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 longer than 150 words. 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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshida (US 20120077119).
Regarding claims 14-15, Yoshida discloses an image forming apparatus comprising a rotary developing device, with several developing devices, #204 Y, M, C, K, and R, and a transfer toller and fixing unit, and fixing unit. The transfer unit transfers superimposed toner images of plural colors onto the recording medium ([0012], [0198]-[0200], Fig. 2).
The applicant has recited the apparatus, toner cartridge, and process cartridge claims as also containing or comprising the toners of pending claim 1. However, since a developer, or toner, is a material that is consumed by the apparatus and is not a permanent fixture of the apparatus, its inclusion in the apparatus claims does not represent a material limitation on the apparatus. Multiple different developers may be used in any xerographic apparatus and therefore the limitations of the developer in the present claims do not represent material limitations on the apparatus because the developer with these limitations could be substituted by another developer and not alter the mechanical functioning of the apparatus. § MPEP 2115. In accordance with MPEP 2114 an apparatus in a claim must be recited structurally and therefore the type of toner to be used possesses no patentability, only the material properties of the apparatus are patentable. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Additionally, a claim containing a recitation in respect to the manner that an apparatus is intended to be used does not differentiate the claim from prior art. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). In further regards to the toner, MPEP 2115 states that, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
The toner is a material worked upon and consumed by the image forming apparatus. A material portion of the apparatus must be a permanent fixture of the apparatus that is not permanently changed by the regular operation of the apparatus. The toner, during the course of the imaging process, is changed from a particulate material to a melted and fused material. During fixing, heat and/or pressure is applied to the toner to bind it to the recording material such that the toner cannot be recovered and re-used in the apparatus. Therefore, the toner cannot be claimed as a structural member of the apparatus.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (US 20120077119) in view of Vercoulen (US5021314)and Yoshida (US 20130078565).
Regarding claims 1-4, Yoshida (US 20120077119), herein referred to as Yoshida-1, discloses an orange toner comprising an amount of NH4+ ions present in the toner to 0.3-1.0 mg/L as measured using ion chromatography ([0157], claim 3). Yoshida-1 further discloses the toner is part of a toner set, with other color toners ([0179]). However, Yoshida-1 does not disclose a fluorescent toner with a brightness of 75 or more, or the amount of NH4+ ions present on the other toners in the toner set. Yoshida-1 further teaches specific examples with a NH4 ion amount of 0.05-0.68 mg/L which showed a good color gamut and good image density at low humidity (Table 1, page 30-31).
Vercoulen teaches a toner comprising a yellow fluorescent dye and lightness of at least 90 (abstract, Col 2 line 20-32). Vercoulen further teaches the fluorescent toner produces the same color impression after fixing as the toner powder itself, without change in tint or brightness (Col 2 line 47 to Col 3 line 19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a yellow fluorescent toner comprising a fluorescent dye and lightness of at least 90, as taught by Vercoulen, in the toner set of Yoshida-1 to ensure a bright yellow is available without any change in the tint or brightness after fixing.
Yoshida (US 20130078565), herein referred to as Yoshida-2 teaches a toner comprising ammonia in the range of 0.05-0.6 mg/L, in terms of NH4+ ions measured by ion chromatography analysis. When the content of the ammonia is in the specified range, it is possible to suppress plasticization of the toner due to sodium ions, preventing an increase/unevenness in gloss of the formed image ([0017]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to ensure the fluorescent toner of modified Yoshida-1 comprises a residual ammonia content of 0.05-0.6 mg/L, as taught by Yoshida-2, to prevent increase and unevenness of gloss in the formed image. Yoshida-2 further teaches specific examples with the quantity of ammonia in the toner of 0.07-0.6 mg/L with good ratings in the difference in gloss (Table 2 page 31). In view of Example 12 of Yoshida-2 with a content of ammonium ions = 0.20 mg/L, and Example 8 of Yoshida-1 with a content of ammonium ions = 0.48 mg/L, both of which are rated the highest of their respective applications, results in a difference in the amount of ammonium ions of 0.28 mg/L. (Yoshida-1 Table 1 page 30; Yoshida-2 Table 2 page 31).
Regarding claims 5-6, modified Yoshida-1 discloses all limitations as set forth above. Yoshida-1 discloses the volume average diameter of the orange toner particles as 5.6-6.0 µm ([0339], [0359], [0375], [0379], [0381], [0383], [0385], [0388], [0392], [0407]). Yoshida-2 teaches the toner of the examples has a volume average particle diameter of 5.8-6.3 µm ([0225], [0250], [0269], [0288], [0307], [0329], [0351], [0373], [0398], [0401], [0426], [0448], [0473])
Regarding claim 11 modified Yoshida-1 discloses all limitations as set forth above. Yoshida-1 further discloses the orange toner may be included in an orange developer ([0187]).
Yoshida-2 further teaches developer comprising the toner ([0111]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Yoshida-1 discloses all limitations as set forth above. Yoshida-1 further discloses a toner cartridge containing the orange toner, detachable to the image forming apparatus ([0230]). Yoshida-2 further teaches a toner cartridge that is detachable from an image forming apparatus ([0137]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Yoshida-1 discloses all limitations as set forth above. Yoshida- further discloses a process cartridge comprising the orange developer, able to be detachable from an image forming apparatus ([0234]-[0235]). Yoshida-2 further teaches a process cartridge, including the developer, detachable from an image forming apparatus ([0121], [0136]).
Regarding claims 14-15, assuming arguendo the toner is a material limitation of the image forming apparatus, modified Yoshida-1 discloses all limitations as set forth above. Yoshida-1 further discloses an image forming apparatus comprising a rotary developing device, with several developing devices, #204 Y, M, C, K, and R, and a transfer toller and fixing unit, and fixing unit. The transfer unit transfers superimposed toner images of plural colors onto the recording medium ([0012], [0198]-[0200], Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 16-17, modified Yoshida-1 discloses all limitations as set forth above. Yoshida-1 further discloses the rotary developing device is driven so toners are transferred onto the latent image holding member forming sequentially to form toner images of the individual colors, the toner images are then transferred in a superposed manner onto the transfer material, then onto to the recording paper, where they images are fixed ([0200], [0203]-[0206])).
Claim 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (US 20120077119) in view of Vercoulen (US5021314)and Yoshida (US 20130078565) as applied to claims 1-6, 8-9, and 11-17 above, and further in view of Atsushi (JP 2022044075).
Regarding claim 7, modified Yoshida-1 discloses all limitations as set forth above. Vercoulen further teaches the yellow fluorescent dye has a fluorescence peak between 500 and 580nm (abstract, Col 2 line 24-30). However, Vercoulen does not teach using an azomethine fluorescent pigment.
Atsushi teaches a fluorescent toner able to suppress dulling of fluorescent colors due to influence of the substrate, as well as producing a good fluorescent color development. Atsushi achieves this by incorporating a fluorescent agent in a binder resin which is coated with inorganic fine particles ([0006]-[0008], [0014]-[0015]). Atsushi further teaches Pigment Yellow 101 and Solvent Red 49 are the preferred choices due to excellent fluorescent color development, with Pigment yellow 101 used in all examples except Example 2 and 3 ([0027], Table 1 page 29 [0198]-[0216]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to ensure the fluorescent toner of modified Yoshida-1 used Pigment Yellow 101 in a toner with inorganic particles on the surface, as taught by Atsushi, to ensure excellent fluorescent color development, as well as preventing dulling due to influence of the substrate.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (US 20120077119) in view of Vercoulen (US5021314)and Yoshida (US 20130078565) as applied to claims 1-6, and 11-17 above, and further with reference to Babler (US 20050070640) and Scifinder Colanyl Green GG.
Regarding claims 8-9, modified Yoshida-1 discloses all limitations as set forth above. Vercoulen further teaches the fluorescent toner may contain a pigment as well as the fluorescent dye ([Col 4 line 11-17). Vercoulen further teaches a green toner comprising colanyl green 30 gg, aka pigment green 7 (Scifinder), which has a reflective peak at 500 nm as referenced by Babler ([0032]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (US 20120077119) in view of Vercoulen (US5021314)and Yoshida (US 20130078565) as applied to claims 1-6, and 11-17 above, and further in view of Hara (US 20190243269).
Regarding claim 10, modified Yoshida-1 discloses all limitations as set forth above. However, Yoshida-1 does not disclose a brightness of the orange toner, or a difference in brightness in the toners of the toner set.
Hara teaches several toners, and a toner set including multiple toners ([0007]). Hara further teaches colors are considered different from each other when there is a brightness difference of 13 or more ([0043], [0267]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to ensure the orange toner of modified Yoshida-1 had a brightness difference of 13 or more from the fluorescent toner, as taught by Hara, to ensure the toners were recognized as different from each other.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Suzuki (US 20190086834) teaches a toner set comprising a fluorescent toner as well as a color toner ([0004]). Suzuki further teaches the fluorescent toner includes Pigment Yellow 101, an azomethine pigment ([0038], [0202], claim 5). However, Suzuki does not mention toner brightness or amount of ammonium ions on the surface of the toners.
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