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
Claim 1 presently recites functional language. Specifically, lines 4-5 recite “a charging unit that charges a surface of the electrophotographic photosensitive member with electricity”, lines 6-7 recite “an exposing unit that irradiates the charged surface of the electrophotographic photosensitive member with light to form an electrostatic latent image”, lines 8-9 recite “a developing unit that feeds a toner to the electrostatic latent image to form a toner image”, and lines 10-11 recite “a transferring unit that transfers the toner image onto a transfer medium”.
Claim 1 also presently recites limitations directed at a toner. Specifically, in line 12, the toner that the developing unit feeds to the electrostatic latent image to form a toner image and the toner that the transferring unit transfers onto a transfer medium is recited as comprising “strontium titanate as an external additive”. Claim 8 then recites that the content of the strontium titanate based on a mass of a toner particle in the toner is 0.1 to 1.0% by mass.
However, the claims are directed at an apparatus (i.e., an electrophotographic apparatus). 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 functional limitations of the charging unit, exposing unit, developing unit (configured to feed a toner comprising strontium titanate as an external additive to an electrostatic latent image to form a toner image), and the transferring unit (configured to transfer a toner image including a toner comprising strontium titanate as an external additive onto a transfer medium) do not distinguish the claimed electrophotographic apparatus over others found in prior art which include the claimed structural features, absent any showing by the Applicant that the electrophotographic apparatus of the prior art would not possess the characteristics capable of performing the recited function(s).
Moreover, the toner that the transferring unit is configured to transfer onto a transfer medium is a material worked upon by the apparatus. The toner, during the image forming process, is changed from a particulate material to a melted and fused material. That is, during fixing, heat and/or pressure is applied to the toner to bind it to the recording material (e.g., paper) such that the fixed toner cannot be recovered and reused by the electrophotographic apparatus.
According to MPEP § 2115, “A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[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); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935)”.
Furthermore, “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
In other words, 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. Since a 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. For instance, multiple different toners may be used in any electrophotographic apparatus. Therefore, the limitations of the toner in the present claims do not represent material limitations on the apparatus because the claimed toner could be substituted by another toner and not alter the mechanical functioning of the apparatus. Therefore, the type of toner to be used by the apparatus possesses no patentability, only the structural and material properties of the apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimizu et al. (US PGP 2022/0128913 A1).
Shimizu teaches an image forming apparatus including an image bearing member, a charger that charges a surface of the image bearing member, a light exposure device that exposes the charged surface of the image bearing member to light to form an electrostatic latent image on the surface of the image bearing member, a development device that develops the electrostatic latent image into a toner image by supplying toner to the surface of the image bearing member, and a transfer device that transfers the toner image from the image bearing member to a transfer target ([0008]) (which reads on the corresponding limitations recited in instant claim 1).
The image bearing member is taught to be an electrophotographic photosensitive member including a photosensitive layer provided as an outermost surface layer ([0023]). The photosensitive layer is taught to contain a polyarylate resin including a repeating unit represented by formula (1), a repeating unit represented by formula (2), and a repeating unit represented by formula (3) ([0035]):
PNG
media_image1.png
438
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
654
434
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Preferable examples of the repeating unit (1) are taught to include repeating units represented by formulas (1-1), (1-2), (1-3), (1-4), and (1-5) ([0042]):
The ratio n1/n2 of the number n1 of repeats of the repeating unit (1) included in the polyarylate resin to the number n2 of repeats of the repeating unit (2) included in the polyarylate resin is taught to be at least 1.0 ([0043]).
PNG
media_image3.png
232
772
media_image3.png
Greyscale
A specific example of the polyarylate is taught to include the polyarylate (R-1) ([0045]):
The polyarylate (R-1) above includes the structural unit represented by the claimed Formula (1) and the structural unit represented by the claimed Formula (2), where the structural unit represented by the claimed Formula (2) is the structural unit represented by the claimed Formula (2-1) (which reads on the corresponding limitations recited in instant claim 1, claim 2, and claim 5).
PNG
media_image4.png
300
782
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Another specific example of the polyarylate is taught to include the polyarylate (R-2) ([0045]):
The polyarylate (R-2) above includes the structural unit represented by the claimed Formula (1) and the structural unit represented by the claimed Formula (2), where the structural unit represented by the claimed Formula (2) is the structural unit represented by the claimed Formula (2-5) (which reads on the corresponding limitations recited in instant claim 1, claim 2, claim 5, and claim 6).
In the examples, the photosensitive member A-1 of Example 1-1 included the polyarylate (R-1) as the only binder resin, which exhibited a n1/n2 ratio of 4.0, and the photosensitive member A-2 of Example 2-2 included the polyarylate (R-2) as the only binder resin, which also exhibited a n1/n2 ratio of 4.0 (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 3 and claim 4).
Shimizu also teaches that a polyarylate resin including the structure represented by the following formula “is known” (emphasis added) ([0004]):
PNG
media_image5.png
82
180
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The above structure does not appear to be depicted in the structures of the polyarylate resins in the examples. However, According to MPEP § 2123, “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971).”
Shimizu reasonably suggests the claimed structural units (PE1-1) and (PE2-1) where the above structure would be included in the polyarylate resin including the repeating unit represented by formula (1), the repeating unit represented by formula (2), and the repeating unit represented by formula (3) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 7).
Shimizu appears to be silent to sufficiently describe the toners used in the image forming apparatus, other than their respective colors (see [0125]). However, in accordance with the interpretation of MPEP § 2114 and MPEP § 2115 discussed above, the type of toner to be used by the apparatus (such as the toner recited in instant claim 1 and claim 8) is not a patentable limitation, only the structural and material properties of the apparatus.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Otsubo et al. (US PGP 2023/0097281 A1).
PNG
media_image6.png
418
414
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Otsubo teaches an image forming apparatus comprising an electrophotographic photosensitive member including a photosensitive layer disposed on an outermost side of the photosensitive member. The photosensitive layer is taught to comprise a binder resin including repeating units represented by formulas (1), (2), (3), and (4) ([0005]):
PNG
media_image7.png
310
458
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The repeating unit represented by formula (1) is taught to include the repeating units represented by formulas (1-1) and formula (1-2) ([0056]):
In the examples, the resulting polyarylate resin R-1 included the repeating unit represented by formula (1-1), the repeating unit represented by formula (2), the repeating unit represented by formula (3), and the repeating unit represented by formula (4) (Table 3). Therefore, the polyarylate R-1 is understood to include the structural unit represented by the claimed Formula (1) and the structural unit represented by the claimed Formula (2), where the structural unit represented by the claimed Formula (2) is the structural unit represented by the claimed Formula (2-5), and the structural units represented by the claimed formulas (PE1-1) and (PE2-1) (which reads on the corresponding limitations recited in instant claim 1, claim 2, claim 5, claim 6, and claim 7).
Similarly, the resulting polyarylate resin R-2 included the repeating unit represented by formula (1-2), the repeating unit represented by formula (2), the repeating unit represented by formula (3), and the repeating unit represented by formula (4) (Table 3). Therefore, the polyarylate R-2 is understood to include the structural unit represented by the claimed Formula (1) and the structural unit represented by the claimed Formula (2), where the structural unit represented by the claimed Formula (2) is the structural unit represented by the claimed Formula (2-1), and the structural units represented by the claimed formulas (PE1-1) and (PE2-1) (which reads on the corresponding limitations recited in instant claim 1, claim 2, claim 5, and claim 7).
In both production methods of the polyarylate resin R-1 and the polyarylate resin R-2, the total addition rate of the bisphenol compounds and the total addition rate of the dicarboxylic acid compounds were used in equal parts. Accordingly, the ratio of the number of structural units corresponding to the claimed Formula (2) (i.e., repeating unit (1) + repeating unit (3)) to the number of structural units corresponding to the claimed Formula (1) (i.e., repeating unit (2) + repeating unit (4)) is understood to be 1.0 (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 3).
In the examples, the photosensitive layer of Example 1-1 only included the polyarylate resin R-1 and the photosensitive layer of Example 1-14 only included the polyarylate resin R-2 (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 4).
Otsubo appears to be silent to sufficiently describe the toners used in the image forming apparatus. However, in accordance with the interpretation of MPEP § 2114 and MPEP § 2115 discussed above, the type of toner to be used by the apparatus (such as the toner recited in instant claim 1 and claim 8) is not a patentable limitation, only the structural and material properties of the apparatus.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shimizu et al. (US PGP 2024/0192613 A1).
PNG
media_image6.png
418
414
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Shimizu teaches an image forming apparatus comprising an electrophotographic photosensitive member including a photosensitive layer disposed on an outermost side of the photosensitive member. The photosensitive layer is taught to comprise a binder resin including repeating units represented by formulas (1), (2), (3), and (4) ([0004]):
The repeating unit represented by formula (1) is taught to include the repeating units represented by formulas (1-1) and formula (1-2) ([0036]):
PNG
media_image8.png
320
418
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In the examples, the resulting polyarylate resin R-1 included the repeating unit represented by formula (1-1), the repeating unit represented by formula (2), the repeating unit represented by formula (3), and the repeating unit represented by formula (4) (Table 3). Therefore, the polyarylate R-1 is understood to include the structural unit represented by the claimed Formula (1) and the structural unit represented by the claimed Formula (2), where the structural unit represented by the claimed Formula (2) is the structural unit represented by the claimed Formula (2-5), and the structural units represented by the claimed formulas (PE1-1) and (PE2-1) (which reads on the corresponding limitations recited in instant claim 1, claim 2, claim 5, claim 6, and claim 7).
In the production method of the polyarylate resin R-1, the total addition rate of the bisphenol compounds and the total addition rate of the dicarboxylic acid compounds were used in equal parts. Accordingly, the ratio of the number of structural units corresponding to the claimed Formula (2) (i.e., repeating unit (1) + repeating unit (3)) to the number of structural units corresponding to the claimed Formula (1) (i.e., repeating unit (2) + repeating unit (4)) is understood to be 1.0 (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 3).
In the examples, the photosensitive layer of Example A-1 only included the polyarylate resin R-1 (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 4).
Shimizu appears to be silent to sufficiently describe the toners used in the image forming apparatus. However, in accordance with the interpretation of MPEP § 2114 and MPEP § 2115 discussed above, the type of toner to be used by the apparatus (such as the toner recited in instant claim 1 and claim 8) is not a patentable limitation, only the structural and material properties of the apparatus.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Azuma et al. (US PGP 2020/0231535 A1).
PNG
media_image9.png
234
434
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Azuma teaches a photosensitive member including a photosensitive layer comprising a polyarylate resin including a repeating unit represented by general formula (10) and general formula (11) ([0088]):
PNG
media_image10.png
288
426
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Examples of the repeating unit represented by general formula (10) are taught to include the units represented by general formula (10-1) and general formula (10-2) ([0094]):
PNG
media_image11.png
72
364
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Examples of the repeating unit represented by general formula (11) are taught to include the units represented by general formula (11-X3) and general formula (11-X5) ([0094]):
PNG
media_image12.png
92
308
media_image12.png
Greyscale
To improve electrical characteristics of the photosensitive member and inhibit crystallization of the photosensitive layer, the polyarylate resin is preferably taught to include the repeating units represented by general formulas (10-1), (12-1), and (11-X3)
PNG
media_image13.png
258
362
media_image13.png
Greyscale
([0114]):
In the examples, the polyarylate (R-8) included each of the repeating units represented by general formulas (10-1), (12-1), and (11-X3), shown above ([0229]). Therefore, the polyarylate (R-8) is understood to include the structural unit represented by the claimed Formula (1) and the structural unit represented by the claimed Formula (2), where the structural unit represented by the claimed Formula (2) is the structural unit represented by the claimed Formula (2-1) (which reads on the corresponding limitations recited in instant claim 1, claim 2, and claim 5).
The ratio q, which corresponds to the ratio of the number of repeating units represented by formula (10-1) to the total number of repeating units represented by formula (10-1) and (12-1) is taught to have been 0.8 ([0115], [0229]). Therefore, the number of repeating units represented by formula (10-1) (which forms the structure represented by the claimed Formula (2) with repeating unit (11-X3)) to the number of repeating units represented by formula (12-1) (which forms the structure represented by the claimed Formula (1) with repeating unit (11-X3)) can be calculated as being 41 (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 3).
As discussed above, the structural unit represented by formula (10-2) is taught to be a suitable equivalent to the structural unit represented by formula (10-1). For instance, the polyarylate (R-2) included each of the repeating units represented by general formulas (10-2), (11-X1), and (11-X3) ([0025]). Therefore, the polyarylate (R-2) is understood to include the structural unit represented by the claimed Formula (2) where the structural unit represented by the claimed Formula (2) is the structural unit represented by the claimed Formula (2-5) (which reads on the corresponding limitations recited in instant claim 6).
The structural unit represented by formula (11-X5) does not appear to be depicted in the structures of the polyarylate resins in the examples. However, According to MPEP § 2123, “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971).” Accordingly, Azuma reasonably suggests the claimed structural units (PE1-1) and (PE2-1) where the structural unit (11-X5) is used in the polyarylate resin including the repeating unit represented by formula (10) and the repeating unit represented by formula (11) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 7).
The photosensitive member is taught to have been mounted into an image forming apparatus commercially known as “MONOCHROME PRINTER FS-1300D” for image evaluation, which is presumed to include a charging unit, an exposing unit, a developing unit, and a transferring unit (as recited in instant claim 1).
In the examples, the photosensitive layers of the only included one of each polyarylate resin (Tables 1-3) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 4).
Azuma appears to be silent to describe the toners used in the image forming apparatus, other than white images were printed using the image forming apparatus (see [0262]). However, in accordance with the interpretation of MPEP § 2114 and MPEP § 2115 discussed above, the type of toner to be used by the apparatus (such as the toner recited in instant claim 1 and claim 8) is not a patentable limitation, only the structural and material properties of the apparatus.
Claims 1-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tajima et al. (US PGP 2009/0047589 A1).
Tajima teaches an image forming device including an electrophotographic photoreceptor, a charging device, an exposing device, a developing device, a transfer device, a cleaning device, and a fixing device. The photoreceptor is taught to comprise a photosensitive layer including a polyester resin having repeating units represented by at least one of general formula 1 to 5 ([0108]) (which reads on the corresponding limitations recited in instant claim 1).
In the examples, the polyester resin I was taught to include the repeating units represented by chemical formula 35 ([0141]):
PNG
media_image14.png
122
774
media_image14.png
Greyscale
The polyester resin I represented by chemical formula 35 is understood to include the structural unit represented by the claimed Formula (1) and the structural unit represented by the claimed Formula (2), where the structural unit represented by the claimed Formula (2) is the structural unit represented by the claimed Formula (2-4) (which reads on the corresponding limitations recited in instant claim 1, claim 2, and claim 5). The ratio of repeating units m to n is taught to be 7/3 or about 2.33 (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 3).
In the examples, the photosensitive layer of Example 5 only included the polyester resin I (Table 1) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 4).
Tajima appears to be silent to sufficiently describe the toners used in the image forming apparatus. However, in accordance with the interpretation of MPEP § 2114 and MPEP § 2115 discussed above, the type of toner to be used by the apparatus (such as the toner recited in instant claim 1 and claim 8) is not a patentable limitation, only the structural and material properties of the apparatus.
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ogaki et al. (US PGP 2010/0092208 A1).
PNG
media_image15.png
170
368
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
150
366
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Ogaki teaches an electrophotographic image forming apparatus including an electrophotographic photosensitive member having a support, a charge generation layer, and a charge transport layer containing a charge transporting material and a binder resin, where the charge transport layer serves as a surface layer of the electrophotographic photosensitive member ([0020]). The image forming apparatus is taught to further contain a charging device, an exposure device, a developing device, and a transfer device ([0022]) (which reads on the corresponding limitations recited in instant claim 1).
The binder resin is taught to include a polyester resin A having a repeating structural unit represented by formula (1) and formula (2) ([0020]):
Specific examples of the repeating unit represented by formula (2) are taught to include the repeating units represented by formula (2-16), (2-17), (2-28), (2-29), (2-33), and (2-36), with the repeating units represented by formula (2-17), (2-29), and (2-33) being particularly preferable ([0072]-[0073]):
PNG
media_image17.png
144
382
media_image17.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image18.png
110
386
media_image18.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image19.png
134
376
media_image19.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image20.png
110
380
media_image20.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image21.png
112
782
media_image21.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image22.png
78
764
media_image22.png
Greyscale
The repeating unit represented by formula (2-33) is identical to the claimed Formula (1) recited in instant claim 1, the repeating units represented by formulas (2-16), (2-17), (2-28), and (2-29) read on the claimed structural units represented by Formula (PE1-1) and Formula (PE2-1) recited in instant claim 7, and the repeating unit represented by formula (2-36) reads on the claimed structural unit represented by Formula (2) recited in instant claim 2, and is identical to the claimed structural unit represented by Formula (2-4) recited in instant claim 5.
In many examples, the molar ratio between two types of repeating units represented by formula (2) in the polyester resin A was 5:5 (Table 1). In other words, the ratio n2/n1 was 1.0 (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 3).
The binder resin is taught to further include a polyester resin C, which includes the repeating units represented by formula (2), but does not include the repeating units represented by formula (1). In the examples, many of the photosensitive members included both the polyester resin A and the polyester resin C, each of which include the repeating units represented by formula (2) (Table 2). In other words, 100% of the resins in these examples contained the repeating units represented by formula (2) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 4).
Ogaki appears to be silent to sufficiently describe the toners used in the image forming apparatus, other than their respective colors ([0278]). However, in accordance with the interpretation of MPEP § 2114 and MPEP § 2115 discussed above, the type of toner to be used by the apparatus (such as the toner recited in instant claim 1 and claim 8) is not a patentable limitation, only the structural and material properties 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.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azuma et al. (JP 2019077844 A) (references herein made with respect to English machine translation attached), in view of Tajima et al. (US PGP 2009/0047589 A1).
PNG
media_image23.png
394
399
media_image23.png
Greyscale
The teachings of Tajima are discussed above and incorporated herein. Azuma teaches a polyarylate resin which, when contained in a photosensitive layer, can improve the abrasion resistance of the electrophotographic photoreceptor ([0006]). The polyarylate resin is taught to contain at least a repeating unit represented by general formula (1), a repeating unit represented by general formula (2), and a repeating unit represented by general formula (3), shown below ([0008]):
The ratio n1/n2 of the number n1 of repeating units represented by the general formula (1) to the number n2 of repeating units represented by the general formula (2) is taught to be 1.0 or more ([0007], [0018]). When the ratio n1/n2 is 1.0 or more, the solubility of the polyarylate resin is improved, which improves the abrasion resistance of the photoreceptor ([0024]). The ratio n1/n2 may be, for example, 1.0 or more and 10.0 or less ([0033]).
PNG
media_image24.png
558
350
media_image24.png
Greyscale
Examples of the repeating unit represented by formula (1) are taught to include repeating units represented by formulas (1-1), (1-2), (1-3), (1-4), and (1-5) ([0031]):
An example of the polyarylate resin is taught to include the polyarylate resin (R-2) ([0040]):
PNG
media_image25.png
242
614
media_image25.png
Greyscale
The polyarylate (R-2) above includes the structural unit represented by the claimed Formula (1) and the structural unit represented by the claimed Formula (2), where the structural unit represented by the claimed Formula (2) is the structural unit represented by the claimed Formula (2-5) (which reads on the corresponding limitations recited in instant claim 1, claim 2, claim 5, and claim 6).The ratio of structural including the repeating units represented by formulas (1-5) and (3) to the structure including the repeating units represented by formulas (2) and (3) was (37.5 + 37.5)/(12.5 + 12.5) or about 2.33 (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 3).
The polyarylate is further taught to include the repeating unit represented by formulas (DC-T) and (DC-I) as additional components ([0174]). In another example, the polyarylate resin (R-C) included the repeating units represented by formulas (1-1), (DC-T), (2), and (DC-I) ([0172]):
PNG
media_image26.png
232
574
media_image26.png
Greyscale
The structural unit represented by formulas (DC-T) and (DC-I) do not appear to be depicted in the structures of the polyarylate resins in the examples where the repeating unit represented by formula (1-5) is also used. However, According to MPEP § 2123, “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971).” Accordingly, Azuma reasonably suggests the claimed structural units (PE1-1) and (PE2-1) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 7).
Azuma teaches that the photoreceptor is used in an image forming apparatus but appears to be silent to sufficiently describe the image forming apparatus. Absent any teachings to the contrary, the photoreceptor of Azuma would have been expected to be compatible with any functional electrophotographic image forming apparatus, such as the image forming device (including a charging device, an exposing device, a developing device, a transfer device, a cleaning device, and a fixing device) described by Tajima.
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 mounted the photoreceptor of Azuma in an image forming apparatus including the structural components taught by Tajima, with a reasonable expectation of success of providing a functional image forming apparatus.
Azuma and Tajima appear to be silent to sufficiently describe the toners used in the image forming apparatus. However, in accordance with the interpretation of MPEP § 2114 and MPEP § 2115 discussed above, the type of toner to be used by the apparatus (such as the toner recited in instant claim 1 and claim 8) is not a patentable limitation, only the structural and material properties of the apparatus.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2021/0026269 A1 to Ishino et al. teaches an image forming apparatus including an image bearing member and a charging roller that charges a circumferential surface of the image bearing member. The image bearing member is taught to include a conductive substrate and a photosensitive layer of a single layer (Abstract). The photosensitive layer is taught to contain a charge generating material, a hole transport material, an electron transport material, and a binder resin ([0004]).
PNG
media_image27.png
110
296
media_image27.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image28.png
486
284
media_image28.png
Greyscale
To inhibit occurrence of a ghost image, the binder resin is taught to comprise a polyarylate resin including a repeating unit represented by formula (20), shown below ([0099]):In the formula (20), Y is taught to represent a divalent group represented by any one of the following formulae ([0101]):
A content percentage of the polyarylate resin is taught to be 30.0% by mass or more and 70.0% by mass or less, and preferably 40.0% by mass or more and 60.0% by mass or less ([0114]).
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
08/28/2026
1 X = # of (10-1); Y = # of (12-1)
q = X / (X+Y) = 0.8
X = 0.8(X+Y) = 0.8X + 0.8Y
0.2X = 0.8Y
0.2(X/Y) = 0.8
X/Y = 0.8/0.2 = 4
Prosecution Insights