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.
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(s) 1, 5-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshiba et al. (US PGP 2008/0069601) in view of Tamura et al. (US PGP 2017/0192369).
Oshiba teaches a developing roller for use in an image forming apparatus. The developing roller is taught to comprise an aluminum alloy comprising from 0.2 to 0.8% by mass silicon (Abstract and [0013]). The Applicant teaches in the instant specification that a “developing sleeve” is for example a developing roller ([0121]). The image forming apparatus of Oshiba is further taught to comprise an image forming method wherein the developing roller conveys a toner to a supply roller ([0163-165]). While Oshiba teaches a toner for an image forming apparatus, Oshiba does not teach a toner that reads on the toner recited by the Applicant in the instant claims.
Tamura teaches a toner comprising a polyester resin (Abstract). The polyester resin of Tamura is taught to comprise a ratio of polycarboxylic acid monomers to polyhydric alcohol monomers in a range from 1:1.13 to 1:1.30 and the polyhydric alcohol monomers are taught to comprise a bisphenol A adduct in an amount of 0.01 to 0.35 mol based on 1 mol of all acid components ([0015]). As such, the molar percentage of bisphenol A based on the structural units derived from polyhydric alcohols is taught to be 0.01/1.30 x 100% = 0.77 mol% to 0.30/1.13 x 100% = 26.5 mol %, which encompasses the Applicant’s recited range. Tamura further teaches additional diol components of the polyester resin such as aliphatic diols having more than 5 carbon atoms ([0028]). The toner of Tamura is taught to be more environmentally friendly by reducing the content of bisphenol A while providing at toner that exhibits excellent storage stability, hot offset resistance, low-temperature fixability and image stability. Therefore, 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 utilized the toner of Tamura et al. in the developing system taught by Oshiba et al. to gain the benefit of the aforementioned improved properties.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshiba et al. (US PGP 2008/0069601) in view of Tamura et al. (US PGP 2017/0192369) as applied to claims 1, 5-6 and 9 above, and further in view of Suzuki (US Patent 6,078,768).
The complete discussions of Oshiba and Tamura above are included herein. Oshiba does not teach a member that generates a magnetic flux inside the developing sleeve.
Suzuki teaches a developing roller (fig. 4) having a developing sleeve 141 and a magnetic member 142 that generates a magnetic flux inside the developing sleeve ([0023]). It would have been obvious to any person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing ate of the instant application to have incorporated the magnetic member inside the developing sleeve as taught by Suzuki to the developing sleeve of Oshiba et al. as modified by Tamura et al. above in order to allow for use of magnetic toners and/or carrier particles.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshiba et al. (US PGP 2008/0069601) in view of Tamura et al. (US PGP 2017/0192369) as applied to claims 1, 5-6 and 9 above, and further in view of Sugiura et al. (US PGP 2015/0227066).
The complete discussions of Oshiba and Tamura above are included herein. Tamura teaches that the polyester resin described above may be paired with an additional polyester resin, but does not specify a crystalline polyester resin ([0056]). Furthermore, the toner is also taught to comprise a release agent ([0061-62]) and silica particles as external additives, but Tamura is silent regarding suitable melting points for the release agent or particle sizes for the silica particles.
Sugiura teaches a toner comprising a crystalline polyester resin ([0072-95]) and an amorphous polyester resin ([0096]). The crystalline polyester resin is taught to provide a toner with a sharp responsiveness to heat in the viscoelastic characteristic of the toner and to balance the ability for low-temperature fixability with heat resistant storage stability ([0068] and [0072-95]). Additionally, Sugiura teaches that a release agent used in a toner should have a melting point in a preferable range of from 60 to 90 °C in order to improve heat resistant storage stability and prevent cold offset during low temperature fixation ([0117]). Sugiura also offers guidance on suitable particle sizes for external additives such as silica particles and teaches that they should have particle size of from 1 to 100 nm ([0120]). When the particles sizes are within this range the external additive particles are prevented from being buried in the toner and from damaging the surface of a photoconductor ([0124]). Therefore, 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 utilized the toner of Tamura et al. in the developing system taught by Oshiba et al. and to have paired the crystalline resin of Sugiura et al. with the amorphous resin of Tamura et al. and also to have imparted the release agent and silica particles of Tamura et al. with the melting point and particle size, respectively, taught by Sugiura et al.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (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.
/PETER L VAJDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 09/04/2026
Prosecution Insights