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.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 9, and 11 presently recite functional language. Specifically, the limitation “the developing roller and the toner-supplying roller are rotated while R represented by the following formula (E1) satisfies 1.2≤R≤1.5” recited in claims 1 and 11 and “the toner-supplying roller, the second driving force-transmitting portion, and the developing roller are driven to be coupled so that λ represented by the following formula (E2) satisfies 1.2≤ λ x rRS / rD ≤1.5” recited in claim 9.
In the claimed formula (E1), VRS represents an absolute value of a peripheral speed of the toner-supplying roller, and VD represents an absolute value of a peripheral speed of the developing roller. In other words, the speeds of each roller are independently set to arrive at the R in the claimed formula (E1). In the claimed formula (E2), ωRS represents a rotational angular velocity of the toner-supplying roller, and ωD represents a rotational angular velocity of the developing roller. In other words, the velocities of each roller are independently set to arrive at the λ in the claimed formula (E2).
According to MPEP 2114, "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)”. Therefore, the manner of operating the claimed process cartridge does not necessarily differentiate the claims from prior art.
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 1-5 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shouno et al. (US PGP 2009/0279923 A1), in view of Zhang et al. US 2013/0040234 A1).
Shouno teaches a developing device of an electrophotographic image forming apparatus including a first roller and a second roller disposed in a peripheral contact with the first roller to define a contact region therebetween so that the first roller is capable of supplying and collecting a toner to and from the second roller in the contact ration. In other words, the first roller is a toner supply roller and the second roller is a developing roller ([0010]).
The developing roller is taught to be disposed in parallel to the photosensitive member and opposed to the peripheral surface of the photosensitive member leaving a development gap between the developing roller and the photosensitive member. The developing roller is drivingly connected to a motor so that it rotates in the direction of the driving motor ([0020]) (which reads on the corresponding configuration recited in instant claim 1 and claim 11). The outermost surface of the developing roller is taught to include an electrically conductive elastic material, such as rubber or polyurethane foam mixed with one or more conductive materials ([0021]).
The supply roller is taught to be mounted in parallel to and in contact with the back peripheral surface of the developing roller, away from the photosensitive member, and has a polyurethane foam layer mounted around the periphery of a metal core ([0022]). The supply roller is taught to be mounted for rotation so that the peripheral portions of the supply roller and the developing roller move in the opposite directions at the contact or contact region (which reads on the corresponding configuration recited in instant claim 1 and claim 11).
The peripheral speed of the supply roller is taught to be controlled such that a ratio R of the peripheral speed VS of the supply roller to the peripheral speed VD of the developing roller ranges from 0.8 to 1.5. When the ratio R (=VS/VD) is equal to or more than 0.8, the supply roller is provided with a sufficient scraping ability against the toner particles, even when they are small, against the developing roller. When the ratio R is equal to or less than 1.5, there is less stress on the tonner as it passes through the contact region between the supply roller and the developing roller ([0023]). In the embodiments, the developing device of Example B1 exhibited an R ratio of 1.2 (Table 1) (which reads on the corresponding formula (E1) recited in instant claim 1, claim 10, and claim 11).
Shouno teaches that the photosensitive member may be a cylindrical drum or an endless belt ([0016]), but it silent to teach or suggest the composition of the photosensitive member. Zhang teaches an electrophotographic photoreceptor containing a polycarbonate resin binder having structural units represented by formula (1) and formula (2) (Abstract). The polycarbonate resin is taught to be contained in the outermost layer of the photosensitive layer and improves the wear resistance of the photoreceptor ([0020], [0025]).
PNG
media_image1.png
122
362
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The structural unit represented by formula (2) is taught to be shown below ([0021]) (which reads on the formula (A1) recited in instant claim 1 and claim 11):
PNG
media_image2.png
228
374
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
100
348
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Specific examples of the structural unit represented by formula (2) are taught to include the structural units represented by formula (2)-28, formula (2)-29, and formula (2)-30 ([0047]):
The structural unit represented by formula (2)-28 reads on the formula (A3) recited in instant claim 2, the structural unit represented by formula (2)-29 reads on the formula (A2) recited in instant claim 2, and the structural unit represented by formula (2)-30 reads on the formula (A4) recited in instant claim 3 and claim 4.
The proportion of the structural units represented by the formula (1) and formula (2) is taught to be 10 to 100 mol%, or 50 to 100 mol%, of the total structural units in the polycarbonate resin ([0041]). In the examples, when multiple bisphenol components are used (such as those shown above), the molar proportion of a first bisphenol component to a total of the first bisphenol component and a second bisphenol component was 50 mol% (e.g., see ME 31, ME 40, ME 43, ME 46, etc. in Table 5) (which reads on the corresponding range 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 the photoreceptor of Zhang as the photosensitive member in the developing device of Shouno, as Shouno teaches that the photosensitive member is not limited and Zhang’s photoreceptor exhibits excellent wear resistance when the polycarbonate includes the repeating unit represented by the formula 2.
In doing so, the skilled artisan could have arrived at the nuclear magnetic resonance spectrum obtained by subjecting a polymer component recovered from the surface layer of the photosensitive member which satisfies the peaks recited in instant claim 4, as paragraph [0103] of the instant specification discloses that this indicates that the structural units represented by the formula (A2) and formula (A4) are present.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shouno et al. (US PGP 2009/0279923 A1), in view of Zhang et al. US 2013/0040234 A1), and further in view of Yamamoto et al. (US PGP 2016/0139556 A1).
The teachings of Shouno and Zhang are discussed above and incorporated herein. Zhang teaches that the binder resin may include other resins, such as those listed in paragraph [0048], but is silent to teach or suggest a content range of the polycarbonate resin when such other resins are used.
Yamamoto teaches a photosensitive member including a charge transport layer containing a polyarylate resin or a polycarbonate resin (Abstract). The polycarbonate resin is taught to include a structural unit represented by formula (11) ([0148]) (which reads on the formula (A1) recited in instant claim 1):
PNG
media_image4.png
132
288
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The charge transport layer is taught to serve as the outermost surface layer of the photosensitive member, and a total content of the polycarbonate resin and the polyarylate resin in the charge transport layer is taught to be 0.1 mass% or more and 50 mass% or less, or 0.1 mass% or more and 20 mass% or less, with respect to a total mass of all solid matters in the charge transporting layer, in view of improving the electrical properties of the photosensitive member ([0155]) (which reads on the corresponding range recited in instant claim 6).
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 polycarbonate including the structural unit represented by formula (2) in the photoreceptor of modified Shouno, to fall within the range taught by Yamamoto, in view of improving the electrical properties.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shouno et al. (US PGP 2009/0279923 A1), in view of Zhang et al. US 2013/0040234 A1), and further in view of Oyoshi (JP 2012013899 A) (references herein made with respect to English machine translation attached).
The teachings of Shouno and Zhang are discussed above and incorporated herein. Shouno appears to be silent to teach the driving force(s) of the developing device, and even explicitly states that this portion is not shown in the figures ([0026]). Oyoshi teaches a developing device including gears for transmitting a driving force to the photosensitive member and various rotating members of the developing device. The gears include a photosensitive gear 2G provided coaxially with the photosensitive member, a roller gear 40G provided coaxially with the developing roller, a developing roller gear 42G provided coaxially and integrally with the supply roller, and idler gears 50G and 52G as drive transmission gears (pg. 5, seventh paragraph) (which reads on the configuration recited in instant claim 7 and claim 8). The occurrence of defective images is taught to be prevented by using the configuration of gears described above (pg. 6, second paragraph).
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 the transmission gears configuration taught by Oyoshi, in view of preventing image defects. In doing so, the developing device of modified Shouno would necessarily satisfy the claimed formula (E2) recited in instant claim 9, as the ratio rRS/rD in the formula (E2) directly correlates to the ratio R recited in formula (E1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
PNG
media_image5.png
108
300
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
134
314
media_image6.png
Greyscale
U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2017/0010556 A1 to Noguchi et al. teaches an electrophotographic photosensitive member including charge-transport layer containing a compound having a structure represented by formula (1). The charge-transport layer is further taught to include a resin having at least one structure represented from the group consisting of formulae (2) and (3) ([0047]-[0050]):
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
07/25/2026
Prosecution Insights