DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the amendment received March 17, 2026.
Bold text in the Office action indicates new language.
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.
(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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7 and 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over LEINENBACH et al (6,521,390), as evidenced by KOZIMA et al (4,301,224,) MINAMIKAWA (2019/0232612), ZEIGLER (5,520,756) FAN (6,929,898), and FAN (5,719,009).
The claimed invention now recites the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
498
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
LEINENBACH et al report an IR ablatable layer over a photopolymerizable layer where a cover layer is initially removed in a flexographic printing plate. The IR layer is noted to have a dispersant such as commercially available Solsperse 28000 which discloses a base number of 45 mgKOH/g as seen in column 7, lines 1-20 and falls within the claimed range in claim 1. The use of Solsperse is in Example 1, see below:
The claimed flexographic printing plate is anticipated by the Example in LEINENBACH et al.
With respect to claim 2, the difference between the solubility parameters of the binder polymer and the dispersant is not explicitly disclose, however the use of nitrocellulose binder [polyamide] layer in LEINENBACH et al would inherent be present due to the identical dispersant used in LEINENBACH et al and the disclosure of the same or similar binders disclosed, see Example 1 below:
Claim 3 recites carbon black which is reported in Example 1 in column 6, lines 63- column 7, line 25.
PNG
media_image2.png
108
446
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
376
472
media_image3.png
Greyscale
For claim 4, the Mw is inherently disclosed to meet the claimed limitation wherein the same or similar dispersant is disclosed.
Claim 5-6 is met by the Example 1. With respect to claim 7 applicants are directed to column 5, lines 37-45, for intermediate layer, see below:
PNG
media_image4.png
174
470
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 10-20 is met by Example 1 explicitly or inherently for the parts of the parts by mass of the dispersant to 100 parts by mass of the infrared absorber. Example 1 discloses 1.1 parts by mass of the dispersant to 100 parts by weight of the carbon black (.025/2.3).
KOZIMA et al is cited to disclose the solubility parameter (SP) of nitrocellulose to be 10.7-11.4, see Table 2 from column 6:
PNG
media_image5.png
482
370
media_image5.png
Greyscale
MINAMIKAWA and ZEIGLER verify the SP of nitrocellulose by disclosing values in those ranges reported in KOZIMA et al, see page 6, para. [0096] in MINAMIKAWA and column 3, lines 45-50 in ZEIGLER below, respectively:
PNG
media_image6.png
82
370
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
94
416
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The difference between the SP values of nitrocellulose and Solsperse 28000 as seen in LEINENBACH et al would meet the claimed absolute between 0.3 and 4 (cal/cm3)1/2 .
FAN discloses a flexographic printing plates wherein the infrared ablation layer can include a number of binders, such as polymethyl methacrylate, see below:
PNG
media_image8.png
432
384
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
408
388
media_image9.png
Greyscale
FAN ‘009 disclose flexographic printing plates comprising at least one layer of an infrared radiation sensitive material capable of being exposed to laser ablation., col. 2, lines 29-36 below:
PNG
media_image10.png
112
388
media_image10.png
Greyscale
FAN teaches a barrier layer is interposed between the photopolymerizable layer and the infrared sensitive layer binders to minimize migration of materials between the layers and to shield the photopolymerizable layer from atmospheric oxygen. Binder that can be used in the infrared sensitive layers include nitrocellulose and styrene, butadiene , isoprene and their copolymers and block copolymers teaching the skilled artisan the functional equivalent of those binders as reported in col. 7, lines 19-27, see below:
PNG
media_image11.png
528
388
media_image11.png
Greyscale
New claim 21 is met by the values for styrene/butadiene copolymer in Table 2 of KOJIMA arriving at an absolute value of the difference between the dispersant (Solsperse 28000) and the binder if used in the Example of LEINENBACH which is in the range of 2.96-2.3.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of flexographic printing plates to duplicate Examples 1 of LEINENBACH for the infrared ablation layer which comprises any of the listed binders in FAN such as styrene/butadiene copolymers as reported in FAN ‘009 formulated with SOLSPERSE 28000 wherein the difference of the SP of the styrene/butadiene resin and the SP of Solsperse 28000 would gave an absolute value of in a range of 2.96 to 2.3 (using values taken from Table 2 of KOZIMA thus meeting the claimed range of 0.3 and 4 (cal/cm3 )1/2 as well as the range recited in new claim 21 (0.3 to 2.9 (cal/cm3 )1/2 with the reasonable expectation of same or similar results for excellent flexibility and sensitivity.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
VAN ZOEREN (5,506,086) discloses that if a barrier layer is interposed between the infrared sensitive layer and the photopolymer layer, optional binders that further include elastomeric polymers that are same or similar to the elastomeric binders used in the photopolymer layer can be formulated in the infrared sensitive layers.
JONES (4,070,388), ASHE (4,032,698), THOMPSON (3,788,996) and BRAUN (3,684,771) report A-B dispersants suitable when a pigment is present in the infrared sensitive layer in order to disperse the fine particles and avoid flocculation and agglomeration , see col. 8, lines 11-22 in FAN ‘009.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-1329. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, IFP-Flex.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Huff, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1385. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/John S. Chu/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 J. Chu
May 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights