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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2009/113700 (henceforth WO ‘700).
WO ‘700 teaches a two-component developer comprising magnetic carrier particles and toner particles (Abstract). While WO ‘700 does not teach an apparent density of the combined two component developer, the apparent density of the magnetic carrier particles and the toner concentration in the two-component developer are taught to be the same as taught by the Applicant to result in an apparent density of the two-component developer recited in pending claim 1. Namely, WO ‘700 teaches that the carrier particles have an apparent density of 1.55 to 1.90 g/cm3 ([0052]) while the Applicant teaches that the apparent density of the carrier particles should be 1.7 to 2.0 g/cm3 (see [0148] of the instant specification). Furthermore, WO ‘700 teaches that the toner concentration should be between 2 and 15 mass% in order to optimize the image density and reduce fogging or scattering of the toner during image formation ([0090]). As the developer is taught by WO ‘700 to include a toner concentration of 4% by mass and the carrier particles are taught to have the same apparent density as taught by the Applicant, the two-component developer of WO ‘700 is understood to inherently possess an apparent density within the range recited in pending claim 1.
WO ‘700 teaches that in embodiments at an applied voltage of 600 V the carrier has a specific resistance of 2.04 GΩcm (see Table 6, [0209]). However, contrary to the range recited in pending claim 1 the specific resistance of the magnetic core of the carrier is taught to be less than 5 x 108 Ωcm at an applied voltage of 1000 V (Abstract). This value is the carrier core prior to coating and filling of voids with a resin. WO ‘700 further teaches that the magnetic carrier can be coated with a resin to obtain a desired specific resistance at which the carrier comes close to undergo breakdown ([0035]). As such, 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 specific resistance of the two-component developer of WO ‘700 utilizing the resin coating in order to improve the resistance value at an applied voltage of 1000 V.
The two-component developer is further taught to comprise a toner ([0057]) which comprises an external additive affixed to the surface thereof ([0083]). The external additives are taught to have a particle size in the range of 80 to 200 nm ([0083]) and may be alumina particles ([0083]). The content of the external additives is taught to be from 0.3 to 5.0 parts by mass of the toner particles ([0085]), but WO ‘700 does not teach a coverage ratio of the external additives on the toner surface. The toner is further taught to have a weight average particle diameter of 3 to 10 micrometers ([0012]).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2009/113700 (henceforth WO ‘700) in view of Yamashita et al. (US PGP 2021/0382406).
The complete discussion of the other reference above is included herein. WO ‘700 does not teach a coverage rate of the external additive particle on the toner surface.
Yamashita teaches a toner comprising toner mother particles and external additive particles ([0043]). Furthermore, the coverage ratio of the external additive particles on the toner mother particles is taught to be 20 area% or more to 70 area % or less ([0045]). Controlling the coverage ratio to a value within this range is taught to optimize fixing strength ([0046]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to any person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the instant application to have imparted the coverage ratio of Yamashita to the toner of WO ‘700 as modified above in order to optimize the fixing strength of the toner particles.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2009/113700 (henceforth WO ‘700) in view of Niwa (US PGP 2008/0241719).
The complete discussion of the other reference above is included herein. WO ‘700 does not teach an apparent viscosity of the toner particles.
Niwa teaches a toner comprising an apparent viscosity of from 50,000 to 300,000 Pa*s (abstract). Additionally, imparting the toner with an apparent viscosity within this range is taught to balance low-temperature fixing ability with hot offset resistance in the toner ([0016-19]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to any person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the instant application to have imparted the apparent viscosity of Niwa to the toner of WO ‘700 as modified above in order to optimize the fixing strength of the toner particles.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 07/10/2026
Prosecution Insights