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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 6-10, and 14-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, and 9-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,596,313 in view of Kudo (US 6316155).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, the ‘313 Patent claims An electrostatic charge image developing green toner comprising: green toner particles containing a binder resin, an azomethine fluorescent pigment having an emission peak in a wavelength region of 500 nm or more and 550 nm or less in an emission spectrum, and a non-fluorescent pigment having a reflection peak in a wavelength region of 480 nm or more and 540 nm or less in a reflection spectrum, wherein a mass-based ratio M2/M1 of a content M2 of the non-fluorescent pigment to a content M1 of the azomethine fluorescent pigment is 0.05 or more and 1.5 or less, a total content of the azomethine fluorescent pigment and the non-fluorescent pigment with respect to a total amount of the green toner particles is 5% by mass or more and 15% by mass or less, and wherein the non-fluorescent pigment is at least one kind of pigment selected from the group consisting of C.I. Pigment Green 7, C.I. Pigment Green 36, C.I. Pigment Green 58, and C.I. Pigment Green 59. (claim 1)
While the ‘313 Patent doesn’t specifically claim the mass proportion of the azomethine fluorescent pigment in the toner, the total amount of fluorescent and non-fluorescent pigment is claimed, and the ratio of non-fluorescent to fluorescent is claimed. Therefore, the amount of azomethine fluorescent pigment, M1, can be calculated is in the range of M2/M1 = 0.05-1.5, or M2 = 0.05*M1 to 1.5*M1. The total amount of pigment is therefore (1+0.05)*M1 to (1+1.5)*M1, or 1.05*M1 to 2.5*M1, giving a range for M1 of 5 mass% = 2.5*M1, or 2 mass% = M1 to 15 mass% = 1.05*M1, or 14.29 mass% =M1. However, the ‘313 Patent does not claim silica particles externally added to the toner.
Kudo teaches a toner comprising silica particles as an external additive, with an average primary particle size of 0.01-5 µm (aka 10-5000 nm) (abstract, Col 1 line 54 to Col 2 line 19). Kudo further teaches the particle diameter is preferably 0.05-0.5 µm (aka 50-500 nm), and improves anti-caking and fixing properties of the toner, while preventing damage or adhesion to the photoreceptor (Col 4 line 66 to Col 5 line 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to ensure the toner of the ‘313 Patent includes silica external additives with a particle diameter of 50-500nm, as taught by Kudo, to improve anti-caking and fixing properties, while preventing damage and adhesion to the photoreceptor.
Regarding claim 2, the modified ‘313 Patent claims all limitations as set forth above. The mass proportion is calculated as M1/(M1+M2)*100. As indicated above, M2 = 0.05*M1 to 1.5*M1. Therefore the mass proportion is M1/ ((1+0.05)*M1)*100 to M1/((1+1.5)*M1)*100 = 95.24 to 40 mass%.
Regarding claim 3, the modified ‘313 Patent claims all limitations as set forth above. Kudo further teaches the silica external additives are added in an amount of preferably 0.1-5 parts by weight per 100 parts of toner particles (Col 5 line 12-20).
Regarding claim 6, the modified ‘313 Patent claims all limitations as set forth above. The ‘313 Patent further claims The electrostatic charge image developing green toner according to claim 1, wherein the azomethine fluorescent pigment is C.I. Pigment Yellow 101. (Claim 5)
Regarding claims 8-10 and 14, the modified ‘313 Patent claims all limitations as set forth above. The ‘313 Patent further claims An electrostatic charge image developer comprising: the electrostatic charge image developing green toner according to claim 1. (claim 9)
Regarding claim 15, the modified ‘313 Patent claims all limitations as set forth above. The ‘313 Patent further claims A toner cartridge comprising: a container that contains the electrostatic charge image developing green toner according to claim 1, wherein the toner cartridge is detachable from an image forming apparatus. (claim 11).
Regarding claim 16, the modified ‘313 Patent claims all limitations as set forth above. The ‘313 Patent further claims A process cartridge comprising: a developing unit that contains the electrostatic charge image developer according to claim 9 and develops an electrostatic charge image formed on a surface of an image holder as a toner image by using the electrostatic charge image developer, wherein the process cartridge is detachable from an image forming apparatus. (Claim 12)
Regarding claim 17, the modified ‘313 Patent claims all limitations as set forth above. The ‘313 Patent further claims An image forming apparatus comprising: an image holder; a charging unit that charges a surface of the image holder; an electrostatic charge image forming unit that forms an electrostatic charge image on the charged surface of the image holder; a developing unit that contains the electrostatic charge image developer according to claim 9 and develops the electrostatic charge image formed on the surface of the image holder as a toner image by using the electrostatic charge image developer; a transfer unit that transfers the toner image formed on the surface of the image holder to a surface of a recording medium; and a fixing unit that fixes the toner image transferred to the surface of the recording medium. (claim 13)
Regarding claim 18, the modified ‘313 Patent claims all limitations as set forth above. The ‘313 Patent further claims An image forming method comprising: charging a surface of an image holder; forming an electrostatic charge image on the charged surface of the image holder; developing the electrostatic charge image formed on the surface of the image holder as a toner image by using the electrostatic charge image developer according to claim 9; transferring the toner image formed on the surface of the image holder to a surface of a recording medium; and fixing the toner image transferred to the surface of the recording medium. (claim 14).
Regarding claim 19, the modified ‘313 Patent claims all limitations as set forth above. The ‘313 Patent further claims An image forming apparatus comprising: a plurality of electrophotographic image forming units, wherein the plurality of electrophotographic image forming units comprises a pink image forming electrophotographic image forming unit, a yellow image forming electrophotographic image forming unit, a magenta image forming electrophotographic image forming unit, a cyan image forming electrophotographic image forming unit, a black image forming electrophotographic image forming unit and a green image forming electrophotographic image forming unit, wherein each of the plurality of electrophotographic image forming units comprises: an image holder; a charging unit that charges a surface of the image holder; an electrostatic charge image forming unit that forms an electrostatic charge image on the charged surface of the image holder; a developing unit that contains an electrostatic charge image developer and develops the electrostatic charge image formed on the surface of the image holder as a toner image; a transfer unit that transfers the toner image formed on the surface of the image holder to a surface of a recording medium; and a fixing unit that fixes the toner image transferred to the surface of the recording medium, wherein the green image forming electrophotographic image forming unit contains the electrostatic charge image developer according to claim 9. (claim 15)
Regarding claim 20, the modified ‘313 Patent claims all limitations as set forth above. The ‘313 Patent further claims An image forming method comprising: forming a plurality of electrophotographic images, wherein the plurality of electrophotographic image comprises a pink electrophotographic image, a yellow electrophotographic image, a magenta electrophotographic image, a cyan electrophotographic image, a black electrophotographic image and a green electrophotographic image, wherein forming the green electrophotographic image comprises: a charging step of charging a surface of an image holder; an electrostatic charge image forming step of forming an electrostatic charge image on the charged surface of the image holder; a developing step of developing the electrostatic charge image formed on the surface of the image holder as a toner image by using the electrostatic charge image developer according to claim 9; a transfer step of transferring the toner image formed on the surface of the image holder to a surface of a recording medium; and a fixing step of fixing the toner image transferred to the surface of the recording medium wherein electrostatic charge image developer according to claim 13 is used in forming the green electrophotographic image. (Claim 16)
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,132. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims overlaps the scope of the Instant Claims.
Regarding claim 1, the ‘132 Patent claims A green toner for electrostatic charge image development, comprising: green toner particles containing a binder resin, an azomethine fluorescent pigment having an emission peak in a wavelength region of 500 nm or more and 550 nm or less in an emission spectrum, and a non-fluorescent pigment having a reflection peak in a wavelength region of 480 nm or more and 540 nm or less in a reflection spectrum, wherein a mass proportion of the azomethine fluorescent pigment in the green toner particles is 3% by mass or more and 10% by mass or less and a mass ratio M1/M2 of a content M1 of the azomethine fluorescent pigment to a content M2 of the non-fluorescent pigment is 1 or more and 5 or less; and oil-treated silica particles externally added to the green toner particles. (claim 1). The ‘132 Patent further claims The green toner for electrostatic charge image development according to claim 1, wherein the oil-treated silica particles have an average primary particle size of 15 nm or more and 200 nm or less. (claim 4).
Regarding claim 2, the ‘132 Patent claims all limitations as set forth above. The ‘132 Patent does not specifically claim the mass proportion of the azomethine fluorescent pigment to the total of the azomethine fluorescent pigment and non-fluorescent pigment. However, the mass ratio M1/M2 is claimed to be in the range of 1-5, wherein M1 is the content of the azomethine fluorescent pigment and M2 is the content of the nonfluorescent pigment. Therefore, M1/M2 = 1 to M1/M2 = 5, or M1 = M2 to 5*M2, or M2 = 0.2M1 to M1. This results in a mass proportion of M1/(M1+M1)*100 to M1/(M1+0.2*M1)*100, or 50-83.33 mass%.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, and 15-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 10-12, and 15-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,393,132 in view of Kudo (US 6316155).
Regarding claim 1, the ‘132 Patent claims A green toner for electrostatic charge image development, comprising: green toner particles containing a binder resin, an azomethine fluorescent pigment having an emission peak in a wavelength region of 500 nm or more and 550 nm or less in an emission spectrum, and a non-fluorescent pigment having a reflection peak in a wavelength region of 480 nm or more and 540 nm or less in a reflection spectrum, wherein a mass proportion of the azomethine fluorescent pigment in the green toner particles is 3% by mass or more and 10% by mass or less and a mass ratio M1/M2 of a content M1 of the azomethine fluorescent pigment to a content M2 of the non-fluorescent pigment is 1 or more and 5 or less; and oil-treated silica particles externally added to the green toner particles. (claim 1). The ‘132 Patent does not specifically claim the silica particles externally added to the toner have an average primary particles size of 50-350 nm.
Kudo teaches a toner comprising silica particles as an external additive, with an average primary particle size of 0.01-5 µm (aka 10-5000 nm) (abstract, Col 1 line 54 to Col 2 line 19). Kudo further teaches the particle diameter is preferably 0.05-0.5 µm (aka 50-500 nm), and improves anti-caking and fixing properties of the toner, while preventing damage or adhesion to the photoreceptor (Col 4 line 66 to Col 5 line 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to ensure the toner of the ‘132 Patent includes silica external additives with a particle diameter of 50-500nm, as taught by Kudo, to improve anti-caking and fixing properties, while preventing damage and adhesion to the photoreceptor.
Regarding claim 2, the modified ‘132 Patent claims all limitations as set forth above. The ‘132 Patent does not specifically claim the mass proportion of the azomethine fluorescent pigment to the total of the azomethine fluorescent pigment and non-fluorescent pigment. However, the mass ratio M1/M2 is claimed to be in the range of 1-5, wherein M1 is the content of the azomethine fluorescent pigment and M2 is the content of the nonfluorescent pigment. Therefore, M1/M2 = 1 to M1/M2 = 5, or M1 = M2 to 5*M2, or M2 = 0.2M1 to M1. This results in a mass proportion of M1/(M1+M1)*100 to M1/(M1+0.2*M1)*100, or 50-83.33 mass%.
Regarding claim 3, the modified ‘132 Patent claims all limitations as set forth above. The ‘132 Patent further claims The green toner for electrostatic charge image development according to claim 1, wherein the oil-treated silica particles are contained in an amount of 0.5 parts by mass or more and 5 parts by mass or less with respect to 100 parts by mass of the green toner particles. (claim 7)
Regarding claim 6, the modified ‘132 Patent claims all limitations as set forth above. The ‘132 Patent further claims The green toner for electrostatic charge image development according to claim 1, wherein the azomethine fluorescent pigment is C.I. Pigment Yellow 101. (claim 10)
Regarding claim 7, the modified ‘132 Patent claims all limitations as set forth above. The ‘132 Patent further claims The green toner for electrostatic charge image development according to claim 1, wherein the non-fluorescent pigment is at least one selected from the group consisting of C.I. Pigment Green 7, C.I. Pigment Green 36, C.I. Pigment Green 58, C.I. Pigment Green 59, and C.I. Pigment Blue 76. (claim 11)
Regarding claims 8-9, the modified ‘132 Patent claims all limitations as set forth above. The ‘132 Patent further claims An electrostatic charge image developer comprising the green toner for electrostatic charge image development according to claim 1. (claim 12)
Regarding claim 15, the modified ‘132 Patent claims all limitations as set forth above. The ‘132 Patent further claims A toner cartridge comprising the green toner for electrostatic charge image development according to claim 1, the toner cartridge being detachably attached to an image forming apparatus. (claim 15)
Regarding claim 16, the modified ‘132 Patent claims all limitations as set forth above. The ‘132 Patent further claims A process cartridge comprising:
a developing unit that contains the electrostatic charge image developer according to claim 12 and develops an electrostatic charge image formed on a surface of an image holding member into a toner image with the electrostatic charge image developer, the process cartridge being detachably attached to an image forming apparatus. (claim 16)
Regarding claim 17, the modified ‘132 Patent claims all limitations as set forth above. The ‘132 Patent further claims An image forming apparatus comprising: an image holding member;
a charging unit that charges a surface of the image holding member; an electrostatic charge image forming unit that forms an electrostatic charge image on the charged surface of the image holding member; a developing unit that contains the electrostatic charge image developer according to claim 12 and develops the electrostatic charge image formed on the surface of the image holding member into a toner image with the electrostatic charge image developer; a transfer unit that transfers the toner image formed on the surface of the image holding member onto a surface of a recording medium; and a fixing unit that fixes the toner image transferred on the surface of the recording medium. (claim 17)
Regarding claim 18, the modified ‘132 Patent claims all limitations as set forth above. The ‘132 Patent further claims An image forming method comprising: charging a surface of an image holding member; forming an electrostatic charge image on the charged surface of the image holding member; developing the electrostatic charge image formed on the surface of the image holding member into a toner image with the electrostatic charge image developer according to claim 12; transferring the toner image formed on the surface of the image holding member onto a surface of a recording medium; and fixing the toner image transferred on the surface of the recording medium. (claim 18
Regarding claim 19, the modified ‘132 Patent claims all limitations as set forth above. The ‘132 Patent further claims An image forming apparatus comprising: first to sixth electrophotographic image forming units that form images in respective colors of pink, yellow, magenta, cyan, black, and green, wherein the image forming unit that forms the green image accommodates the electrostatic charge image developer according to claim 12. (claim 19)
Regarding claim 20, the modified ‘132 Patent claims all limitations as set forth above. The ‘132 Patent further claims An image forming method comprising: first to sixth electrophotographic image forming steps of forming images in respective colors of pink, yellow, magenta, cyan, black, and green, wherein the electrostatic charge image developer according to claim 12 is used for forming the green image. (claim 20)
Claims 1-3, 6-10, and 15-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9-11, and 15-20 of copending Application No. 18/646,106 in view of Kudo (US 6313155).
Regarding claim 1, the ‘106 Application claims A green toner for electrostatic charge image development, the green toner comprising: green toner particles; and a lubricant externally added to the green toner particles, the green toner particles containing: a binder resin; an azomethine fluorescent pigment having an emission peak in a region of wavelengths of 500 nm or more and 550 nm or less of an emission spectrum; and a non-fluorescent pigment having a reflection peak in a region of wavelengths of 480 nm or more and 540 nm or less of a reflection spectrum, wherein a mass proportion of the azomethine fluorescent pigment in the green toner particles is 3% by mass or more and 10% by mass or less, and a mass-based ratio M1/M2 of a content M1 of the azomethine fluorescent pigment to a content M2 of the non-fluorescent pigment is 1 or more and 5 or less. (Claim 1) However, the ‘106 Application does not claim silica particles externally added to the toner, with an average primary particle size of 50-350 nm.
Kudo teaches a toner comprising silica particles as an external additive, with an average primary particle size of 0.01-5 µm (aka 10-5000 nm) (abstract, Col 1 line 54 to Col 2 line 19). Kudo further teaches the particle diameter is preferably 0.05-0.5 µm (aka 50-500 nm), and improves anti-caking and fixing properties of the toner, while preventing damage or adhesion to the photoreceptor (Col 4 line 66 to Col 5 line 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to ensure the toner of the ‘106 Application includes silica external additives with a particle diameter of 50-500nm, as taught by Kudo, to improve anti-caking and fixing properties, while preventing damage and adhesion to the photoreceptor.
Regarding claim 2, the modified ‘106 Application claims all limitations as set forth above. The ‘106 Application does not specifically claim the mass proportion of the azomethine fluorescent pigment to the total of the azomethine fluorescent pigment and non-fluorescent pigment. However, the mass ratio M1/M2 is claimed to be in the range of 1-5, wherein M1 is the content of the azomethine fluorescent pigment and M2 is the content of the nonfluorescent pigment. Therefore, M1/M2 = 1 to M1/M2 = 5, or M1 = M2 to 5*M2, or M2 = 0.2M1 to M1. This results in a mass proportion of M1/(M1+M1)*100 to M1/(M1+0.2*M1)*100, or 50-83.33 mass%.
Regarding claim 3, the modified ‘106 Application claims all limitations as set forth above. Kudo further teaches the silica external additives are added in an amount of preferably 0.1-5 parts by weight per 100 parts of toner particles (Col 5 line 12-20).
Regarding claim 6, the modified ‘106 Application claims all limitations as set forth above. The ‘106 Application further claims The green toner for electrostatic charge image development according to claim 1, wherein the azomethine fluorescent pigment is C. I. Pigment Yellow 101. (claim 9)
Regarding claim 7, the modified ‘106 Application claims all limitations as set forth above. The ‘106 Application further claims The green toner for electrostatic charge image development according to claim 1, wherein the non-fluorescent pigment is at least one selected from the group consisting of C. I. Pigment Green 36, C. I. Pigment Green 7, C. I. Pigment Green 58, C. I. Pigment Green 59, and C. I. Pigment Blue 76. (claim 10)
Regarding claims 8-10, the modified ‘106 Application claims all limitations as set forth above. The ‘106 Application further claims An electrostatic charge image developer comprising the green toner for electrostatic charge image development according to claim 1. (claim 11)
Regarding claim 15, the modified ‘106 Application claims all limitations as set forth above. The ‘106 Application further claims A toner cartridge containing the green toner for electrostatic charge image development according to claim 1, the toner cartridge being detachably attached to an image forming apparatus. (claim 15)
Regarding claim 16, the modified ‘106 Application claims all limitations as set forth above. The ‘106 Application further claims A process cartridge containing the electrostatic charge image developer according to claim 11, the process cartridge comprising a developing unit that develops, as a toner image, an electrostatic charge image formed on a surface of an imaging holding member by using the electrostatic charge image developer, the process cartridge being detachably attached to an image forming apparatus. (claim 16)
Regarding claim 17, the modified ‘106 Application claims all limitations as set forth above. The ‘106 Application further claims An image forming apparatus comprising: an image holding member; a charging unit that charges a surface of the image holding member; an electrostatic charge image forming unit that forms an electrostatic charge image on the surface of the image holding member that has been charged; a developing unit that contains the electrostatic charge image developer according to claim 11 and develops, as a toner image, the electrostatic charge image formed on the surface of the image holding member by using the electrostatic charge image developer; a transfer unit that transfers the toner image formed on the surface of the image holding member onto a surface of a recording medium; and a fixing unit that fixes the toner image transferred onto the surface of the recording medium. (claim 17)
Regarding claim 18, the modified ‘106 Application claims all limitations as set forth above. The ‘106 Application further claims An image forming method comprising: charging a surface of an image holder; forming an electrostatic charge image on the surface of the image holder that has been charged; developing, as a toner image, the electrostatic charge image formed on the surface of the image holder by using the electrostatic charge image developer according to claim 11; transferring the toner image formed on the surface of the image holder onto a surface of a recording medium; and fixing the toner image transferred onto the surface of the recording medium. (claim 18)
Regarding claim 19, the modified ‘106 Application claims all limitations as set forth above. The ‘106 Application further claims An image forming apparatus comprising first to sixth image forming units of an electrophotographic type that form images of colors of pink, yellow, magenta, cyan, black, and green, respectively, wherein the image forming unit that forms a green image contains the electrostatic charge image developer according to claim 11. (claim 19)
Regarding claim 20, the modified ‘106 Application claims all limitations as set forth above. The ‘106 Application further claims An image forming method comprising forming first to sixth images of an electrophotographic type in which images of colors of pink, yellow, magenta, cyan, black, and green are respectively formed, wherein the electrostatic charge image developer according to claim 11 is used in forming the image of green. (claim 20)
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1 and 3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of copending Application No. 19/311,869 in view of Kudo (US 6316155).
Regarding claim 1, the ‘869 Application claims A toner for developing an electrostatic charge image, the toner comprising: a toner particle containing: a binder resin; and a pigment containing a fluorescent organic pigment, wherein an amount of the pigment contained relative to the toner particle is 4.0 mass% or more and 20.0 mass% or less, the toner particle has a water absorption of 1.0% or less, at least part of the pigment is exposed in a surface of the toner particle, and 20% or more of the pigment exposed in the surface of the toner particle is covered with an oil. (claim 1). The toner for developing an electrostatic charge image according to claim 1, wherein the fluorescent organic pigment contains an azomethine compound having an emission peak wavelength of 500 nm or more and 550 nm or less. (claim 2). The toner for developing an electrostatic charge image according to claim 2, wherein the pigment further contains a non-fluorescent organic pigment having a reflection peak wavelength of 480 nm or more and 540 nm or less. (claim 3). However, the ‘869 Application does not claim silica particles externally added to the toner particles, the silica particles having an average primary particle size of 50-350 nm.
Kudo teaches a toner comprising silica particles as an external additive, with an average primary particle size of 0.01-5 µm (aka 10-5000 nm) (abstract, Col 1 line 54 to Col 2 line 19). Kudo further teaches the particle diameter is preferably 0.05-0.5 µm (aka 50-500 nm), and improves anti-caking and fixing properties of the toner, while preventing damage or adhesion to the photoreceptor (Col 4 line 66 to Col 5 line 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to ensure the toner of the ‘869 Application includes silica external additives with a particle diameter of 50-500nm, as taught by Kudo, to improve anti-caking and fixing properties, while preventing damage and adhesion to the photoreceptor.
Regarding claim 3, the modified ‘869 Application claims all limitations as set forth above. Kudo further teaches the silica external additives are added in an amount of preferably 0.1-5 parts by weight per 100 parts of toner particles (Col 5 line 12-20).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 15-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nakamura (US 12596313) .
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claims 15-16, Nakamura discloses a process cartridge and toner cartridge, both detachable from the image forming apparatus. The process cartridge contains the electrostatic charge image developer of the invention, and develops the electrostatic image formed on the surface of an image holder as a toner image using the developer. The toner cartridge includes a container that contains the green toner of the invention (Col 22 line 32 to Col 23 line 15, Fig. 1 and 2, claims 15-16).
The applicant has recited the apparatus, toner cartridge, and process cartridge claims as also containing or comprising the toner and/or developer of pending claims 1 and 8. 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.
Regarding claims 17 and 19, Nakamura discloses all limitations as set forth above. Nakamura further discloses an image forming apparatus which includes an image holder, a charging unit that charges the surface of the image holder, an electrostatic charge image forming unit that forms an electrostatic charge image on the charged surface of the image holder, a developing unit that contains the electrostatic charge image developer and develops the electrostatic charge image formed on the surface of the image holder as a toner image by using the electrostatic charge image developer, a transfer unit that transfers the toner image formed on the surface of the image holder to the surface of a recording medium, and a fixing unit that fixes the toner image transferred to the surface of the recording medium (Col 18 line 30-49). Nakamura further discloses the image forming apparatus includes a first to sixth image forming units, including pink, yellow, magenta, cyan, black, and green. The image forming apparatus includes the process cartridge that contains the developer of the invention (Col 19 line 27-64, Fig 1, claims 17 and 19 )
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kembo (US 20210253750).
Regarding claims 15-16, Kembo discloses a process cartridge and toner cartridge, each attachable and detachable from an image forming apparatus. The toner cartridge contains the resin particles as a toner, and the process cartridge contains the developer comprising the resin particles, and develops an electrostatic image formed on the surface of an image carrier with the developer ([0264]-[0271]).
Regarding claim 17, Kembo discloses all limitations as set forth above. Kembo further discloses an image forming apparatus including an image carrier, a charging unit to charge the surface of the image carrier, an electrostatic image forming unit that forms an electrostatic image on the charged surface of the image carrier, a developing unit that contains an electrostatic image developer and that develops the electrostatic image formed on the surface of the image carrier by using the electrostatic image developer to form a toner image, a transfer unit that transfers the toner image formed of the surface of the image carrier onto a surface of a recording medium, and a fixing unit that fixes the toner image transferred onto the surface of the recording medium ([0239]).
The applicant has recited the apparatus, toner cartridge, and process cartridge claims as also containing or comprising the toner and/or developer of pending claims 1 and 8. 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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gerrits (US 20050195420).
Regarding claim 19, Gerrits discloses most image reproducing systems employ a three color, cyan, magenta, and yellow system with black, but notes that this restricts the color gamut of the images which are produced ([0008]). Gerrits further discloses by adding more colors the color gamut can be extended ([0008]). Gerrits discloses a system and method for multi color image reproduction with at least five color, with limited sensitivity for graininess even with low image densities ([0013]). Gerrits further discloses secondary colors are selected from the colors red, orange, green, blue, pink, and brown, to be combined with the standard cyan, magenta, yellow, and black ([0017], claim 2, 11). Gerrits further discloses several examples comprising 5 to 7 colors ([0036], [0041], [0044], [0049]). Gerrits further discloses the images are formed using an electrophotographic image apparatus ([0040]).
The applicant has recited the apparatus, toner cartridge, and process cartridge claims as also containing or comprising the developer of pending claim 8. 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 1-3, 6-10, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Nakamura (US 12596313) in view of Kudo (US 6316155).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Nakamura discloses an electrostatic charge image developing green toner comprising green toner particles containing a binder resin, an azomethine fluorescent pigment having an emission peak in a wavelength region of 500 nm or more and 550 nm or less in an emission spectrum, and a non-fluorescent pigment having a reflection peak in a wavelength region of 480 nm or more and 540 nm or less in a reflection spectrum, in which a mass-based ratio M2/M1 of a content M2 of the non-fluorescent pigment to a content M1 of the azomethine fluorescent pigment is 0.05 or more and 1.5 or less, and a total content of the azomethine fluorescent pigment and the non-fluorescent pigment with respect to a total amount of the green toner particles is 5% by mass or more and 15% by mass or less (abstract, Col 2 line 44-61, claim 1). While Nakamura doesn’t specifically disclose the mass proportion of the azomethine fluorescent pigment in the toner, the total amount of fluorescent and non-fluorescent pigment, and the ratio of non-fluorescent to fluorescent is disclosed. Therefore, the amount of azomethine fluorescent pigment, M1, can be calculated. The disclosed mass ratio M2/M1 is equal to 0.05-1.5, and therefore M2 = 0.05*M1 to 1.5*M1. The total amount of azomethine fluorescent pigment is therefore (1+0.05)*M1 to (1+1.5)*M1, or 1.05*M1 to 2.5*M1, giving a range for M1 of 5 mass% = 2.5*M1 to 15 mass% = 1.05*M1, or 2 mass% to 14.29 mass%. Nakamura further discloses the toner may include external additives selected from a group including SiO2 (aka silica), in an amount of 0.01-5% by mass with respect to the toner particles (Col 12 line 51 to Col 13 line 15). Furthermore Nakamura discloses hydrophobic silica particles, are added to the green toner particles in an amount of 1.5 parts per 100 parts of toner particles (Col 26 line 60-67). However, the particle size of the silica particles is not disclosed.
Kudo teaches a toner comprising silica particles as an external additive, with an average primary particle size of 0.01-5 µm (aka 10-5000 nm) (abstract, Col 1 line 54 to Col 2 line 19). Kudo further teaches the particle diameter is preferably 0.05-0.5 µm (aka 50-500 nm), and improves anti-caking and fixing properties of the toner, while preventing damage or adhesion to the photoreceptor (Col 4 line 66 to Col 5 line 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to ensure the toner Nakamura includes silica external additives with a particle diameter of 50-500nm, as taught by Kudo, to improve anti-caking and fixing properties, while preventing damage and adhesion to the photoreceptor.
Regarding claim 2, modified Nakamura discloses all limitations as set forth above. Nakamura does not specifically disclose the mass proportion of the azomethine fluorescent pigment to the total of the azomethine fluorescent pigment and non-fluorescent pigment. However, as indicated above Nakamura discloses the mass ratio of non-fluorescent pigment, M2 to azomethine fluorescent pigment, M1, as M2/M1 = 0.05 to 1.5 (abstract, Col 2 line 44-61, claim 1). Therefore, M2 = 0.05*M1 to 1.5*M1, resulting in a mass proportion of azomethine fluorescent pigment of M1/((1+1.5)*M1)*100 to M1/((1+0.05)*M1)*100, or 40-95.24 mass%.
Regarding claim 6, modified Nakamura discloses all limitations as set forth above. Nakamura further discloses CI Pigment Yellow 101 is the preferred azomethine fluorescent pigment (Col 8 line 8-10, claim 5).
Regarding claim 7 modified Nakamura discloses all limitations as set forth above. Nakamura further discloses the non-fluorescent pigment is at least one of CI Pigment Green 7, CI Pigment Green 36, CI Pigment Green 58, and/or CI Pigment Green 59 ( Col 8 line 44-55, claim 1).
Regarding claims 8-10 and 13-14, modified Nakamura discloses all limitations as set forth above. Nakamura further discloses an electrostatic charge image developer which contains the green toner of the invention (Col 17 line 37-46).
Regarding claims 15-16, modified Nakamura discloses all limitations as set forth above. Assuming arguendo that the toner and/or developer are material limitations of the image forming apparatus, toner cartridge, and process cartridge, Nakamura further discloses a process cartridge and toner cartridge, both detachable from the image forming apparatus. The process cartridge contains the electrostatic charge image developer of the invention, and develops the electrostatic image formed on the surface of an image holder as a toner image using the developer. The toner cartridge includes a container that contains the green toner of the invention (Col 22 line 32 to Col 23 line 15, Fig. 1 and 2, claims 15-16).
Regarding claims 17 and 19, modified Nakamura discloses all limitations as set forth above. Nakamura further discloses an image forming apparatus which includes an image holder, a charging unit that charges the surface of the image holder, an electrostatic charge image forming unit that forms an electrostatic charge image on the charged surface of the image holder, a developing unit that contains the electrostatic charge image developer and develops the electrostatic charge image formed on the surface of the image holder as a toner image by using the electrostatic charge image developer, a transfer unit that transfers the toner image formed on the surface of the image holder to the surface of a recording medium, and a fixing unit that fixes the toner image transferred to the surface of the recording medium (Col 18 line 30-49). Nakamura further discloses the image forming apparatus includes a first to sixth image forming units, including pink, yellow, magenta, cyan, black, and green. The image forming apparatus includes the process cartridge that contains the developer of the invention (Col 19 line 27-64, Fig 1, claims 17 and 19 )
Regarding claims 18 and 20, modified Nakamura discloses all limitations as set forth above. Nakamura further discloses an image forming method which has a charging step of charging the surface of the image holder, an electrostatic charge image forming step of forming an electrostatic charge image on the charged surface of the image holder, a developing step of developing the electrostatic charge image formed on the surface of the image holder as a toner image by using the above electrostatic charge image developer, a transfer step of transferring the toner image formed on the surface of the image holder to the surface of a recording medium, and a fixing step of fixing the toner image transferred to the surface of the recording medium (Col 18, line 50-64, Claim 18). Nakamura further discloses the image forming method comprises forming first to sixth electrophotographic images, one for each of the colors pink, yellow, magenta, cyan, black, and green, with green being formed using the developer above (Col 37 line 26-31, claim 20).
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kembo (US 20210253750) in view of Kudo (US 6316155).
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 6-7, Kembo discloses a resin particle including a fluorescent colorant and a color pigment, the fluorescent colorant and the color pigment have different hue angles (abstract, [0007]). Kembo further discloses the content of fluorescent color is 0.01-20 % by mass of the particle ([0049]). Kembo further lists CI Pigment Yellow 101 as a viable fluorescent colorant ([0044], [0072]). Kembo further discloses CI Pigment Green 7 and 36, as well as other phthalocyanine green based pigments as useful color pigments ([0052], [0083]). Kembo further discloses the resin particles are suitably used as toner for electrostatic image development ([0183]). Kembo further discloses external additives may be added to the resin particles, including silica particles, in the amount of 0.01-10 % by mass of the base resin particle ([0176]-[0182]). However, Kembo does not disclose the average particle size of the external additives.
Kudo teaches a toner comprising silica particles as an external additive, with an average primary particle size of 0.01-5 µm (aka 10-5000 nm) (abstract, Col 1 line 54 to Col 2 line 19). Kudo further teaches the particle diameter is preferably 0.05-0.5 µm (aka 50-500 nm), and improves anti-caking and fixing properties of the toner, while preventing damage or adhesion to the photoreceptor (Col 4 line 66 to Col 5 line 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to ensure the toner Kembo includes silica external additives with a particle diameter of 50-500nm, as taught by Kudo, to improve anti-caking and fixing properties, while preventing damage and adhesion to the photoreceptor.
Regarding claim 2, modified Kembo discloses all limitations as set forth above. Kembo further discloses a ratio WB/WA, of the content of the color pigment, WB, to the content of the fluorescent colorant, WA, is 0.001-10, preferably 0.1-1.5 ([0057]). In other words, preferably WB = 0.1*WA to 1.5*WA, giving a mass proportion of the fluorescent pigment of WA/(WA+1.5*WA)*100 to WA/(WA+0.1*WA)*100, or 40-90.1 mass%.
Regarding claims 4-5, modified Kembo discloses all limitations as set forth above. Kembo does not disclose the amount of silica particles detached from the toner particles when dispersed in water containing a surfactant, or the amount of silica particles that are not detache3d when the toner particles are dispersed in water and sonicated. However, Kembo does disclose a method of preparing the toner with silica as an external additive, including mixing at 10,000 RPM for 30 seconds in a sample mill ([0303]). This method of attaching the silica is identical to that of the Examples 1-3 and Comparative Examples 1 and 2 in the Instant Application (Instant Specification [0178]-[0179], page 37). Furthermore, the Instant Application defines the silica particles which detach when the toner is dispersed in water containing a surfactant as “weakly attached silica particles”, and the silica particles that are not detached after the sonication treatment as “strongly attached silica particles” (Instant Specification [0086], page 17, [0089], page 18). The Instant Application further states, “the proportion of weakly attached silica particles and the proportion of strongly attached silica particles can be controlled by adjusting the rotation speed and/or rotation time of a blender or mixer when green toner particles and the silica particles are mixed” (Instant Specification [0092], page 19). Therefore one of skill in the art would expect the toner of Kembo would have the same proportion of weakly and strongly attached silica particles as Examples 1-3, and Comparative Examples 1 and 2 of the Instant Application, which all have a proportion of weakly attached silica particles of 20 mass%, and a proportion of strongly attached silica particles of 4 mass% (Instant Specification Table 2, page 41).
Regarding claims 8-14, modified Kembo discloses all limitations as set forth above. Kembo further discloses the resin particle is used as an electrostatic image developer ([0231]).
Regarding claims 15-16, modified Kembo discloses all limitations as set forth above. Assuming arguendo that the toner and/or developer are material limitations of the image forming apparatus, toner cartridge, and process cartridge, Kembo further discloses a process cartridge and toner cartridge, each attachable and detachable from an image forming apparatus. The toner cartridge contains the resin particles as a toner, and the process cartridge contains the developer comprising the resin particles, and develops an electrostatic image formed on the surface of an image carrier with the developer ([0264]-[0271]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Kembo discloses all limitations as set forth above. Assuming arguendo that the toner and/or developer are material limitations of the image forming apparatus, toner cartridge, and process cartridge, Kembo further discloses an image forming apparatus including an image carrier, a charging unit to charge the surface of the image carrier, an electrostatic image forming unit that forms an electrostatic image on the charged surface of the image carrier, a developing unit that contains an electrostatic image developer and that develops the electrostatic image formed on the surface of the image carrier by using the electrostatic image developer to form a toner image, a transfer unit that transfers the toner image formed of the surface of the image carrier onto a surface of a recording medium, and a fixing unit that fixes the toner image transferred onto the surface of the recording medium ([0239]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Kembo discloses all limitations as set forth above. Kembo further discloses an image forming method comprising a charging step of charging a surface of an image carrier, an electrostatic image-forming step of forming an electrostatic image on the charged surface of the image carrier, a development step of developing the electrostatic image formed on the surface of the image carrier by using an electrostatic image developer including the resin particles according to the exemplary embodiment to form a toner image, a transfer step of transferring the toner image formed on the surface of the image carrier onto a surface of a recording medium, and a fixing step of fixing the toner image transferred onto the surface of the recording medium ([0240]).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kembo (US 20210253750) in view of Kudo (US 6316155) as applied to claims 1-18 above, and further in view of Gerrits (US 20050195420).
Regarding claims 19-20, modified Kembo discloses all limitations as set forth above. However, Kembo does not disclose an image forming apparatus or method comprising a first to sixth electrophotographic image forming units/steps.
Gerrits teaches most image reproducing systems employ a three color, cyan, magenta, and yellow system with black, but notes that this restricts the color gamut of the images which are produced ([0008]). Gerrits further teaches by adding more colors the color gamut can be extended ([0008]). Gerrits teaches a system and method for multi color image reproduction with at least five color, with limited sensitivity for graininess even with low image densities ([0013]). Gerrits further teaches secondary colors are selected from the colors red, orange, green, blue, pink, and brown, to be combined with the standard cyan, magenta, yellow, and black ([0017], claim 2, 11). Gerrits further teaches several examples comprising 5 to 7 colors ([0036], [0041], [0044], [0049]). Gerrits further teaches the images are formed using an electrophotographic image apparatus ([0040]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include more than colors than the standard cyan, magenta, yellow, and black, in the image forming apparatus and method of Kembo, as taught by Gerrits, to improve the color gamut of the output image.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The general disclosure of a combination of an azomethine fluorescent pigment and a green pigment in a toner is found in several pieces of art, some of the earliest being Moffat (US 5037716) and Sacripante (US 5153093).
Moffat teaches any suitable colored pigments may be selected for toners, including Heliogen Green L8730 (aka CI Pigment Green 7), Lumogen Yellow D0790 (aka CI Pigment Yellow 101), and mixtures thereof (Col 14 line 44 to Col 15 line 21, Claim 52 and 65).
Sacripante similarly teaches any suitable colored pigments may be selected for toners, including Heliogen Green L8730 (aka CI Pigment Green 7), Lumogen Yellow D0790 (aka CI Pigment Yellow 101), and mixtures thereof (Col 9 line 15-50, claim 12)
While the specific pigments are mentioned, and nominally suggested to be used in combination, these earlier applications have no specific examples of such a combination.
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