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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is over 150 words long. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamae (US 20130196265) in view of Harada (US 5354638) with consideration of Sigma Aldrich.
Regarding claim 1, Kamae discloses a method of producing a resin coated magnetic carrier with a solvent removal step after coating, followed by further stirring, using a vacuum deaeration apparatus ([0087], [0210]). Kamae further discloses the coating resin is produced by a mix of cyclohexyl methacrylate, and methyl methacrylate ([0195]-[0196]). While the specific glass transition temperature is not disclosed, it can be calculated using the Fox equation, and the glass transition temperatures of homopolymers of the monomers, detailed by Sigma Aldrich, for cyclohexyl methacrylate the Tg is 92°C, and methyl methacrylate is 105°C (page 3 and 5). For coating solution 1 the Tg can be calculated as 1/Tg = (26.8/(26.8+0.2+8.4))/(92+273.15) + ((0.2+8.4)/(26.8+0.2+8.4))/(105+273.15) = 0.757/365.15 + 0.243/378.15 = 0.002073+0.000642 = 0.002716. Therefore, the Tg = 1/0.002716 = 368.23°k = 95°C. Kamae discloses the coating solution comprises the coating resin, toluene, and carbon black, which is added to the carrier core particles in a vacuum deaeration kneader ([0199]-[0200], [0210]). The mix was stirred until most of the solvent has been removed, then the temperature is increased to 80°C and further mixed, then cooled ([0210]). However, Kamae does not disclose a step of fluidizing the carrier in a fluidized bed.
Harada teaches heat treating coated magnetic particles at a temperature of 100-300°C, specifically above their glass transition temperature, Tg. The heat treatment results in a narrow distribution of electric charge as well as increased coating strength, which reduces fogging (Col 12 line 61 to Col 13 line 7, Col 21 line 6-10). Harada further teaches the heat treatment may be carried out using a fluidized bed (Col 12 line 67-68, Col 16 line 63 to Col 17 line 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further heat treat the coated carrier of Kamae to a temperature above the Tg in the range of 100-300°C, as taught by Harada, to narrow the charge distribution, increase the coating strength, and reduce fogging when forming images.
Regarding claim 4, modified Kamae discloses all limitations as set forth above. Harada further teaches the heat treatment is performed for 5-90 minutes (Col 12 line 64). Harada further teaches the heat treatment in Example 2 is performed for 1 hour, and is the final step in the production. One of skill in the art would expect the final cooling of the production process would return the carrier back to room temperature, well below Tg-40°C.
Regarding claims 7 and 10, modified Kamae discloses all limitations as set forth above. Kamae further discloses producing a two-component developer by mixing the carrier with a toner ([0002], [0014]-[0015], [0126]-[0128], [0225]-[0232])
Claims 5-6 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamae (US 20130196265) in view of Harada (US 5354638) with consideration of Sigma Aldrich as applied to claim1, 4, 7, and 10 above, and further in view of Fukuoka (U20030118905) .
Regarding claims 5-6 and 11-12, modified Kamae discloses all limitations as set forth above. However, Fukuoka does not teach the velocity of the fluidizing gas.
Fukuoka teaches a method of using a fluidized bed for heat treatment and coating of particles. Fukuoka further teaches using a fluidizing gas velocity of 1.5-5.0 times the minimum fluidization velocity ensures sufficient fluidization and prevents agglomeration of the particles, as well as ensuring the coating is uniform ([0021]-[0022]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to ensure the process of modified Kamae used a fluidizing gas velocity of 1.5-5.0 times the minimum fluidization velocity, as taught by Fukuoka, to ensure proper fluidization and uniform resin coatings, while preventing particle agglomeration.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 8-9 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The specific combination of circumferential speed of the agitating blade and agitating work amount, expressions 1 and 2, is not disclosed or rendered obvious by the available art. The closest available art is Iida (JP 2008145920), which teaches using a peripheral speed of the stirring blade between 1.0-3.5 m/second, to ensure spherical carrier particles ([0105]). However, Iida mixes for much longer than Kamae, 5 hours ([0155]). Furthermore, Kamae mixes for 2 hours after the initial 80 mass% of toluene is removed (Kamae [0210]). At a rate of 1.0 m/s, the maximum amount of mixing time can be calculated from Instant Claim 2, Expression 2, as 1500 seconds, or 25 minutes. There is not any available art teaching a mixing or crushing time after solvent removal of 25 minutes or less, and/or a lower crushing speed which would render the Instant Claims prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
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