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 § 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.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Suzuki et al. (US PGP 2015/0248074) considered with Yao et al., “Multistimuli-Responsive Luminescence of Naphthalazine Based on Aggregation-Induced Emission”, Chemistry Open, vol. 4 no. 4, 13 April 2015, pp 478-482.
Suzuki teaches a particulate toner comprising CI Pigment Yellow 101 as a colorant ([0172]). Additionally, Suzuki teaches a manufacturing method of making said toner comprising subjecting Pigment Yellow 101 in a bead mill disperser to dispersion with zirconia beads with a diameter of 0.5 mm at a peripheral speed of 6 m/sec. This procedure reads on the limitations of the procedure recited by the Applicant in pending claim 4. Such a procedure would be understood to inherently reduce the Pigment Yellow 101 to a particle size within the ranges recited by the Applicant in pending claims 1-2 based on the teaching of the instant specification ([0035]). Suzuki does not teach X-ray diffraction data for CI Pigment Yellow 101. However, Yao teaches that commercial CI Pigment Yellow 101 has a second peak from a low angle side at a diffraction angle 2θ in a range of 11.66° to 11.86° and a third peak from the low angle size in a range of 17.86° to 18.06° (see p. 481 Figure 4).
Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US PGP 2015/0248074) in view of JP 2022-044075 (henceforth JP ‘075) and considered with Yao et al., “Multistimuli-Responsive Luminescence of Naphthalazine Based on Aggregation-Induced Emission”, Chemistry Open, vol. 4 no. 4, 13 April 2015, pp 478-482.
The complete discussions of Suzuki and Yao above are included herein. This rejection is presented in the interest of compact prosecution in the event the Applicant is able to demonstrate that the procedure of Suzuki will not inherently produce CI Pigment Yellow 101 particles within the Applicant’s recited ranges.
JP ‘075 teaches a toner comprising both a red and yellow pigment. Specifically, JP ‘075 teaches the production of a pigment dispersion comprising CI Pigment Yellow 101 with a particle size of 300 nm (see “(F) Preparation of Fluorescent Agent particle Dispersion Liquids (1) to (3)” in the provided translation). JP ‘075 further teaches that by utilizing a pigment dispersion with a particle size within this range good emission characteristics in an image obtained with a toner comprising said pigment dispersion (see “(1.3) Volume Average Particle Diameter of Fluorescent Agent” in the provided translation). 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 CI Pigment Yellow 101 with a particle size of from 200 to 600 nm as taught by JP ‘075 in the toner particles of Suzuki et al. in order to improve emission characteristics of the toner.
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 09/05/2026
Prosecution Insights