(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
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In par 44, the applicant describes “developing roller 14” however in par. 46, applicant describes “developing roller 10” which is not consistent.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Fig.1 and 4, the applicant uses reference numeral “14” to indicated a developing roller however in Fig.2A and 3, the applicant uses reference numeral “10” to indicated a developing roller which is unclear since it is not consistent. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claims 6-9, the applicant provides an expression (formula) for the measured voltage V1(t) between a time period of 30 (or 0.06) to 100 seconds after being charged by a corona discharger however it appears the variables V0,1 and t1 are not constants and therefore there seems to be an infinite number of solutions that would fit this expression. For example, in claim 6, if t = 30 seconds but t1 can be any number over 60 and V0,1 is undefined, than the voltage V1(30) could be many different values which would not concretely claim the invention. Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-4,11,14,16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doi et al. (U.S. 2020/0073278) in view of Kamikura et al. (U.S. 2021/0026264).
Regarding claim 1, Doi et al. teach an image forming apparatus (Fig.s 5-6) including a process cartridge including a developing apparatus with a developing roller 24 (par.88); the developing apparatus including the developing roller 24 (Fig.1) including a substrate 1, an electroconductive layer 2 on the surface of the substrate, the electroconductive layer having resin particles 3 dispersed therein (par.39); the outer surface of the developing roller having a first region and second region adjacent each other, the first (insulating) region where the resin particles are exposed and a second (conductive) region where the resin particles are not exposed; the second region having a higher conductivity than the first region (par. 39); the developing roller uses a toner material to develop an electrostatic latent image (par.89-91).
Regarding claim 11, the electroconductive layer 2 includes a binder resin (par.50); the binder resin being a polyurethane based (par. 60).
Regarding claim 14, the electroconductive layer 2 comprises carbon black (par.50).
Regarding claims 16-17, as previously mentioned, the developing apparatus is included in a process cartridge used in an image forming apparatus (par.88).
Specifically, Doi et al. teach all that is claimed except the specific claimed toner such as the toner comprising a toner particle and a fine particle, the fine particle comprising a metal element (titanium, aluminum, zirconium, or zinc), the toner surface having an abundance ratio of the metal element from 2.0 – 20.0 atomic%, and the circularity of the toner being 0.970 or more. Additionally, the specific conductivity and specific compound type of the fine particles (claims 2 and 4) is not taught.
Kamikura et al. discloses a particular type of toner material to be used to develop electrostatic latent images in an image forming apparatus which provides the toner with better charge control and higher image quality (par.1,27). The toner comprises a toner particle having a fine particle A comprising a metal element compound on the surface of the toner particle (par.65-66); the abundance ratio of the metal element compound is 5.0 – 10.0 atomic% which is within applicant’s range (par.68); the metal compound can be titanium oxide, aluminum oxide, zinc oxide (par.94-95); the average circularity of the toner particle being .950 - .995 which is within applicant’s range (par. 212).
Regarding claim 2, Kamikura et al. discloses the fine particles A having a resistivity of 1.0 x 102 – 1.0 x 109 Ω∙m, the conductivity would be the inverse and thus would be 1.0 x 10-9 to 1.0 x 10-2 S/m which is within applicant’s range.
Regarding claim 3, the number average particle diameter DA (length) of the fine particles is between 1 nm to 45 nm (0.001 – 0.045 µm) which falls within applicant’s range. It is noted that the method of obtaining the length (i.e. diameter) of the particles such as the claimed EDS mapping is given little patentable weight in an apparatus claim since the applicant is claiming the developing apparatus and toner dimension not a novel way of measuring a length of the particles. See In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685 and In re Fessmann, 324 USPQ 180.
Regarding claim 4, the fine particle A can be titanium oxide, aluminum oxide, zinc oxide as previously explained.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Doi et al. to use the toner described in Kamikura et al. to develop electrostatic latent images because the toner will have better charge control and thus produce higher image quality toner images as taught by Kamikura et al. (par. 27).
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doi et al. (U.S. 2020/0073278) in view of Kamikura et al. (U.S. 2021/0026264) as applied to claims 1-2,4,11,14,16-17 above and further in view of Sakurai et al. (U.S. 2019/0265609).
The combination of Doi et al. and Kamikura et al. taught supra discloses most of what is claimed except the electroconductive layer of the developing roller being a polyurethane having a polycarbonate structure.
Sakurai et al. teach an image forming apparatus (Fig.s 6) including a process cartridge including a developing apparatus with a developing roller 24 (Fig.7); the developing apparatus including the developing roller 1 (Fig.4A,B,C) including a substrate 2, an electroconductive layer 3 on the surface of the substrate, the outer surface of the developing roller having a first region and second region adjacent each other, the first (insulating) region 4 and a second (conductive) region, the second region having a higher conductivity than the first region (par. 57); the developing roller uses a toner material to develop an electrostatic latent image. The electroconductive layer can be a polyurethane resin and preferably a carbonate polyurethane resin (par. 69).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Doi et al. and Kamikura et al. such that the polyurethane used in the electroconductive layer has a carbonate structure because this is a known material when using a developing roller having both insulating and conductive regions on the surface in which the developing member has a toner transfer ability having low environmental dependency (par. 10).
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doi et al. (U.S. 2020/0073278) in view of Kamikura et al. (U.S. 2021/0026264) as applied to claims 1-2,4,11,14,16-17 above and further in view of Uno et al. (U.S. 2020/0363751).
The combination of Doi et al. and Kamikura et al. taught supra discloses most of what is claimed except the proportion of the total area of the first (insulating)region to the total area of a specific observation region is 10 – 60%.
Uno et al. teach an image forming apparatus (Fig.s 3) including a process cartridge including a developing apparatus with a developing roller 106 (Fig.2); the developing apparatus including the developing roller 1 (Fig.1A,B) including a substrate 2, an electroconductive layer 3 on the surface of the substrate, the electroconductive layer having first (insulating) region 4 and second (conductive) region 5 adjacent each other (par. 20), the second region having a higher conductivity than the first region; the developing roller uses a toner material to develop an electrostatic latent image (see par.20-21,61-72) . The first (insulating) region 4 is preferably 10% - 60% to the outer surface area of the developing roller (specific observation area). See par. 41.
It is noted that the method of obtaining the area of the first region such as using a square observation area with a side length of 300 µm is given little patentable weight in an apparatus claim since the applicant is claiming the developing apparatus and a physical percentage of the insulating region on the surface of the developing roller not a novel way of measuring a percentage area of the insulating region. See In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685 and In re Fessmann, 324 USPQ 180.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the percentage of insulating regions in the range claimed by applicant because such range provides for a sufficient number of small closed electric fields such that toner can be carried on the developing roller in a sufficient amount to form high quality images with stability even when exposed to severe environmental conditions as taught by Uno et al. (see par. 4-6).
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doi et al. (U.S. 2020/0073278) in view of Kamikura et al. (U.S. 2021/0026264) as applied to claims 1-2,4,11,14,16-17 above and further in view of Yamada et al. (U.S. 2022/0244658).
The combination of Doi et al. and Kamikura et al. taught supra discloses most of what is claimed except the impedance of the developing roller being 1 x 106 Ω or more.
Yamada et al. teach an image forming apparatus (Fig.s 9) including a process cartridge including a developing apparatus with a developing roller 16 (Fig.8); the developing apparatus including the developing roller 1A (Fig.1A) including a substrate 2, an electroconductive layer 3 on the surface of the substrate and an outer surface layer 4 (par.116), the electroconductive layer (matrix) comprising a rubber and having a plurality of domains dispersed in the matrix (par. 56, 136, Fig.5). The impedance of the developing roller is between 1.0 x 104 – 1.0 x 1011 Ω which is within applicant’s range (see abstract, par. 20,61).
It is noted that the method of obtaining the impedance is given little patentable weight in an apparatus claim since the applicant is claiming a developing apparatus and an electrical characteristics of the surface of the developing roller not a novel way of measuring the impedance of a surface. See In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685 and In re Fessmann, 324 USPQ 180.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the developing roller having an impedance within applicant’s range because this is a known impedance for this type of developing roller and the developing roller can be used at high-speed and maintain high quality images even under severe environmental conditions (see par. 9-13).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13,15 are 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.
Regarding claims 13 and 15, the specific chemical structure of the polyurethane or the conductive layer is not taught, suggested or rendered obvious by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kenmoku et al. and Fujita et al. teach different inventions using a developing roller have insulating and conductive regions on its surface that are relevent to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT B BEATTY whose telephone number is (571) 272-2130. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 7 to 3.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Stephanie Bloss, can be reached on (571) 272-3555. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-2130.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ROBERT B BEATTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights