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
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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Niimi (JP 2005165150).
Regarding claims 5-6, Niimi discloses an image forming apparatus using a scorotron type charging means for a layered type photoreceptor, which can be operated at 300 mm/second or more linear velocity (abstract, [0001]). Niimi further discloses the image forming apparatus includes an exposure means and a developing means ([0019]). Niimi further discloses using titanyl phthalocyanine crystals, an organic charge generation material, in the carrier generation layer of an image forming apparatus ([0012]-[0013]).
The applicant has recited the apparatus claims as also containing or comprising the developer of pending claim 1. However, since a developer, or toner, is a material that is consumed by the apparatus and is not a permanent fixture of the apparatus, its inclusion in the apparatus claims does not represent a material limitation on the apparatus. Multiple different developers may be used in any xerographic apparatus and therefore the limitations of the developer in the present claims do not represent material limitations on the apparatus because the developer with these limitations could be substituted by another developer and not alter the mechanical functioning of the apparatus. § MPEP 2115. In accordance with MPEP 2114 an apparatus in a claim must be recited structurally and therefore the type of toner to be used possesses no patentability, only the material properties of the apparatus are patentable. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Additionally, a claim containing a recitation in respect to the manner that an apparatus is intended to be used does not differentiate the claim from prior art. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). In further regards to the toner, MPEP 2115 states that, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
The toner is a material worked upon and consumed by the image forming apparatus. A material portion of the apparatus must be a permanent fixture of the apparatus that is not permanently changed by the regular operation of the apparatus. The toner, during the course of the imaging process, is changed from a particulate material to a melted and fused material. During fixing, heat and/or pressure is applied to the toner to bind it to the recording material such that the toner cannot be recovered and re-used in the apparatus. Therefore, the toner cannot be claimed as a structural member of the apparatus.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto (US 20190049871) in view of Shimamura (US 20030232185).
Regarding claim 1, Sakamoto discloses a developer including toner particles and carrier particles, the toners comprising a toner mother particle and resin particles. The resin particles have a number average primary particle diameter of 40-100 nm, and a blocking rate of less than 30% by mass (abstract, [0006], [0020]). Sakamoto further discloses resin particle S-2, comprising a blocking rate of 35% by mass (Table 2, page 9). While S-2 is only used in comparative example 2, as part of toner DB-1, the particle still fits the limitations of the claim (Tables 1-3, page 9 and 11). Sakamoto further discloses the carrier may contain a core and a coat layer, which could include a silicone resin ([ 0087]-[0093]). However, Sakamoto specifically select silicone resin or disclose the carrier particles having a static friction coefficient of 0.01-0.22.
Shimamura teaches a developer carrier comprising a resin coating layer with a coefficient of friction of 0.1-0.35 (claims 1-3, [0084]). Shimamura further teaches when the coefficient of friction is 0.1-0.35, the developer can properly transport the toner, while preventing charge up of the toner. Thereby improving image quality by preventing ghosting, fogging, and uneven image density ([0084]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to ensure the developer of Sakamoto includes a carrier with a coating layer having a friction coefficient of 0.1-0.35, as taught by Shimamura, to improve image quality by preventing ghosting, fogging, and uneven image density.
Regarding claims 2-3, modified Sakamoto discloses all limitations as set forth above. Sakamoto further discloses resin particles are preferably cross-linked styrene-acrylic acid based resin, with divinylbenzene used as the cross-linking agent in the specific examples ([0035], [0039]). Sakamoto further discloses the specific example S-3 to S-5, used in the toners DA-1 to DA-4, for Examples 1-4, comprising styrene, n-butyl methacrylate, and divinylbenzene as the monomers of the resin particles. The divinylbenzene in these examples is used in an amount of 20-40 % by mass of the resin (Tables 1-3, page 9 and 11).
Regarding claim 4, modified Sakamoto discloses all limitations as set forth above. Sakamoto further discloses the resin particles should be used in an amount of 0.5-1.5 parts by mass relative to 100 parts of the toner mother particles ([0043]).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto (US 20190049871) in view of Shimamura (US 20030232185) as applied to claims 1-4 above, and further in view of Niimi (JP 2005165150).
Regarding claims 5-6, assuming arguendo the developer is a material limitation of the image forming apparatus, modified Sakamoto discloses all limitations as set forth above. Sakamoto further discloses an electrophotographic apparatus which uses the developer, comprising an image forming section with a charger and light exposure device which forms an electrostatic latent image on a photosensitive member, a development device for developing the image with toner ([0015]-[0016]). However, Sakamoto does not disclose an organic photoconductor or a linear velocity of 250-500 mm/sec.
Niimi teaches an image forming apparatus using a scorotron type charging means for a layered type photoreceptor, which can be operated at 300 mm/second or more linear velocity (abstract, [0001]). Niimi further teaches the image forming apparatus includes an exposure means and a developing means ([0019]). Niimi further teaches using titanyl phthalocyanine crystals, an organic charge generation material, in the carrier generation layer of an image forming apparatus reduces staining, and improves resolution at high speed printing ([0012]-[0014]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use titanyl phthalocyanine crystals in the image forming apparatus of modified Sakamoto, as taught by Niimi, to improve resolution in high speed printing, while preventing staining.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takatsuna (US 20210041798) teaches a toner comprising resin particles as external additives, , with a blocking rate of no greater than 40% by mass (abstract). Furthermore, resin particles PA-1 are produced by the same process with the same monomers, in the same proportions as those of resin particles P-1 of the Instant Application ([0104]-[0106], Instant Specification page 28-29). While the toner of Takatsuna is a magnetic toner, Takatsuna teaches the specific resin particles ensure high surface hardness, while inhibiting adhesion of the particles to the developing sleeve ([0027]). One of skill in the art would understand the particles disclosed by Takatsuna would be obvious to combine with a non-magnetic toner in a two-component developer, to impart hardness while preventing adhesion to the development sleeve.
Komada (US 20190086826) teaches a toner comprising similar toner comprising resin particles comprising a blocking rate or 30% by mass or less (abstract). Table 2 teaches several resin particles which meet some of the limitations of claims 1-3 in the Instant Application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES COLLINS SULLIVAN IV whose telephone number is (571)272-2208. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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.
/C.C.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/AMBER R ORLANDO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights