Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/588,260

TONER SET, ELECTROSTATIC IMAGE DEVELOPER SET, TONER CARTRIDGE SET, PROCESS CARTRIDGE, IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS, IMAGE FORMING METHOD, AND PRINTED MATERIAL

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 27, 2024
Priority
Mar 29, 2023 — JP 2023-054184
Examiner
KUIPERS, JENNA ANN
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Fujifilm Holdings Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
10m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allowance Rate
25 granted / 32 resolved
+18.1% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+23.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
69
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
89.7%
+49.7% vs TC avg
§102
8.5%
-31.5% vs TC avg
§112
1.8%
-38.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 32 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2023-054184, filed on 3/29/2023. 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. Claim 1-3, 8-11, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kembo (US PGP 2021-0253750) in view of Tanaka (US PGP 2021-0255559). Kembo teaches a resin particle including a fluorescent colorant and a color pigment (Abstract). The resin particles are suitably used as toner ([0183]). Examples of the fluorescent colorants include fluorescent pink and fluorescent green ([0040]). A fluorescent pink resin particle preferable contains a fluorescent colorant having a xanthene structure, and a color pigment having a quinacridone structure ([0061]). Exemplary resin particles 1-12 and 33-39 have hue angles ranging from 340° (equivalent to -20°) to 16°, and fluorescent intensities of 107% to 119% (Tables 1-3). Exemplary resin particles 19-22 have a hue angle of 135° and a fluorescent intensity of 105% (Table 2). Kembo is silent regarding the resin particles being used as part of a toner set. Tanka teaches a resin particle set which includes a fluorescent color resin particle and a colored resin particle (Abstract). The resin particle set is preferably used as an electrostatic charge image developing toner set ([0142]). The resin particle set may have two or more kinds of fluorescent resin particles, and two or more kinds of colored resin particles ([0041]).The fluorescent color resin particles preferably include a fluorescent pink resin particle, a fluorescent yellow resin particle, or a fluorescent green resin particle ([0055]). The resin particle set preferably includes yellow, magenta, cyan, and black resin particles as the colored particles so that a full-color image can easily be formed ([0043]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the fluorescent resin particles of Kembo as part of a toner set also including yellow, cyan, magenta, and black in order to be able to produce a full color image. The difference between the hue angles of the exemplary pink and green fluorescent resin particles of Kembo is from 119° to 155°. The difference between hue angles of the fluorescent toners according to claim 3 is at least 160°. This is only a 5° difference from the examples of Kembo. When using these two types of fluorescent toners together, it would be obvious to optimize this range in order to produce a printed image with good color reproducibility. According to the MPEP, “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). (MPEP 2144.05 II A). Tanka teaches an image forming apparatus and image forming method according to claims 18 and 19 ([0199-204]). The resin particle set is used as an electrostatic charge image developer set ([0189]). Figure 1 shows one example of an image forming apparatus wherein each color in the developer set has a corresponding process cartridge which is detachably attached to the image forming apparatus ([0209]). Each of the toners is contained in a toner cartridge ([0211]). This image forming method results in a printed material according to claim 20. Claims 4-7 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kembo and Tanka as applied to claims 1-3, 8-11, and 15-20 above, and further considered with Colorxs (PANTONE 802 C and PANTONE 806 C). Kembo is silent regarding the degrees of lightness and chroma of the fluorescent toners. However, Kembo describes color samples that the resin particles have a small color difference from. The pink fluorescent resin particle is preferably very similar to PANTONE 806C, hereafter 806C ([0064]). The green fluorescent resin particle is preferably very similar to PANTONE 802C, hereafter 802C ([0084]). As the pink resin particle is similar to 806C and the green resin particle is similar to 802C, the properties of the colors, such as degrees of lightness and degrees of chroma, should be similar. Colorxs lists the CIE-Lab values for these standardized colors, L*a*b* (PANTONE 802 C Pg 8, PANTONE 806 C Pg 8). The lightness of 806C is 59.93, and the lightness of 802C is 75.76. The difference of these values is 15.83. The chroma, calculated from ((a*)2+(b*)2)1/2 (Applicant [0025]), of 806C is 82.22, and the chroma of 802C is 75.76. The difference of these values is 6.46. Based on these approximations, the difference between the degrees of lightness and the difference between the degrees of chroma would satisfy the limitations of claims 4-7 and 12-14. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jenna Kuipers whose telephone number is (571)272-0161. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:30 PT. 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. /J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1734 /PETER L VAJDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 07/06/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 27, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12681403
ELECTROSTATIC CHARGE IMAGE DEVELOPING TONER, ELECTROSTATIC CHARGE IMAGE DEVELOPER, TONER CARTRIDGE, PROCESS CARTRIDGE, AND IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS
3y 3m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12675060
TONER
3y 2m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12669760
SILICA PARTICLE, TONER FOR DEVELOPING ELECTROSTATIC CHARGE IMAGE, ELECTROSTATIC CHARGE IMAGE DEVELOPER, TONER CARTRIDGE, PROCESS CARTRIDGE, IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS, AND IMAGE FORMING METHOD
2y 9m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12645164
TONER
3y 3m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Patent 12631982
TONER
3y 2m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+23.3%)
3y 3m (~10m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 32 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month