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
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The tables disclosed in paragraphs [0058] (Table 1), [0059] (Table 2), [0060] (Table 3), [0061] (Table 4), [0062] (Table 5), [0063] (Table 6), [0064] (Table 7), [0065] (Table 8), [0066] (Table 9), [0067] (Table 10), [0068] (Table 11), [0069] (Table 12), [0070] (Table 13), [0071] (Table 14), [0072] (Table 15), [0073] (Table 16), [0074] (Table 17), [0075] (Table 18), [0076] (Table 19), [0077] (Table 20), [0078] (Table 21), and [0079] (Table 22) are blurry and difficult to read.
Applicant’s cooperation is respectfully requested in replacing the aforementioned blurry tables, and in further identifying and replacing any other blurry tables/figures not listed above, along with a statement that any amendments contain no new matter.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 uses the implied phrase “provided is” in line 1.
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 1-8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tagami et al. (US PGP 2015/0185633 A1).
Tagami teaches an electrophotographic photosensitive member including a support, an undercoat layer formed on the support, and a photosensitive layer formed on the undercoat layer (Abstract). An image forming apparatus having a process cartridge provided with the electrophotographic photosensitive member is also discussed ([0096]-[0102], Fig. 1) (which includes the corresponding components recited in instant claim 11 and claim 12).
PNG
media_image1.png
362
364
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The undercoat layer is taught to contain a polymerized product of at least one compound selected from the group consisting of a compound represented by formula (1) and a compound represented by formula (2), or a polymerized product of a composition comprising at least one compound selected from the group consisting of a compound represented by formula (1) and a compound represented by formula (2) ([0014]-[0016]):
The compound represented by the formula (1) above reads on the structural unit represented by formula (2) recited in instant claim 1.
In the formula (1), R1 to R3 is taught to represent a hydrogen atom, an unsubstituted or substituted arylene group, an unsubstituted or substituted hetero ring, an unsubstituted or substituted alkylene group having 1 to 6 main-chain atoms, a divalent group having 1 to 6 main-chain atoms and derived from one of CH2 in the main chain of an unsubstituted alkylene group substitute for an oxygen atom, or a divalent group having 1 to 6 main-chain atoms and derived from one of CH2 in the main chain of an unsubstituted alkylene group substituted for a sulfur atom ([0017]) (which reads on the corresponding limitations recited in instant claim 1, claim 4, claim 5, claim 6, claim 7, claim 8, claim 11, and claim 12).
Additionally, R4 to R7 is taught to represent a hydrogen atom, a cyano group, a nitro group, a halogen atom, an unsubstituted or substituted alkyl group, or an unsubstituted or substituted aryl group ([0022]) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 3).
Examples of compounds represented by formula (1) are taught to include compound (E9) (Table 1):
PNG
media_image2.png
120
484
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The content of the polymerized product is taught to be 50% by mass or more and 100% by mass or less based on the total mass of the undercoat layer (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 2).
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagami et al. (US PGP 2015/0185633 A1), in view of Noguchi et al. (US PGP 2015/0185635 A1).
PNG
media_image3.png
172
362
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The teachings of Tagami are discussed above and incorporated herein. Tagami appears to be silent to teach or suggest a suitable molecular weight of the compound represented by the formula (1). Noguchi teaches an electrophotographic photosensitive member including an undercoat layer containing a compound represented by any one of specific formulae (A1) to (A8) (Abstract). The compounds represented by formula (A1) and (A8) are shown below:
PNG
media_image4.png
186
366
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
66
368
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The R106 in the formula (A1) and the R810 in the formula (A8) are taught to include a monovalent group represented by formula (A), shown below ([0021]-[0028]):
In the formula (A), at least one of α, β, and γ is taught to represent a group having a polymerizable functional group, l and m each independently represent 0 or 1, and a sum of l and m is 0 or more and 2 or less ([0024]).
In other words, the compound represented by formula (A1) corresponds to the compound represented by the formula (1) of Tagami and the structural unit represented by formula (2) recited in the claims.
The compound represented by the formula (A1) and formula (A8) is taught to preferably have a molecular weight of 150 or more and 1,000 or less. When the molecular weight falls within this range, the structure derived from the electron transport substance is taught to be present in the undercoat layer in a uniform manner ([0093]) (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 adjusted the molecular weight of Tagami’s compound represented by the formula (1), to fall within the range taught by Noguchi, in view of improving the uniformity of the compound in the undercoat layer.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagami et al. (US PGP 2015/0185633 A1), in view of Shimizu (US PGP 2021/0286277 A1).
The teachings of Tagami are discussed above and incorporated herein. Tagami appears to be silent to teach the volume resistivity of the undercoat layer, or to suggest a suitable range for the volume resistivity of the undercoat layer. Shimizu teaches that the volume resistivity of the undercoat layer of an electrophotographic photoreceptor should be 1.0 x1010 Ω·cm or more, and more preferably 3.0 x1010 Ω·cm or more (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 10). When in this range, leakage hardly occurs in the photoreceptor, even under high voltage, and the pressure resistance of the photoreceptor is improved ([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 adjusted the volume resistivity of Tagami’s undercoat layer, to fall within the range taught by Shimizu, in view of preventing charge leakage and improving the pressure resistance of the photoreceptor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
PNG
media_image6.png
638
356
media_image6.png
Greyscale
U.S. Patent No. 5,354,636 to Ono et al. teaches an electrophotographic photoreceptor comprising a photoconductive layer containing a high polymeric compound comprising a repeating unit comprised of a tetracarboxylic acid anhydride skeleton and a divalent organic group skeleton having an aromatic nucleus (Abstract). Examples of the high polymeric compound are shown below (Col. 5, lines 1-65):
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
08/05/2026
Prosecution Insights