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 Objections
Claims 10 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10, lines 2-3, recite “further comprising at least one of a colorant or a releasing agent” when it should recite “further comprising at least one of a colorant and a releasing agent”.
Claim 15, lines 2-3, recite, “wherein a content of an aromatic dicarboxylic acid compound in the carboxylic acid component (b) is 60 mol% or more”. While it can be implied, claim 1, which claim 15 depends on, does not explicitly recite that the carboxylic acid component (b) contains an aromatic dicarboxylic acid compound.
For better clarity, it is recommended to positively recite the aromatic dicarboxylic acid compound in the claim. For example, claim 15 could be amended to recite “wherein the carboxylic acid component (b) contains an aromatic dicarboxylic acid compound, and wherein a content of the aromatic dicarboxylic acid compound in the carboxylic acid component (b) is 60 mol% or more” (like in instant claim 18).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, lines 3-7, and claim 12, lines 7-12, presently recite “the amorphous resin contains an amorphous polyester resin (A) that is a polycondensate of an alcohol component (a) containing 80 mol% or more of an aliphatic diol (a1) and a carboxylic acid component (b),
the alcohol component (a) contains 60 mol% or more of an aliphatic diol (a2) having 5 or 6 carbon atoms and having an alkyl group on a side chain”.
In other words, the claim currently recites that the alcohol component (a) of the polyester resin (A) contains:
(i) ≥ 80 mol% of an aliphatic diol (a1), and
(ii) ≥ 60 mol% of an aliphatic diol (a2)
However, it is unclear whether the claimed aliphatic diol (a1) component is the same as the claimed aliphatic diol (a2) component as their respective content ranges in the alcohol component (a) add up to more than 100 mol% and the aliphatic diol (a1) is not explicitly recited as being different from the aliphatic diol (a2).
MPEP § 2111 states that “During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the "broadest reasonable interpretation" standard:
The Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004).”
Paragraph [0012] of the instant specification states that “examples of the aliphatic diol (a1) include aliphatic diols having 2 or more and 16 or less carbon atoms, for example, aliphatic diols (a2)”.
In the Applicant’s examples, the production Example A1 was not indicated as being a comparative example but only included one aliphatic diol (neopentyl glycol) (see Table 1). Specifically, neopentyl glycol was used in an amount of 100 mol% and falls under the claimed definition for both the aliphatic diol (a1) and the aliphatic diol (a2) in that is an aliphatic diol having 2 or more and 16 or less carbon atoms (instant claim 2) and has 5 or 6 carbon atoms and contains an alkyl group on a side chain (instant claim 1/claim 12). In other words, production Example A1 appears to be representative of the claimed aliphatic diol (a1) and the claimed aliphatic diol (a2) being the same.
Similarly, the production Example A2 was not indicated as being a comparative example and included two aliphatic diols (neopentyl glycol and ethylene glycol) (see Table 1). Specifically, neopentyl glycol was used in an amount of 60 mol% and falls under the claimed definition for both the aliphatic diol (a1) and the aliphatic diol (a2) in that is an aliphatic diol having 2 or more and 16 or less carbon atoms (instant claim 2) and has 5 or 6 carbon atoms and contains an alkyl group on a side chain (instant claim 1/claim 12) and ethylene glycol was used in an amount of 40 mol% and falls under the claimed definition of the aliphatic diol (a1) in that it is an aliphatic diol having 2 or more and 16 or less carbon atoms (instant claim 2). In other words, production Example A2 appears to be representative of the claimed aliphatic diol (a1) and the claimed aliphatic diol (a2) being different.
Under the interpretation that the claimed aliphatic diol (a1) is the same as or includes the claimed aliphatic diol (a2) (like in production Example A1), it is unclear if the alcohol component (a) is limited by the broader range (≥ 80 mol% of aliphatic diol) or the narrower range (≥ 60 mol% of aliphatic diol) recited in the same claim.
According to MPEP § 2173.05(c), “A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired”.
Therefore, the claims are considered indefinite under this interpretation because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Finally, under the interpretation that the claimed aliphatic diol (a1) is distinct from, or included in addition to, the claimed aliphatic diol (a2) (like in production Example A2), it is unclear what the basis is for each claimed aliphatic diol component in the alcohol component (a). That is, a molar percentage is understood to represent a fraction of the total moles in a system (in this case, the alcohol component (a)) and, therefore, the sum of the fractions must add up to 100 mol%. However, the minimum values of the respective ranges for the claimed aliphatic diol (a1) and the claimed aliphatic diol (a2) add up to more than 100 mol%.
Therefore, the claims are also considered indefinite under this interpretation because it is unclear how the claimed alcohol component (a) could contain, for example, 80 mol% of the aliphatic diol (a1) and 60 mol% of the aliphatic diol (a2) if each fraction is with respect to 100 mol% of the raw material monomers in the alcohol component (a).
Claims 4-11 and 13-20 are rejected because they fully incorporate the subject matter of an indefinite claim.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As discussed above, it is unclear if the claimed aliphatic diol (a1) component is the same as the claimed aliphatic diol (a2) component as their respective content ranges in the alcohol component (a) add up to more than 100 mol% and the aliphatic diol (a1) is not explicitly recited as being different from the aliphatic diol (a2).
Paragraph [0012] of the instant specification states that “examples of the aliphatic diol (a1) include aliphatic diols having 2 or more and 16 or less carbon atoms, for example, aliphatic diols (a2)”. Also, production Example A1 appears to be representative of the claimed aliphatic diol (a1) and the claimed aliphatic diol (a2) being the same.
Under the interpretation that the claimed aliphatic diol (a1) is the same as or includes the claimed aliphatic diol (a2) (like in production Example A1), instant claim 2 fails to limit the subject matter of claim 1 as it broadens the number of carbon atoms in the aliphatic diol from “5 or 6” to “2 or more and 16 or less”.
The Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-10, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mizoguchi et al. (US PGP 2018/0267417 A1).
Mizoguchi teaches a toner including a non-crystalline polyester resin and a crystalline polyester resin (Abstract). The toner is taught to be produced including a step of dispersing and granulating in an aqueous medium, an oil phase that contains the crystalline polyester resin, the non-crystalline polyester resin, a curing agent, a release agent, and a colorant ([0182]) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 10 and claim 12).
In the examples, a non-crystalline resin B containing 97 mol% of 3-methyl-1,5-pentanediol and 3 mol% of trimethylolpropane as alcohol components and 50 mol% each of adipic acid and terephthalic acid as acid components was produced ([0254]) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 4). In other words, the alcohol component of the non-crystalline resin contained 97 mol% of an aliphatic diol (i.e., 3-methyl-1,5-pentanediol), where the aliphatic diol has 6 carbon atoms and an alkyl group on a side chain (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 1), the aliphatic diol has 2 or more and 16 or less carbon atoms (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 2), and the aliphatic diol contains 3-methyl-1,5-pentanediol (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 3).
Also, in the examples, a crystalline resin C-1 containing 1,10-decanediol as the alcohol component and dodecanedioic acid as the acid component was produced ([0256]). In other words, the alcohol component of the crystalline resin contained an aliphatic diol (i.e., 1,10-decanediol) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 1), where the aliphatic diol is a linear aliphatic diol having 2 or more and 12 or less carbon atoms (which reads on the corresponding limitations recited in instant claim 5 and claim 6), and the acid component contained an aliphatic dicarboxylic acid (i.e., dodecanedioic acid) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 7), where the aliphatic dicarboxylic acid contains dodecanedioic acid (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 8).
In the preparation of the oil phase, the non-crystalline polyester resin B liquid was combined with a wax dispersion liquid, a non-crystalline polyester resin A liquid, a styrene-acrylic/polyester hybrid resin D, and a masterbatch containing carbon black and the non-crystalline polyester resin A ([0260]-[0267]). In other words, the toner contained a non-crystalline polyester resin which is different from the non-crystalline polyester resin B (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 17).
The amounts of the non-crystalline polyester resin B and the non-crystalline polyester resin A was adjusted so that the content ratio X = (A/C) of the content A of the non-crystalline polyester resin to the content C of the crystalline polyester resin in the toner was 95/5 (which falls within the corresponding range recited in instant claim 9).
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-10, 15-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsumura et al. (US PGP 2004/0132920 A1).
Matsumura teaches a toner comprising a polyester block copolymer comprising a crystalline polyester segment and a non-crystalline polyester segment (Abstract). The toner is further taught to include a colorant and a releasing agent ([0194]) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 10).
In the examples, a high melting point crystalline polyester resin containing 100 mol% of terephthalic acid as the acid component, and 68 mol% of 1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol and 52 mol% of ethylene glycol as alcohol components was produced ([0212]-[0214]). In other words, the crystalline polyester resin contained a linear aliphatic diol having 2 or more and 12 or less carbon atoms (i.e., ethylene glycol) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 1, claim 5, and claim 6).
Also, in the examples, a non-crystalline polyester resin containing 90 mol% of dimethyl terephthalate and 10 mol% dimethyl isophthalate as acid components, and 75 mol% (90 mol parts) of neopentyl glycol and 25 mol% (30 mol parts) of ethylene glycol as alcohol components was produced ([0216]-[0217]). In other words, the alcohol component of the non-crystalline polyester resin contained 100 mol% of aliphatic diols (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 1), where the alcohol component contained an aliphatic diol having 5 or 6 carbon atoms and having an alkyl group on a side chain (i.e., neopentyl glycol) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 1), where the aliphatic diols have 2 or more and 16 or less carbon atoms (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 2), and the alcohol component included neopentyl glycol (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 3), and the acid component contained 90 mol% of an aromatic dicarboxylic acid compound (i.e., dimethyl terephthalate) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 15).
The non-crystalline polyester resin was taught to have a glass transition temperature of 55 ºC (Table 1) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 16). Additionally, the high melting point crystalline polyester was taught to be used in an amount of 40% by weight and the non-crystalline polyester resin was taught to be used in an amount of 60% by weight (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 9). In the examples the non-crystalline polyester resin constituted 100 mass% of the non-crystalline portion of the block copolymer ([0219]) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 19).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirai et al. (US PGP 2010/0055595 A1).
Shirai teaches a toner including a polyester obtained by subjecting a crystalline polyester-containing aqueous dispersion and a non-crystalline polyester-containing aqueous dispersion to aggregation and coalescence (Abstract). The toner is taught to further include a colorant, a charge controlling agent, a releasing agent, and other various additives ([0079]) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 10).
The crystalline polyester is taught to be produced by polycondensing an alcohol component containing 70 mol% or more of an aliphatic diol having 2 to 8 carbon atoms with a carboxylic acid component containing 50 mol% or more of terephthalic acid ([0018]) (which reads on the corresponding limitations recited in instant claim 1, claim 5, claim 6, and claim 12). Examples of other carboxylic acids used in the crystalline resin other than terephthalic acid are taught to include fumaric acid and sebacic acid ([0030]) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 7 and claim 8).
Similarly, the non-crystalline polyester resin is produced by polycondensing an alcohol component containing 70 mol% or more of an alkyleneoxide adduct of bisphenol A or an aliphatic diol having 2 to 10 carbon atoms with a carboxylic acid component containing 10 mol% or more of an aromatic dicarboxylic acid compound. The aromatic dicarboxylic acid compound is taught to preferably be terephthalic acid and is used in an amount of 60 to 90 mol% ([0047], [0053]) (which reads on the corresponding limitations recited in instant claim 1, claim 2, claim 4, claim 12, and claim 15).
The non-crystalline polyester resin is taught to further include a modified polyester resin in addition to the non-polyester resin component described above. Examples of the modified polyester resin are taught to include urethane-modified polyesters, epoxy-modified polyesters, and hybrid resins containing two or more kinds of resin components including the polyester component ([0055]-[0057]) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 17).
For instance, the non-crystalline polyester resin includes the polyester resin component and a hybrid resin composed of the polyester component and a vinyl-based resin component ([0057]). In other words, the polyester component of the hybrid resin also includes 70 mol% or more of the alkyleneoxide adduct of bisphenol A or an aliphatic diol having 2 to 10 carbon atoms (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 18). Additionally, the weight ratio of the polyester component to the vinyl-based component in the non-crystalline polyester is taught to be 55/45 to 95/5 ([0061]) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 19).
From the viewpoint of good fusing ability, the glass transition temperature of the non-crystalline resin is taught to be from 45 to 80 ºC, and preferably from 55 to 75 ºC ([0062]) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 16).
In both the crystalline polyester resin and the non-crystalline polyester resin, the aliphatic diol having is taught to preferably be an aliphatic diol having 3 to 6 carbon atoms and includes neopentyl glycol ([0021], [0050]) (which reads on the corresponding limitations recited in instant claim 1, claim 3, and claim 12). Additionally, the weight ratio of the crystalline polyester to the non-crystalline polyester is taught to be from 5/95 to 50/50, and preferably from 15/85 to 35/65, from the viewpoints of good low-temperature fusing ability and good storage stability ([0076]) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 9).
The toner is taught to preferably include a core-shell structure having a core portion obtained by subjecting an aqueous dispersion of the crystalline polyester and an aqueous dispersion of the non-crystalline polyester to aggregation, and a shell portion obtained from a non-crystalline polyester ([0125]) (which reads on the corresponding limitation recited in instant claim 11 and claim 20).
The toner production process is taught to include a first step of mixing an aqueous dispersion containing the crystalline polyester produced by polycondensing an alcohol component containing 70 mol% or more of an aliphatic diol having 2 to 8 carbon atoms with a carboxylic acid component containing 50 mol% or more of terephthalic acid with an aqueous dispersion containing the non-crystalline polyester to subject the dispersion to aggregation thereby obtaining an aqueous dispersion of resin particles A, a second step of mixing the aqueous dispersion of resin particles A obtained in the first step with an aqueous dispersion containing a non-crystalline polyester to subject the dispersions to aggregation, thereby obtaining an aqueous dispersion of resin particles B, and a third step of coalescing the resin particles B obtained in the second step ([0127]-[0130]). The shell portion including a non-crystalline polyester is taught to enhance the fusing ability of the toner and improve its pressure storage stability ([0131]) (which reads on the corresponding steps recited in instant claim 12 and claim 13).
The amount of the non-crystalline polyester used in the second step to form the shell is taught to be from 5 to 100 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the non-crystalline polyester used in the first step to form the core ([0134]).
In Example 14, the aggregated core particle dispersion had a total mass of about 543.5 g (including the polyester dispersions A and AA, colorant dispersion, wax dispersion, charge controlling agent dispersion, and cationic surfactant) and the shell resin particle dispersion had a total mass of about 50 g (including the polyester dispersion AA). Therefore, the ratio of the mass of the shell resin particle dispersion to the aggregated core particle dispersion was about 9.2% (which falls within the corresponding range recited in instant claim 14).
Shirai does not appear to teach an example of the non-crystalline polyester resin where neopentyl glycol (or another aliphatic diol having 5 or 6 carbon atoms and having an alkyl group on a side chain) was used in an amount of 60 mol% or more in the alcohol component. However, this does not necessarily constitute a teaching away from arriving at the claimed configuration.
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).”
Moreover, MPEP § 2144.05 states that “[D]ifferences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).”
As discussed above, Shirai explicitly states that the non-crystalline polyester resin includes an alcohol component containing 70 mol% or more of an aliphatic diol having 2 to 10 carbon atoms, or preferably 3 to 6 carbon atoms, and names neopentyl glycol as an example of such aliphatic diol.
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 experimented with different types of aliphatic diols, such as neopentyl glycol, in the non-crystalline resin of Shirai, in view of optimizing the fusing ability and pressure storage stability. Such experimentation would have routine and well within the purview of those skilled in the art.
Claims 11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizoguchi et al. (US PGP 2018/0267417 A1), in view of Shirai et al. (US PGP 2010/0055595 A1).
The teachings of Mizoguchi and Shirai are discussed above and incorporated herein. Mizoguchi appears to be silent to teach or suggest that the toner has a core-shell structure and therefore fails to teach a step of forming the shell and a mass ratio of the shell resin particles to the aggregated core particles.
As discussed above, Shirai teaches that the inclusion of a shell portion including a non-crystalline polyester enhances the fusing ability of the toner and improves its pressure storage stability ([0131]). Shirai also teaches a method of forming the shell portion by attaching aggregated shell resin particles containing a non-crystalline polyester resin to aggregated core resin particles in an aqueous dispersion, and further suggests a suitable amount of the non-crystalline polyester used in the shell forming step with respect to the mass of the core resin particles ([0127]-[0130], [0134]).
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 formed a shell over the core particles of Mizoguchi’s toner, using the method taught by Shirai, and to have adjusted the mass ratio of the shell to the core using the guidance of Shirai, in view of enhancing the fusing ability and pressure storage stability of the toner.
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura et al. (US PGP 2004/0132920 A1), in view of Shirai et al. (US PGP 2010/0055595 A1).
The teachings of Matsumura and Shirai are discussed above and incorporated herein. Matsumura appears to be silent to teach or suggest that the toner has a core-shell structure.
As discussed above, Shirai teaches that the inclusion of a shell portion including a non-crystalline polyester enhances the fusing ability of the toner and improves its pressure storage stability ([0131]).
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 formed a shell over the core particles of Matsumura’s toner, in view of enhancing the fusing ability and pressure storage stability of the toner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2009/0269691 Yamato et al. teaches a toner including a binder resin containing a polyester resin (1) and a polyester resin (2). In the examples, the polyester resin (2) of Example 2a contained 80.3 parts by mol (78.34 mol%) of neopentyl glycol and 22.2 parts by mol (21.66 mol%) of ethylene glycol in the alcohol component, and 80.0 parts by mol (80.00 mol%) of terephthalic acid and 20.0 parts by mol (20.00 mol%) of isophthalic acid in the acid component (Table 5).
Yamato teaches that the binder resin may include a crystalline polyester. However, from the viewpoint of achieving more favorable toner fixability, both the polyester resin (1) and the polyester resin (2) are taught to be amorphous polyester resins with no melting point ([0081]).
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
09/10/2026
Prosecution Insights