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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
In the instant case, the abstract recites implied language. Specifically, line 1 of the abstract recites “The above problem is solved by” …. To overcome this objection, it is recommended to omit this phrase.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu et al. (CN-113031411-A) (references herein made with respect to English machine translation attached), as evidenced by the “PubChem Compound Summary for Polyethylene” NPL.
Xu teaches a multifunctional color toner comprising 67-96 mass% of a resin, 1-8 mass% of a disperse dye, 1-8 mass% of a pigment, 1-7 mass% of a wax, 0.1-4 mass% of a charge regulator, 0.05-2 mass% of a fiber swelling agent, and 0.2-4 mass% of external additives ([0011]).
The resin is taught to include thermoplastic resins, and styrene-acrylic resin is named as a preferable example in view of the dispersibility of the colorant ([0014], [0016]) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 1). The resin is taught to act as a binder in the toner, ensuring that the colorant adheres firmly to the surface of the printed material ([0015]). Suitable styrene-acrylic resins are taught to have a softening point of 110 to 150 ºC ([0016]).
The disperse dye is taught to include disperse blue dyes, such as C.I. Disperse Blue 56 ([0018]) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 1).
The wax is taught to include hydrocarbon waxes like polyethylene ([0020]) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 4). According to the “PubChem Compound Summary for Polyethylene” NPL, polyethylene is known to have a melting point of from 85 to 140 ºC.
The external additive is taught to include hydrophobic silica, which improves the flowability and charge of the color toner ([0023]) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 6). As discussed above, the content of the external additive is taught to be 0.2-4 mass%, or 0.5-3 mass%, with respect to the mass of the toner ([0011]-[0012]) (which narrowly overlaps with the corresponding range recited in instant claim 7).
In the examples, the toner of Example 1 included a binder resin comprising a styrene-acrylic resin (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 1), a disperse dye including C.I. Disperse Blue in an amount of 6 mass% (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 1), a wax including polyethylene wax in an amount of 3 mass% (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 3 and claim 4), and an external additive including hydrophobic silica (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 6) (Table 1).
As discussed above, the styrene-acrylic resin is taught to have a softening point of 110 to 150 ºC, and polyethylene wax is known to have a melting point of from 85 to 140 ºC. In other words, the polyethylene wax used in the examples has a melting point of 70 ºC or more, and is generally less than or equal to the softening point of the styrene-acrylic binder resin in the toner (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 1).
Xu appears to be silent to teach or suggest the transmittance of the toner at a wavelength of 430 nm when measured using an ultraviolet-visible spectrophotometer. According to the instant specification, “C.I. Disperse Blue 56” is identified from the wavelength at which the transmittance reaches maximum present at a wavelength of 430 nm ([0052] of the instant specification). Additionally, the higher the transmittance is, the less the fewer the aggregates of the sublimable dye, and the better the dye dispersibility becomes ([0053] of the instant specification).
Xu teaches that the disperse dyes used in the examples are slightly soluble in water and can be highly dispersed in water with the help of dispersants ([0004]). Since the toner of Xu includes the same disperse dye “C.I. Disperse Blue 56” in an amount within the scope of the claimed invention, it would be expected to necessarily exhibit a transmittance of 30% or more when measured using the disclosed transmittance measurement method (as recited in instant claim 1). Applicant is respectfully invited to demonstrate or prove otherwise.
According to MPEP § 2112(V), "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that
the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his
[or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C.
102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the
burden of proof is the same." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34
(CCPA 1977) (footnote and citation omitted).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (CN-113031411-A) (references herein made with respect to English machine translation attached), in view of Shu et al. (US PGP 2011/0129773 A1), and as evidenced by the “PubChem Compound Summary for Polyethylene” NPL.
The teachings of Xu and the “PubChem Compound Summary for Polyethylene” NPL are discussed above and incorporated herein. Xu appears to be silent to teach or suggest a suitable dispersion diameter for the wax.
Shu teaches a toner including a releasing agent comprising a hydrocarbon wax (Abstract). The release agent is taught to be finely dispersed in the toner and has a dispersion diameter of from 0.06 to 1.50 µm (60 nm to 1500 nm), and preferably 0.1 to 0.3 µm (100 nm to 300 nm) ([0042]) (which narrowly overlaps with the corresponding range recited in instant claim 2). When in this range, the toner exhibits a desirable chargeability and fluidity ([0043]).
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 a wax having a dispersion diameter within the range taught by Shu, in the toner of Xu, in view of achieving a toner that exhibits a desirable chargeability and fluidity.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (CN-113031411-A) (references herein made with respect to English machine translation attached), in view of Sakamoto et al. (US PGP 2020/0115556 A1), and as evidenced by the “PubChem Compound Summary for Polyethylene” NPL.
The teachings of Xu and the “PubChem Compound Summary for Polyethylene” NPL are discussed above and incorporated herein. Xu appears to be silent to teach or suggest suitable examples of dispersants.
Sakamoto teaches that a dispersant may be used in order to improve the dispersion of a dye and improve image quality. The structure of the dispersant is not limited, but is preferably a polymer-based dispersant including a dye adsorption site and a dispersion stabilization site ([0089]-[0092]) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 5).
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 a polymer-based dispersant in the toner of Xu, in view of improving the dispersion of the dye and improving the image quality.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (CN-113031411-A) (references herein made with respect to English machine translation attached), in view of Sakurada et al. (US PGP 2019/0243272 A1), and as evidenced by the “PubChem Compound Summary for Polyethylene” NPL.
The teachings of Xu and the “PubChem Compound Summary for Polyethylene” NPL are discussed above and incorporated herein. Xu appears to be silent to teach or suggest suitable particle diameters of the external additives.
Sakurada teaches a two-component developer containing toner particles including an external additive on a surface of the toner particles, and carrier particles (Abstract).
The external additive is taught to preferably contain silica particles having a number average primary particle diameter of 10 to 60 nm. When in this range, the fluidity of the toner is improved ([0018], [0051]) (which narrowly overlaps with the corresponding range recited in instant claim 8).
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 silica particles having an average primary particle diameter within the range taught by Sakurada, in the toner of Xu, in view of improving the fluidity of the toner.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (CN-113031411-A) (references herein made with respect to English machine translation attached), in view of Onozaki et al. (US PGP 2018/0364601 A1), and as evidenced by the “PubChem Compound Summary for Polyethylene” NPL.
The teachings of Xu and the “PubChem Compound Summary for Polyethylene” NPL are discussed above and incorporated herein. Xu appears to be silent to teach or suggest combining the toner with a carrier to form a two-component developer.
Onozaki teaches that, while toner may be used as a one-component developer, it is preferably mixed with a magnetic carrier and used as a two-component developer in order to improve dot reproducibility and obtain stable images over a long period of time ([0113]) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 9).
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 mixed the toner of Xu with a carrier to form a two-component developer, in view of improving the dot reproducibility.
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, Mark Huff can be reached on (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.
/BOONE ALEXANDER EVANS/Examiner, Art Unit 1737
06/09/2026
Prosecution Insights