluorescent agents are taught to include Pigment Yellow 101 (an AIE colorant) and Solvent Red 49 ([0027]). The volume average particle size of the fluorescent agent is taught to be within the range of from 100 to 2000 nm, and more preferably from 200 nm to 600 nm (which reads on the corresponding ranges recited in instant claim 4 and claim 5). When the volume average particle size is within the above range, the resulting image exhibits good luminescence characteristics ([0033]).
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 volume average particle size of the fluorescent agents in the fluorescent toners in the toner set of modified Kazmaier to fall within the range taught by Iioka, in view of improving the luminescence characteristics of the printed image.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazmaier et al. (US PGP 2012/0237865 A1), in view of Suzuki et al. (US PGP 2019/0086834 A1), further in view of Sawada et al. (US PGP 2021/0018855 A1), still further in view of Iwasaki et al. (US PGP 2021/0278773 A1), and as evidenced by the PubChem Compound Summary for “Solvent Red 49” NPL.
The teachings of Kazmaier, Suzuki, Sawada, and the PubChem Compound Summary for “Solvent Red 49” NPL are discussed above and incorporated herein. The combination of prior art appears to be silent to teach the ½-drop temperature of the fluorescent toners when measured with a flow tester.
Iwasaki teaches that the half drop temperature of a toner when measured by a flow tester according to the same method disclosed in paragraph [0031] of the instant specification should be 90 ºC or more and 140 ºC or less, in view of achieving suitable low temperature fixability and preventing gloss unevenness of the image ([0180]-[0182]) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 7).
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 half drop temperature of the fluorescent toners in the toner set of modified Kazmaier to fall within the range taught by Iwasaki, in view of achieving suitable low temperature fixability and preventing gloss unevenness of the image.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached on (571) 270-3149. 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
06/23/2026
1 5 parts PY101 / (5 parts PY101 + 65 parts PES1 + 25 parts PES2 + 5 parts W1 + 5 parts W2 + 1 part CCA1) = 0.047 x 100% = 4.7% by mass
2 1.5 parts SR49 / (1.5 parts SR49 + 65 parts PES1 + 25 parts PES2 + 5 parts W1 + 5 parts W2 + 1 part CCA1) = 0.014 x 100% = 1.4% by mass
Prosecution Insights