CTNF 18/588,796 CTNF 96364 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. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 5, 7, 11, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haruyama et al. (US PGP 2010/0247148 A1), in view of Murakami et al. (US PGP 2015/0056547 A1) . Haruyama teaches an electrophotographic photoreceptor including an electroconductive substrate, an undercoat layer provided on the electroconductive substrate, a photosensitive layer comprising a charge generation layer provided on the undercoat layer, a charge transporting layer provided on the charge generation layer, and a surface protective layer disposed on charge transporting layer ([0017], [0024]-[0027]) (which reads on the corresponding structure recited in instant claim 1 ). An image forming apparatus including the electrophotographic photoreceptor, an exposure device, a transfer device, and an intermediate transfer body, and a process cartridge that attaches to the image forming apparatus and supports the electrophotographic photoreceptor, the charging device, the developing device, and the cleaning device in the housing, are also discussed ([0347]-[0361]) (which reads on the corresponding limitations recited in instant claim 7, claim 11, claim 13, and claim 17 ). The charge transporting layer is taught to comprise a binding resin including polycarbonate resins, polyester resins, and/or polyarylate resins ([0231]). The surface protective layer is taught to include a crosslinked product of a composition including at least one compound selected from a compound having a guanamine structure and a compound having a melamine structure, and at least one charge transporting material including at least one substituent selected from -OH, -OCH 3 , -NH 2 , -SH, and -COOH ([0065]) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 1 and claim 5 ). Haruyama is silent to teach specific structures of the suitable binder resins for the charge transporting layer. In the examples, a polycarbonate resin having a repeating unit represented by a structural formula 1 was used ([0372]). However, this does not necessarily constitute a teaching away from using the other suitable binder resins as Haruyama teaches that the binder resin is not specifically limited ([0232]). According to MPEP § 2123(II) “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi , 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971)”. Murakami teaches an electrophotographic photosensitive member including a support, a charge generating layer containing a charge generating substance, and a charge transporting layer containing a charge transporting substance ([0023]). PNG media_image1.png 125 306 media_image1.png Greyscale The binder resin for the charge transporting layer is taught to include a polycarbonate resin or a polyester resin. The polyester resin is taught to have a repeating structural unit represented by the following formula (B2) ([0029]-[0031]): PNG media_image2.png 210 688 media_image2.png Greyscale In the examples, the repeating unit represented by the formula (B2) was a repeating unit represented by formula (B2-1) and/or (B2-2), shown below ([0033]) (which reads on the polyester (1) recited in instant claim 1 ): 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 used the polyester resin of Murakami as the binding resin in the charge transport layer of Haruyama. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to experiment with different types of binding resins, such as those disclosed in Murakami, in view of adjusting the physical properties of the charge transporting layer . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2-4, 8-10, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haruyama et al. (US PGP 2010/0247148 A1), in view of Murakami et al. (US PGP 2015/0056547 A1), and further in view of Wada et al. (US PGP 2010/0183330 A1) . The teachings of Haruyama and Murakami are discussed above and incorporated herein. Haruyama appears to be silent to teach the surface free energy of the charge transporting layer. However, the surface protective layer is taught to have a surface free energy of 10 mN/m to 30 mN/m ([0032]). The surface free energy is taught to be controlled, for example, by adding a silicone-based compound, a fluorine-based compound, an aliphatic acid metal salt, or the like ([0033]). While this range does not overlap with the corresponding range recited in instant claim 3 , it is still close. According to MPEP § 2144.05, “[A] prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”. Additionally, Haruyama does not appear to necessarily teach away from surface free energies outside of the disclosed range. Wada teaches that the adhesive properties of the surface of a photoreceptor can be detected as the surface free energy (or surface tension). The surface free energy of the outermost layer of the photoreceptor is taught to be preferably in the range of 35 to 65 mN/m. The outermost surface layer may also contain a charge-transporting material ([0358]). In other words, the outermost layer may also be a charge transport layer. Wada teaches that a lower surface free energy may cause flow out of the toner, and a higher surface free energy may cause low transfer efficiency of the toner and poor cleaning properties ([0359]). 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 optimized the flowability properties by adjusting the surface free energy (surface tension) of modified Haruyama’s charge transport layer and surface protective layer, in view of improving the transferability and cleaning properties. In doing so, the skilled artisan would have necessarily arrived at the corresponding layers exhibiting the surface free energies recited in instant claim 2, claim 3, and claim 4 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haruyama et al. (US PGP 2010/0247148 A1), in view of Murakami et al. (US PGP 2015/0056547 A1), and further in view of Ishino et al. (US PGP 2021/0026269 A1) . The teachings of Haruyama and Murakami are discussed above and incorporated herein. Murakami appears to be silent to teach or suggest a suitable content for the polyester resin represented by the formula (B2) in the charge transporting layer. Ishino teaches an image forming apparatus including an image bearing member and a charging roller that charges a circumferential surface of the image bearing member. The image bearing member is taught to include a conductive substrate and a photosensitive layer of a single layer (Abstract). The photosensitive layer is taught to contain a charge generating material, a hole transport material, an electron transport material, and a binder resin ([0004]). PNG media_image3.png 110 296 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 486 284 media_image4.png Greyscale In order to inhibit occurrence of a ghost image, the binder resin is taught to comprise a polyarylate resin (a type of polyester resin) including a repeating unit represented by formula (20), shown below ([0099]):In the formula (20), Y is taught to represent a divalent group represented by any one of the following formulae ([0101]): A content percentage of the polyarylate resin is taught to be 30.0% by mass or more and 70.0% by mass or less, and preferably 40.0% by mass or more and 60.0% by mass or less ([0114]) (which reads on the corresponding range recited in instant claim 6 ). 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 used the polyester resin of Murakami as the binder resin in the charge transport layer of Haruyama, and to have adjusted the content of the polyester resin to fall within the range taught by Ishino. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to experiment with different types and amounts of binder resins, in view of adjusting the physical properties of the charge transporting layer and to suppress the occurrence of ghosting. 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 06/13/2026 Application/Control Number: 18/588,796 Page 2 Art Unit: 1737 Application/Control Number: 18/588,796 Page 3 Art Unit: 1737 Application/Control Number: 18/588,796 Page 4 Art Unit: 1737 Application/Control Number: 18/588,796 Page 5 Art Unit: 1737 Application/Control Number: 18/588,796 Page 6 Art Unit: 1737
Prosecution Insights