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) 1-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kameyama et al. (US PGP 2005/0003290) in view of WO 2018-181189 (henceforth WO ‘189).
Kameyama teaches toner particles comprising a binder resin comprising fumaric acid. The content of fumaric acid in the toner is taught to be 0.20% by weight less (Abstract). In embodiments, Kameyama teaches a toner in Example 2 comprising 0.02% by weight fumaric acid (see Table 1). In pending claim 4 of the instant Application the Applicant recites that the fumaric acid content in the toner is from 8.60 x 10-7 to 1.05 x 10-5 mol/g. Example 2 of Kameyama can be shown to read on said range. The percentage basis recited in Table 1 can be converted to a basis of 100 parts, or 100 grams of toner. As such, 0.02 percent of fumaric acid in a 100 g sample would be 0.02/100 g = 0.0002 g fumaric acid. Converting the mass of fumaric acid in the toner to moles therefore gives a value of 0.0002 g/ 116.07 g/mol (molecular weight of fumaric acid) = 1.72 x 10-6 mol. This value is within the range taught by the Applicant in pending claim 4. Furthermore, as Kameyama teaches a range of 0.20% by weight or less the range of Kameyama extends from at least the 1.72 x 10-6 mol present in Example 2 down to just above zero, as fumaric acid is required to be present, and therefore reads on the Applicant’s range recited in pending claim 5.
Kameyama further teaches that the toner additionally comprise an external additive ([0035]) and in embodiments teaches that the amount of external additive is 0.9 parts to weight of 100 parts of toner particles ([0062]). Kameyama does not teach a fatty acid metal salt as an external additive, but rather utilizes silica particles in embodiments. In embodiments the toners are further taught to comprise a release agent (polypropylene wax; [0062]).
WO ‘189 teaches a toner comprising an inorganic external additive such as a fatty acid metal salt. Specifically, WO ‘189 teaches the use of zinc stearate as a preferred fatty acid metal salt. The amount of zinc stearate is taught to be in a preferable range of 0.03 to 0.3 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the toner particles. As such, the moles per gram of zinc stearate in the toner particles can be calculated as above wherein the percentage basis of WO ‘189 can be converted to a basis of 100 parts toner, or 100 grams of toner. As such, 0.03 parts per 100 parts of toner converts to 0.03 g/100 g = 0.0003 g per gram of toner. As zinc stearate has a molecular weight of 632.33 g/mol this amount of zinc stearate represents 4.74 x 10-7 mol of zinc stearate per gram (0.0003 g / 632.33 g/mol = 4.74 x 10-7 mol). The upper end of the preferred range taught by WO ‘189 can be calculated as above and found to be 4.74 x 10-6 mol per gram of toner. This amount of zinc stearate is taught by WO ‘189 to accomplish the aim of the invention which is to prevent transfer residue while preventing fogging (see the provided translation of WO ‘189 after section “(B) Pulverization Method”). 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 utilized the fatty acid metal external additive particles taught by WO ‘189 as the external additive in the toner of Kameyama in the amounts taught by WO ‘189. This combination would have produced a toner with an a/b ratio of 3.62 for the toner of Example 2 of Kameyama, which reads on the ranges recited in pending claims 1-3 of the instant application. Furthermore, as Kameyama teaches that the fumaric acid content is a result effective variable and WO ‘189 teaches that the zinc stearate content is a result effective variable one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the instant invention would have been motivated to have optimized the relative amounts of each.
Claim(s) 11-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kameyama et al. (US PGP 2005/0003290) in view of WO 2018-181189 (henceforth WO ‘189) as applied to claims 1-10 and 13 above, and further in view of WO 2019/209554 (henceforth WO ‘554).
The complete discussions of Kameyama and WO ‘189 above are included herein. Kameyama does not teach a suitable melting point range for the release agent in the toner particles.
WO ‘554 teaches a toner comprising a release agent and at least an amorphous polyester resin. Additionally, the difference in solubility parameter between the release agent and the amorphous polyester resin is taught to be greater than 2.5 (J/cm)1/2 ([0046-48]). The relationship between the solubility parameters is taught to improve the surface shape of the toner particles thereby inhibiting excessive aggregation of toner particles and improving high temperature storage ability ([0047]). The melting point of the release agent is taught to be from 60 to 1030 °C ([0040]). In embodiments the release agents are taught to have solubility parameters of from 8.06 to 8.61. The polyester binder resin is taught to have a molecular weight of from 5,000 to 60,000 g/mol ([0037]). Therefore, in order to optimize the storage stability of the modified toner particles of Kameyama as modified above by WO ‘189 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 polyester binder resin and release agent having the molecular weight, melting point and solubility properties as taught above by WO ‘554 in the modified toner of Kameyama in view of WO ‘189.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kameyama et al. (US PGP 2005/0003290) in view of WO 2018-181189 (henceforth WO ‘189) as applied to claims 1-10 and 13 above, and further in view of WO 2019-209554 (henceforth WO ‘554) and Hashimoto et al. (US PGP 2020/0209771).
The complete discussions of Kameyama and WO ‘189 above are included herein. Kameyama does not teach a relationship between the solubility parameter of the wax and binder resin nor a suitable molecular weight for the wax.
WO ‘554 teaches a toner comprising a release agent and at least an amorphous polyester resin. Additionally, the difference in solubility parameter between the release agent and the amorphous polyester resin is taught to be greater than 2.5 (J/cm)1/2 ([0046-48]). The relationship between the solubility parameters is taught to improve the surface shape of the toner particles thereby inhibiting excessive aggregation of toner particles and improving high temperature storage ability ([0047]). The melting point of the release agent is taught to be from 60 to 1030 °C ([0040]). In embodiments the release agents are taught to have solubility parameters of from 8.06 to 8.61. The polyester binder resin is taught to have a molecular weight of from 5,000 to 60,000 g/mol ([0037]). WO ‘554 does not teach a suitable molecular weight for the release agent.
Hashimoto teaches a toner comprising a binder resin and a wax (Abstract). Additionally, in order to improve fixing performance and image quality during long-term use of the toner the wax is taught to have a peak molecular weight of from 400 to 2500 ([0108]). Therefore, in order to optimize the storage stability, fixing performance and image quality of the modified toner particles of Kameyama as modified above by WO ‘189 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 polyester binder resin and release agent having the molecular weight, melting point and solubility properties as taught above by WO ‘554 with a molecular weight in the range taught by Hashimoto in the modified toner of Kameyama in view of WO ‘189. As shown above, WO ‘554 teaches that the difference in solubility parameter between the wax and the binder resin of a toner should be 2.5 (J/cm)1/2 or greater and Hashimoto teaches that a peak top molecular weight of a wax should be 400 to 2500. As such, the product of the square of the difference in solubility parameters and the molecular weight of the wax in a toner particle is taught to desirably be between 2500 and 15,625 (2.52 x 400 = 2500 and 2.52 x 2500 = 15,625).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is 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, 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 09/02/2026
Prosecution Insights