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 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/236,305 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims overlaps with that of the Instant Application.
Regarding claims 1-7, the ‘305 Application claims an image forming apparatus comprising a support body; an elastic member in close contact with the support body; an endless belt; and a nip portion, wherein: the nip portion is formed by the elastic member and the endless belt, the support body in close contact with the elastic member pressed at the nip portion is made of an aluminum alloy containing silicon, and a content of silicon in the aluminum alloy is within a range of 0.8 to 12% by mass (claim 1). The ‘305 Application does not claim a two-component developer, or details of the carrier in the developer.
However, since a developer 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 developer 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.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,487,550. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims overlaps with that of the Instant Application.
Regarding claims 1-7, the ‘550 Patent claims an image forming system comprising: a photoreceptor including at least an aluminum substrate; a means that develops a latent image formed on the photoreceptor with a toner for developing an electrostatic image; a means that transfers a toner image on the photoreceptor to a transfer-receiving body; and the toner for developing an electrostatic image, wherein the aluminum substrate contains silicon, a silicon content of the aluminum substrate is more than 0.6% by mass, and a glass transition point (Tg) of the toner for developing an electrostatic image is in a range of 0 to 45°C (claim 1). The ‘550 Patent does not claim a two-component developer, or details of the carrier in the developer.
However, since a developer 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 developer 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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,287,592. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims overlaps that of the Instant Application.
Regarding claims 1-7, the ‘592 Patent claims an image forming system comprising: a photoreceptor in which a photosensitive layer is formed on a support containing aluminum as a main component; a developer that develops, with an electrostatic charge image developing toner, a latent image formed on the photoreceptor; a transferer that transfers a toner image on the photoreceptor onto a transfer target; and a cleaner that rubs and removes the electrostatic charge image developing toner remaining on the photoreceptor after transferring; and an electrostatic charge image developing toner, wherein the support contains silicon in a range of more than 0.6% by mass and 12.6% by mass or less, a shape factor of toner particles included in the electrostatic charge image developing toner is in a range of 0.800 to 0.970, and a content of the toner particles having a diameter of 2 µm or less is in a range of 5% by number to 30% by number (claim 1). The ‘592 Patent does not claim details of a carrier included in the developer.
However, since a developer 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 developer 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.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/236,305 in view of Uchino (US 20160282742).
Regarding claims 1-7, assuming arguendo that the two-component developer is a material limitation of the apparatus, the ‘305 Application claims an image forming apparatus comprising a support body; an elastic member in close contact with the support body; an endless belt; and a nip portion, wherein: the nip portion is formed by the elastic member and the endless belt, the support body in close contact with the elastic member pressed at the nip portion is made of an aluminum alloy containing silicon, and a content of silicon in the aluminum alloy is within a range of 0.8 to 12% by mass (claim 1). The ‘305 Application does not claim a two-component developer, or details of the carrier in the developer.
Uchino teaches a two-component developer which contains toner particles and carrier particles having a core particle which is surface coated with a resin (abstract). Uchino further teaches the carrier particles have a volume resistivity of 1*108 to 5*1010 Ω·cm, and an area ratio of the core particles exposed on the carrier particle surface is 10.0-18.0% ([0009]). Uchino further teaches the coating resin contains a constitutional unit derived from an alicyclic (meth)acrylic acid ester ([0068]). Uchino further teaches a conductive agent such as carbon black may be contained in the resin coating layer ([0077]). Uchino further teaches when the volume resistivity of the carrier particles is in the range of 1*108 to 5*1010 Ω·cm the carrier is less likely to adhere to the electrostatic latent image support, and proper charging of the toner is maintained, preventing image defects such as fogging ([0025]-[0026]). Uchino further teaches controlling the amount of exposed area ensures the resistance value of the carrier is low enough, while preventing the carrier particles from adhering to electrostatic latent image support, causing damage, both improving image quality for initial and continuous printing ([0029]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to ensure the image forming apparatus of the ‘305 Application included a two component developer containing a carrier with a resistance value of 1*108 to 5*1010 Ω·cm, as taught by Uchino, to prevent damage to the latent image bearer and proper charging of the toner.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,487,550 in view of Uchino (US 20160282742).
Regarding claims 1-7, the ‘550 Patent claims an image forming system comprising: a photoreceptor including at least an aluminum substrate; a means that develops a latent image formed on the photoreceptor with a toner for developing an electrostatic image; a means that transfers a toner image on the photoreceptor to a transfer-receiving body; and the toner for developing an electrostatic image, wherein the aluminum substrate contains silicon, a silicon content of the aluminum substrate is more than 0.6% by mass, and a glass transition point (Tg) of the toner for developing an electrostatic image is in a range of 0 to 45°C (claim 4). The ‘550 Patent does not claim a two-component developer, or details of the carrier in the developer.
Regarding claims 1-7, the ‘550 Patent claims an image forming system comprising: a photoreceptor including at least an aluminum substrate; a means that develops a latent image formed on the photoreceptor with a toner for developing an electrostatic image; a means that transfers a toner image on the photoreceptor to a transfer-receiving body; and the toner for developing an electrostatic image, wherein the aluminum substrate contains silicon, a silicon content of the aluminum substrate is more than 0.6% by mass, and a glass transition point (Tg) of the toner for developing an electrostatic image is in a range of 0 to 45°C (claim 1). The ‘550 Patent does not claim a two-component developer, or details of the carrier in the developer.
Uchino teaches a two-component developer which contains toner particles and carrier particles having a core particle which is surface coated with a resin (abstract). Uchino further teaches the carrier particles have a volume resistivity of 1*108 to 5*1010 Ω·cm, and an area ratio of the core particles exposed on the carrier particle surface is 10.0-18.0% ([0009]). Uchino further teaches the coating resin contains a constitutional unit derived from an alicyclic (meth)acrylic acid ester ([0068]). Uchino further teaches a conductive agent such as carbon black may be contained in the resin coating layer ([0077]). Uchino further teaches when the volume resistivity of the carrier particles is in the range of 1*108 to 5*1010 Ω·cm the carrier is less likely to adhere to the electrostatic latent image support, and proper charging of the toner is maintained, preventing image defects such as fogging ([0025]-[0026]). Uchino further teaches controlling the amount of exposed area ensures the resistance value of the carrier is low enough, while preventing the carrier particles from adhering to electrostatic latent image support, causing damage, both improving image quality for initial and continuous printing ([0029]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to ensure the image forming apparatus of the ‘550 Patent included a two component developer containing a carrier with a resistance value of 1*108 to 5*1010 Ω·cm, as taught by Uchino, to prevent damage to the latent image bearer and proper charging of the toner.
Regarding claim 8, the ‘550 Patent claims an image forming method using a photoreceptor including at least an aluminum substrate, a toner for developing an electrostatic image including toner particles containing a binding resin, and a developer bearing member including a member that generates a magnetic flux inside, wherein the aluminum substrate contains silicon, a silicon content of the aluminum substrate is more than 0.6% by mass, and a glass transition point (Tg) of the toner for developing an electrostatic image is in a range of 0 to 45°C (claim 1).
Uchino teaches a two-component developer which contains toner particles and carrier particles having a core particle which is surface coated with a resin (abstract). Uchino further teaches the carrier particles have a volume resistivity of 1*108 to 5*1010 Ω·cm, and an area ratio of the core particles exposed on the carrier particle surface is 10.0-18.0% ([0009]). Uchino further teaches the coating resin contains a constitutional unit derived from an alicyclic (meth)acrylic acid ester ([0068]). Uchino further teaches a conductive agent such as carbon black may be contained in the resin coating layer ([0077]). Uchino further teaches when the volume resistivity of the carrier particles is in the range of 1*108 to 5*1010 Ω·cm the carrier is less likely to adhere to the electrostatic latent image support, and proper charging of the toner is maintained, preventing image defects such as fogging ([0025]-[0026]). Uchino further teaches controlling the amount of exposed area ensures the resistance value of the carrier is low enough, while preventing the carrier particles from adhering to electrostatic latent image support, causing damage, both improving image quality for initial and continuous printing ([0029]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to ensure the image forming method of the ‘550 Patent included a two component developer containing a carrier with a resistance value of 1*108 to 5*1010 Ω·cm, as taught by Uchino, to prevent damage to the latent image bearer and proper charging of the toner.
Claims 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,287,592 in view of Uchino (US 20160282742).
Regarding claims 1-7, the ‘592 Patent claims an image forming system comprising: a photoreceptor in which a photosensitive layer is formed on a support containing aluminum as a main component; a developer that develops, with an electrostatic charge image developing toner, a latent image formed on the photoreceptor; a transferer that transfers a toner image on the photoreceptor onto a transfer target; and a cleaner that rubs and removes the electrostatic charge image developing toner remaining on the photoreceptor after transferring; and an electrostatic charge image developing toner, wherein the support contains silicon in a range of more than 0.6% by mass and 12.6% by mass or less, a shape factor of toner particles included in the electrostatic charge image developing toner is in a range of 0.800 to 0.970, and a content of the toner particles having a diameter of 2 µm or less is in a range of 5% by number to 30% by number (claim 1). The ‘592 Patent does not claim details of a carrier included in the developer.
Uchino teaches a two-component developer which contains toner particles and carrier particles having a core particle which is surface coated with a resin (abstract). Uchino further teaches the carrier particles have a volume resistivity of 1*108 to 5*1010 Ω·cm, and an area ratio of the core particles exposed on the carrier particle surface is 10.0-18.0% ([0009]). Uchino further teaches the coating resin contains a constitutional unit derived from an alicyclic (meth)acrylic acid ester ([0068]). Uchino further teaches a conductive agent such as carbon black may be contained in the resin coating layer ([0077]). Uchino further teaches when the volume resistivity of the carrier particles is in the range of 1*108 to 5*1010 Ω·cm the carrier is less likely to adhere to the electrostatic latent image support, and proper charging of the toner is maintained, preventing image defects such as fogging ([0025]-[0026]). Uchino further teaches controlling the amount of exposed area ensures the resistance value of the carrier is low enough, while preventing the carrier particles from adhering to electrostatic latent image support, causing damage, both improving image quality for initial and continuous printing ([0029]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to ensure the image forming apparatus of the ‘592 Patent included a two component developer containing a carrier with a resistance value of 1*108 to 5*1010 Ω·cm, as taught by Uchino, to prevent damage to the latent image bearer and proper charging of the toner.
Regarding claim 8, the ‘592 Patent claims an image forming method comprising: developing, with an electrostatic charge image developing toner, a latent image formed on a photoreceptor in which a photosensitive layer is formed on a support containing aluminum as a main component; transferring a toner image on the photoreceptor onto a transfer target; and rubbing and removing the electrostatic charge image developing toner remaining on the photoreceptor after the transferring, wherein the support contains silicon in a range of 0.6% by mass and 12.6% by mass or less, a shape factor of toner particles included in the electrostatic charge image developing toner is in a range of 0.800 to 0.970, and a content of toner particles having a particle diameter of µm or less is in a range of 5% by number to 30% by number. The ‘592 Patent does not claim the toner is part of a two-component developer comprising a carrier with a static resistance value of 108-1012Ω·cm.
Uchino teaches a two-component developer which contains toner particles and carrier particles having a core particle which is surface coated with a resin (abstract). Uchino further teaches the carrier particles have a volume resistivity of 1*108 to 5*1010 Ω·cm, and an area ratio of the core particles exposed on the carrier particle surface is 10.0-18.0% ([0009]). Uchino further teaches the coating resin contains a constitutional unit derived from an alicyclic (meth)acrylic acid ester ([0068]). Uchino further teaches a conductive agent such as carbon black may be contained in the resin coating layer ([0077]). Uchino further teaches when the volume resistivity of the carrier particles is in the range of 1*108 to 5*1010 Ω·cm the carrier is less likely to adhere to the electrostatic latent image support, and proper charging of the toner is maintained, preventing image defects such as fogging ([0025]-[0026]). Uchino further teaches controlling the amount of exposed area ensures the resistance value of the carrier is low enough, while preventing the carrier particles from adhering to electrostatic latent image support, causing damage, both improving image quality for initial and continuous printing ([0029]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to ensure the image forming method of the ‘592 Patent included a two component developer containing a carrier with a resistance value of 1*108 to 5*1010 Ω·cm, as taught by Uchino, to prevent damage to the latent image bearer and proper charging of the toner.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsukuda (JP S63179041).
Regarding claims 1-7, Tsukuda discloses an aluminum alloy for cylinders, including photosensitive drums for dry electrostatic copiers, the aluminum alloy includes silicon in the amount of 0.5-13.0 wt% (paragraph 1 and 2). Tsukuda does not disclose a two-component developer comprising a carrier with specific resistance values.
However, since a developer 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 developer 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukuda (JP S63179041) in view of Uchino (US 20160282742).
Regarding claims 1-7, assuming arguendo the developer is a material limitation of the apparatus, Tsukuda discloses an aluminum alloy for cylinders, including photosensitive drums for dry electrostatic copiers, the aluminum alloy includes silicon in the amount of 0.5-13.0 wt% (paragraph 1 and 2). Tsukuda does not disclose a two-component developer comprising a carrier with specific resistance values.
Uchino teaches a two-component developer which contains toner particles and carrier particles having a core particle which is surface coated with a resin (abstract). Uchino further teaches the carrier particles have a volume resistivity of 1*108 to 5*1010 Ω·cm, and an area ratio of the core particles exposed on the carrier particle surface is 10.0-18.0% ([0009]). Uchino further teaches the coating resin contains a constitutional unit derived from an alicyclic (meth)acrylic acid ester ([0068]). Uchino further teaches a conductive agent such as carbon black may be contained in the resin coating layer ([0077]). Uchino further teaches when the volume resistivity of the carrier particles is in the range of 1*108 to 5*1010 Ω·cm the carrier is less likely to adhere to the electrostatic latent image support, and proper charging of the toner is maintained, preventing image defects such as fogging ([0025]-[0026]). Uchino further teaches controlling the amount of exposed area ensures the resistance value of the carrier is low enough, while preventing the carrier particles from adhering to electrostatic latent image support, causing damage, both improving image quality for initial and continuous printing ([0029]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to ensure the image forming apparatus of Tsukuda included a two component developer containing a carrier with a resistance value of 1*108 to 5*1010 Ω·cm, as taught by Uchino, to prevent damage to the latent image bearer and proper charging of the toner.
Regarding claim 8, modified Tsukuda discloses all limitations as set forth above. Uchino further teaches an image forming method using the two-component developer, where a surface of an electrostatic latent image support is charged, an electrostatic latent image is formed and developed by the toner, the toner image is then transferred to paper and fixed to the paper ([0181]-[0182]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kawamura (JP 2830933) teaches an electrophotographic photoconductive member with a support made of an aluminum alloy, including Al-Mg-Si alloys with 0.5-10 wt% silicon ([0001], [0011], [0014]).
Kunihiro (JP S58111046) teaches a photoreceptor for electrophotography using an aluminum alloy conductive substrate, the aluminum alloy includes 8-15% silicon by weight (paragraph 1-2)
Keiichi (JP S61159546) teaches a photoconductive component using an aluminum alloy with a silicon content of 0.5-7% by weight (paragraphs 1-3).
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