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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention I: claims 1-5 and 7-17 in the reply filed on 08/11/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant did not indicate whether the election was made with or without traverse. However, since Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out any supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election will be treated as an election without traverse. See MPEP § 818.01(a).
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, 4-5, 7-8, 10-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikejiri et al. (JP 2018173500 A) (references herein made with respect to English machine translation attached).
Ikejiri teaches a toner having toner matrix particles containing a binder resin, a crystalline material, and a colorant, wherein the crystalline material contains wax and crystalline polyester ([0005]). The crystalline material is taught to be present in the form of domains where the crystalline polyester covers the wax ([0028]-[0029]) (which reads on the corresponding configuration recited in instant claim 1 and claim 5). The coverage rate of the crystalline polyester over the wax is taught to be 70% or more and preferably 90% or more ([0142]) (which reads on the corresponding range recited in instant claim 1).
The toner is taught to be used in an image forming apparatus, such as one commercially available as “LBP-3100”, in an image forming method to form a toner image ([0180], [0279], [0289]) (which reads on the corresponding limitations recited in instant claim 7 and claim 8).
The melting points of both the wax and the crystalline polyester in the crystalline material domains are taught to be within the range of 65 ºC or more and 85 ºC or less and are appropriately adjusted to achieve a suitable balance between low-temperature fixability, storage stability, and image adhesion ([0037], [0044]) (which falls within the corresponding range recited in instant claim 11).
In the examples, the toner base particles 2 contained crystalline material domains including a wax 3 covered by a crystalline polyester resin 2 (Table 3). The wax 3 was taught to be distearyl sebacate having a melting point of 66 ºC and the crystalline polyester resin 2 was taught to be a crystalline polyester have a melting point of 71 ºC (Table 1 and Table 2). In other words, the melting point of the crystalline polyester resin 2 was higher than the melting point of the wax 3 (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 1).
Additionally, in the toner base particles 2, the average diameter of the crystalline material domain was taught to be 250 nm and the coverage of the wax with the crystalline polyester resin was taught to be 95% (Table 6) (which reads on the corresponding limitations recited in instant claim 1).
The crystalline polyester resin 2 was taught to be synthesized using sebacic acid and lauric acid as acid monomers and 1,9-nonanediol as the alcohol monomer ([0253]-[0254], Table 1). Sebacic acid is a bivalent linear saturated aliphatic dicarboxylic acid having a carbon number of 10 and 1,9-nonanediol is a bivalent linear saturated aliphatic diol having a carbon number of 9 (which reads on the corresponding limitations recited in instant claim 14 and claim 15).
A content of the wax is taught to be 1 part by mass or more and 20 parts by mass or less with respect to 100 parts by mass of the binder resin ([0044]). In other words, a content of the wax “in the toner particle” (i.e., with respect to the binder resin) is from 1 mass% to 20 mass% (which reads on the corresponding range recited in instant claim 12).
In the toner base particles 2, a content of the wax 3 was used in an amount of 10.0 parts. Therefore, the content of the wax 3 with respect to a total mass of the toner particle can be calculated as being 4.41 mass%1 (which still falls within the corresponding range recited in instant claim 12).
Also, in the examples, the binder resin of the toner comprised an amorphous polyester resin having a glass transition temperature of 68 ºC ([0263]). In other words, a glass transition temperature “of the binder resin” was 68 ºC (which reads on the corresponding limitations recited in instant claim 10.
Ikejiri appears to be silent to explicitly teach the shape of the crystalline material domains. However, Ikejiri describes measuring the average diameter of the domains, rather than, for example, the average length or the short and long diameters, in paragraph [0201]. This indicates that the domains were likely spherical in shape (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 4).
Moreover, claim 4 does not presently define the extent to what is considered to be “spherical”, nor can such a definition be inferred from the specification. For instance, paragraph [0014] of the specification merely states “the spherical shape of the release agent is preferable, as it allows the release agent to be well soaked out during the fixing process”. See MPEP § 2111.
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikejiri et al. (JP 2018173500 A) (references herein made with respect to English machine translation attached), in view of Otsu et al. (JP 2017045048 A) (references herein made with respect to English machine translation attached).
The teachings of Ikejiri are discussed above and incorporated herein. Ikejiri describes the desire to increase the affinity of the crystalline polyester with the wax ([0035]) but appears to be silent to teach or suggest the solubility parameter of the wax or the crystalline polyester (the difference of which can be used to represent the affinity between two substances).
Otsu teaches that, to improve the affinity of a crystalline polyester resin with a wax contained in a toner, a difference between the solubility parameter SP1 of the crystalline polyester and the solubility parameter SP2 of the wax should be 0 or more and 1.3 or less. When the difference in solubility parameters is within the above range, the affinity between the wax dispersant and the crystalline polyester resin improves, which enhances the toner’s low-temperature fixing performance and resistance to hot offsetting ([0028]) (which narrowly encompasses the corresponding range recited in instant claim 2).
As discussed above, in Ikejiri’s examples, the binder resin contained an amorphous polyester resin. The amorphous polyester resin was taught to be a saturated polyester resin obtained by a condensation polymerization reaction of a 2-mol adduct of ethylene oxide of BPA and terephthalic acid ([0263]). However, Ikejiri appears to be silent to teach or suggest other suitable amorphous polyester resins, such as those synthesized from an aliphatic alcohol monomer.
Otsu teaches that, in addition to the crystalline polyester resin and the wax, the binder resin preferably contains an amorphous polyester resin ([0029]). The amorphous polyester resin is taught to be manufactured according to conventional polyester synthesis methods and preferably utilizes polyhydric alcohols including aliphatic alcohols like 1,6-hexanediol, in view of improving partial crosslinking within the molecule of the amorphous polyester resin ([0029]) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 3).
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 solubility parameter of the crystalline polyester resin and the wax in the toner of Ikejiri to satisfy the relationship taught by Otsu, in view of enhancing the toner’s low-temperature fixing performance and resistance to hot offsetting.
It would have also been obvious to have used an amorphous polyester resin synthesized from an aliphatic alcohol monomer in Ikejiri’s binder resin, as Otsu teaches that amorphous polyester resins produced by a manufactured according to a conventional polyester synthesis method preferably include polyhydric alcohols to improve partial crosslinking within the molecule of the amorphous polyester resin.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikejiri et al. (JP 2018173500 A) (references herein made with respect to English machine translation attached), in view of Hama et al. (US PGP 2016/0363878 A1).
The teachings of Ikejiri are discussed above and incorporated herein. Ikejiri appears to be silent to teach or suggest the aspect ratio of the crystalline material domains.
Hama teaches a toner containing wax domains and crystalline polyester crystals (Abstract). The wax domains are taught to preferably have an aspect ratio of 3 or less, in view of controlling uneven distribution due to aggregation of crystals of the crystalline polyester resin ([0143]) (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 aspect ratio of Ikejiri’s crystalline material domains to be within the range taught by Hama, in view of controlling uneven distribution due to aggregation of crystals of the crystalline polyester resin.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikejiri et al. (JP 2018173500 A) (references herein made with respect to English machine translation attached), in view of Brick et al. (US PGP 2009/0286911 A1).
The teachings of Ikejiri are discussed above and incorporated herein. Ikejiri appears to be silent to teach or suggest the melt viscosity of the wax. As discussed above, distearyl sebacate is used as one of the waxes in the crystalline material domains. However, the melt viscosity of distearyl sebacate is unknown.
Brick teaches a toner containing wax domains (Abstract). The wax is taught to have a melting temperature of greater than 50 ºC and a melt viscosity of 5 to 1000 cps, in view of achieving suitable anti-hot offset and low fixation properties of the toner ([0026]) (which is identical to the corresponding range recited in instant claim 13).
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 melt viscosity within the range taught by Brick, in the crystalline material domains of Ikejiri, in view of achieving suitable anti-hot offset and low fixation properties of the toner.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikejiri et al. (JP 2018173500 A) (references herein made with respect to English machine translation attached), in view of Amemori et al. (US PGP 2015/0072287 A1).
The teachings of Ikejiri are discussed above and incorporated herein. Ikejiri teaches that the weight average molecular weight of the crystalline polyester is preferably from 10,000 to 60,000 ([0042]). However, Ikejiri appears to be silent to teach or suggest the number average molecular weight of the crystalline polyester resin, or the polydispersity (Mw/Mn) of the crystalline polyester resin. Ikejiri also appears to be silent to teach or suggest the acid value of the crystalline polyester resin.
Amemori teaches a toner containing a crystalline polyester resin (Abstract). The weight average molecular weight (Mw) of the crystalline polyester resin is taught to preferably be from 3,000 to 30,000, the number average molecular weight (Mn) of the crystalline polyester resin is taught to preferably be from 1,000 to 10,000, and the ratio Mw/Mn is taught to preferably be from 1.0 to 10 (which is identical to the corresponding ranges recited in instant claim 16). A crystalline polyester resin having the above molecular weight ranges is taught to impart good low temperature fixability to the toner ([0226]).
Additionally, the acid value of the crystalline polyester resin is taught to preferably be from 5 mgKOH/g to 45 mgKOH/g (which reads on the corresponding range recited in instant claim 17). A crystalline polyester resin having the above acid value is taught to impart a good combination of affinity for receiving papers and low temperature fixability of the toner and improves the hot offset resistance of the toner ([0227]).
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 crystalline polyester having molecular weights and an acid value within the corresponding ranges taught by Amemori, in the crystalline material domains of Ikejiri, in view of imparting good low temperature fixability to the toner, imparting a good combination of affinity for receiving papers and low temperature fixability of the toner, and improving the hot offset resistance of the toner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
PNG
media_image1.png
332
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2008/0025754 A1 to Ishiyama et al. teaches a toner including a crystalline polyester resin and a release agent (Abstract). The crystalline polyester resin is taught to contact the release agent in a cross-sectional observation of the toner, as shown in Fig. 2 below:
The melting temperature of the crystalline polyester resin is taught to be in the range of from 50 to 120 ºC ([0028]), and the melting temperature of the release agent is taught to be in the range of from 40 to 120 ºC ([0045]).
However, Ishiyama fails to teach or suggest 80% or more of the surface of the release agent is covered with the crystalline polyester resin.
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
09/18/2026
1 10.0 parts wax 3 / (75.0 parts styrene + 25.0 parts n-butyl acrylate + 1.5 parts colorant + 90.0 parts magnetic material + 5.0 parts amorphous polyester + 10.0 parts crystalline polyester + 10.0 parts wax 3 + 10.0 parts wax 3) = 0.044 * 100% = 4.41 mass%
Prosecution Insights