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. Response to Amendment Applicant’s Amendment filed 12/05/2025 has been entered and is being considered. Claims 7 and 21-24 are amended. Claims 15, 20, and 25-30 are canceled. No new matter has been added with these amendments. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the disclosed embodiments relied upon in the prior office action only state that the developing solution constitutes 6 wt% of the surfactants shown in the Examples which would be outside of the newly limited range of 0.1% to 2% . However, Examiner further notes that Ushiyama further discloses that the content of the surfactants in the developer composition of the present invention is preferably from 1 to 70% by weight (paragraph [0018-0021]). As such, one of ordinary skill would envisage modifying the developer composition in the disclosed examples with the claimed range which would overlap the newly limited range of 0.1% to 2%. See the detailed action below. 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. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. The factual inquiries 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 7, 22-2 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ushiyama (JPH-6-138667, reference citations from English translation, IDS 04/20/2023) in view of Huang (US 2004/0161704) and Baumann (US 2008/0113298). Regarding Claims 7 and 22-24, Ushiyama teaches a water-based developer for a photosensitive polymer having high developing performance to the photosensitive polymer comprising components (a) a surfactant and at least one of compounds (b-1) and (b-2) represented by chemical formula 4 and chemical formula 5 respectively (paragraph [0005]). The developers were evaluated as 30 wt% aqueous solutions (Examiner interprets this as a dilution of the compositions disclosed in Tables 1 and 2 such that the developer is a concentrated solution; a 30 wt% aqueous solution of the developer consist of a 3.33 times dilution of the developer) on a printing plate precursor comprising a polypropylene plate and a photopolymer (paragraph [0026]). In Example 2, the developing power was determined by measuring the weight difference of the printing plate before and after development, rinsing with water and drying at room temperature (paragraph [0028]). Developer Example 6 comprises 20 parts AOS-Na ( sodium olefin sulfonate , MW=344, HLB=6.9) satisfying Formula (1) wherein X 1 is sulfonic acid salt, R 1 is alkyl group having 14 to 18 carbons (paragraph [0032])), 20 parts APE (p=10) (satisfying Formula (2) where X 2 is a 9 carbon monovalent organic group, Ar is a 2-valent aromatic group, p=1, m=2, n=10, R 2 is hydrogen, and A is a 2-carbon alkylene group) out of a whole of 100 parts as shown in Table 1 produced below (paragraph [0032]); Examiner notes that 20 parts of the surfactants in this concentrated developer is diluted 3.33 times for the developing solution to constitute 6 wt% . Furthermore, Ushiyama discloses that the surfactant as component (a) and component (b) may be incorporated between 1 to 70% by weight (paragraph [0018-0021]). Modifying the concentrated developer solution in this way would result in a developing solution that contains 0.3% to 21% by weight of the ionic and nonionic surfactants. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 . Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range. "The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims.... In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range." In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the disclosed developer concentrate, that is diluted 3.33 times to create a developing solution, with the concentration range disclosed in Ushiyama. One of ordinary skill would reasonably expect this modification to result in a developer solution that has similar properties. One of ordinary skill would then envisage an ionic and nonionic surfactant concentration in the developer solution between 0.3% to 21% by weight. Thus, Ushiyama teaches an aqueous developer solution comprising an anionic surfactant represented by Formula (1), wherein X 1 is sulfonic acid salt, R 1 is alkyl group having 14 to 18 carbons, in a concentrated developer having 20 wt% and a developer solution having 6 wt%, the HLB is 6.9, ( Claims 7, 15, 20, 22-25, 27-30 ). Ushiyama teaches an aqueous develop solution comprising a nonionic surfactant represented by Formula (2), wherein X 2 is a 9 carbon monovalent organic group, Ar is a 2-valent aromatic group, p=1, m=2, n=10, R 2 is hydrogen and A is a 2-carbon alkylene group, in a concentrated developer solution having 20 wt% and a developer solution having 6 wt% ( Claims 7, 15, 20, 22-25, 27-30 ). Ushiyama discloses a rinsing step with water after developing the photosensitive composition. The disclosure of Ushiyama is silent to explicit image-wise exposure steps to form a pattern in the printing plate precursor comprising a photosensitive polymer and developing to form imaged and non-images areas and Ushiyama is silent to the developer solution being explicitly used with a flexographic printing plate composition. However, Huang teaches methods for making a relief printing plate by using a lithographic printing plate to create ink-receptive areas on a receiver base (abstract). Huang discloses in one step of the method, a lithographic printing plate precursor is imaged to produce a lithographic printing plate, which means an image-bearing planographic printing plate with image areas and non-image areas which become more or less soluble in a developer upon exposure to radiation (paragraph [0018-0020]). Huang further discloses a suitable support for the practice of the present invention may also be obtained by flood exposure of a commercially available radiation-sensitive flexographic printing plate precursor to produce an imageable coating useful in the practice of the invention (paragraph [0024]). A step of imaging may further include the step of developing to wash the lithographic printing plate after image-wise exposure in a suitable developer to remove either exposed or unexposed portions of the imageable coating; suitable developer solutions are well-known in the art (paragraph [0031]). Since Ushiyama and Huang do not explicitly demonstrate the method of rinsing with water after developing an image-wise exposure , Examiner further brings in Baumann to demonstrate the state of the art regarding printing plate precursors and methods of making printing plate precursors. Baumann teaches a method of processing imaged lithographic printing plate precursors in contact with various processing solutions, wherein a defoamer may be introduced into at least one of the solutions to reduce a foaming problem (paragraph [0001]). Baumann discloses that developer compositions may commonly include one or more surfactants, chelating agents, organic solvents, and alkaline components (paragraph [0059]). After development, the imaged and developed element is contacted with a post-rinse solution in a post-rinse section of the processing apparatus wherein the post-rinse solution is generally an aqueous solution such as tap water or deionized water (paragraph [0062]). Thus, Ushiyama teaches the claimed developer composition and step comprising a water rinse and air drying after examining the developing power of the developer. Huang teaches that a photosensitive layer in a lithographic, planographic, and flexographic printing plate precursor may be imaged using image-wise exposure, and developed after image-wise exposure to form non-imaged and imaged areas. Baumann further teaches lithographic printing plate methods and explicitly demonstrates a rinse step with water is known in the art pre- and post-development. Ushiyama, Huang and Baumann do not show a specific example of a method comprising the claimed method steps with the claimed developer composition. However, it is prima facie obvious to combine methods each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a method to be used for the very same purpose . In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain a method comprising the flexographic printing plate imaging steps with the developer composition arrive at the instant claims through routine experimentation . One of ordinary skill would reasonably expect this modification to result in a suitable flexographic printing plate precursor patterning method. left 318923 0 0 Regarding Claims 22 and 28, the citations referenced in Claims 7, 15, 20, 23-25, 27, 29 and 30 are relied upon as above for brevity . Ushiyama further teaches an aqueous developer solution comprising an anionic surfactant represented by Formula (1), wherein X 1 is sulfonic acid salt, R 1 is alkyl group having 14 to 18 carbons (Table 1 produced above, [0032]). Other examples of the anionic surfactant include α-olefin su lfonate salts having a mean number of carbon atoms of 10 to 20 (paragraph [0012]). Thus, Ushiyama discloses a range for the anionic surfactant represented by Formula (1) to comprise groups where R 1 contains between 10 to 20 carbons, which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 6 to 14 carbons. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range. "The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims.... In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range." In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the anionic sulfonate surfactant disclosed in the developer solutions in Ushiyama with anionic sulfonates having alkyl groups of 10 to 20 carbon atoms through routine experimentation. One of ordinary skill would reasonably expect this modification to yield developer solutions having similar properties. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ushiyama (JP-6-138667, reference citations from English translation, IDS 04/20/2023) in view of Huang (US 2004/0161704) , Baumann (US 2008/0113298), and Watanabe ( WO 2018/181993, US 2019/0225002 used in lieu of English translation) . Regarding Claims 21 and 26 , Ushiyama teaches a water-based developer for a photosensitive polymer having high developing performance to the photosensitive polymer comprising components (a) a surfactant and at least one of compounds (b-1) and (b-2) represented by chemical formula 4 and chemical formula 5 respectively (paragraph [0005]). The developers were evaluated as 30 wt% aqueous solutions (Examiner interprets this as a dilution of the compositions disclosed in Tables 1 and 2 such that the developer is a concentrated solution; a 30 wt% aqueous solution of the developer consist of a 3.33 times dilution of the developer) on a printing plate precursor comprising a polypropylene plate and a photopolymer (paragraph [0026]). In Example 2, the developing power was determined by measuring the weight difference of the printing plate before and after development, rinsing with water and drying at room temperature (paragraph [0028]). Developer Example 6 comprises 20 parts AOS-Na ( sodium olefin sulfonate , MW=344, HLB=6.9) satisfying Formula (1) wherein X 1 is sulfonic acid salt, R 1 is alkyl group having 14 to 18 carbons (paragraph [0032])), 20 parts APE (p=10) (satisfying Formula (2) where X 2 is a 9 carbon monovalent organic group, Ar is a 2-valent aromatic group, p=1, m=2, n=10, R 2 is hydrogen, and A is a 2-carbon alkylene group) out of a whole of 100 parts as shown in Table 1 produced below (paragraph [0032]); Examiner notes that 20 parts of the surfactants in this concentrated developer based on 100 parts of the concentrate is diluted 3.33 times for the developing solution to constitute 6 wt% . Furthermore, Ushiyama discloses that the surfactant as component (a) and component (b) may be incorporated between 1 to 70% by weight (paragraph [0018-0021]). Modifying the concentrated developer solution in this way would result in a developing solution that contains 0.3% to 21% by weight of the ionic and nonionic surfactants. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 . Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range. "The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims.... In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range." In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the disclosed developer concentrate, that is diluted 3.33 times to create a developing solution, with the concentration range disclosed in Ushiyama. One of ordinary skill would reasonably expect this modification to result in a developer solution that has similar properties. One of ordinary skill would then envisage an ionic and nonionic surfactant concentration in the developer solution between 0.3% to 21% by weight. Thus, Ushiyama teaches an aqueous developer solution comprising an anionic surfactant represented by Formula (1), wherein X 1 is sulfonic acid salt, R 1 is alkyl group having 14 to 18 carbons, in a concentrated developer having 20 wt% and a developer solution having 6 wt%, the HLB is 6.9, (Claims 21,26). Ushiyama teaches an aqueous develop solution comprising a nonionic surfactant represented by Formula (2), wherein X 2 is a 9 carbon monovalent organic group, Ar is a 2-valent aromatic group, p=1, m=2, n=10, R 2 is hydrogen and A is a 2-carbon alkylene group, in a concentrated developer solution having 20 wt% and a developer solution having 6 wt% (Claims 21, 26). Ushiyama teaches a rinsing step with water after developing the photosensitive composition. The disclosure of Ushiyama is silent to explicit image-wise exposure steps to form a pattern in the printing plate precursor comprising a photosensitive polymer and developing to form imaged and non-images areas and Ushiyama is silent to the developer solution being explicitly used with a flexographic printing plate composition. However, Huang teaches methods for making a relief printing plate by using a lithographic printing plate to create ink-receptive areas on a receiver base (abstract). Huang discloses in one step of the method, a lithographic printing plate precursor is imaged to produce a lithographic printing plate, which means an image-bearing planographic printing plate with image areas and non-image areas which become more or less soluble in a developer upon exposure to radiation (paragraph [0018-0020]). Huang further discloses a suitable support for the practice of the present invention may also be obtained by flood exposure of a commercially available radiation-sensitive flexographic printing plate precursor to produce an imageable coating useful in the practice of the invention (paragraph [0024]). A step of imaging may further include the step of developing to wash the lithographic printing plate after image-wise exposure in a suitable developer to remove either exposed or unexposed portions of the imageable coating; suitable developer solutions are well-known in the art (paragraph [0031]). Since Ushiyama and Huang do not explicitly demonstrate the method of rinsing with water after developing an image-wise exposure , Examiner further brings in Baumann to demonstrate the state of the art regarding printing plate precursors and methods of making printing plate precursors. Baumann teaches a method of processing imaged lithographic printing plate precursors in contact with various processing solutions, wherein a defoamer may be introduced into at least one of the solutions to reduce a foaming problem (paragraph [0001]). Baumann discloses that developer compositions may commonly include one or more surfactants, chelating agents, organic solvents, and alkaline components (paragraph [0059]). After development, the imaged and developed element is contacted with a post-rinse solution in a post-rinse section of the processing apparatus wherein the post-rinse solution is generally an aqueous solution such as tap water or deionized water (paragraph [0062]). Thus, Ushiyama teaches the claimed developer composition and step comprising a water rinse and air drying after examining the developing power of the developer. Huang teaches that a photosensitive layer in a lithographic, planographic, and flexographic printing plate precursor may be imaged using image-wise exposure, and developed after image-wise exposure to form non-imaged and imaged areas. Baumann further teaches lithographic printing plate methods and explicitly demonstrates a rinse step with water is known in the art pre- and post-development. Ushiyama, Huang and Baumann do not show a specific example of a method comprising the claimed method steps with the claimed developer composition. However, it is prima facie obvious to combine methods each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a method to be used for the very same purpose . In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain a method comprising the flexographic printing plate imaging steps with the developer composition arrive at the instant claims through routine experimentation . One of ordinary skill would reasonably expect this modification to result in a suitable flexographic printing plate precursor patterning method. Ushiyama, Huang, and Baumann are silent to the developer compositions comprising an alkali agent. However, Watanabe teaches lithographic printing plate precursors and lithographic printing methods (abstract). Watanabe teaches the pH of the lithographic printing plate developer is preferably in a range of 7-9 and that from the viewpoints of the developability and the dispersibility of the image recording layer, it is advantageous that the value of the pH is set to be higher (paragraph [0470]). In addition, it is preferably the developer contains a non-ionic surfactant and at least one other selected from the group of non-ionic surfactant, anionic surfactant, and amphoteric surfactant (paragraph [0475]). Examples of the anionic surfactant include those represented by Formula (I) where X 1 can be sulfonate group, sulfate monoester group, carboxylate group, or a phosphate group and R 1 may be an alkyl, alkenyl, cycloalkyl, aryl, aralkyl group (paragraph [0477]). In Developer 1, Watanabe includes sodium hydrogen carbonate in the solution as a developer agent (paragraph [0959-0968]). Thus, Ushiyama and Watanabe discloses developer compositions comprising multiple surfactants chosen from non-ionic and anionic surfactants for printing plate precursor compositions and thus are analogous art and any modifications are likely to be compatible. Regarding the alkali agent, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the developer solution of Ushiyama with the teachings of Watanabe to make the pH of the developer solution 7-9 by adding an alkali agent through routine experimentation. One of ordinary skill would reasonably expect this modification to improve developability and the dispersibility of the image recording layer as suggested by Watanabe. Conclusion 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 FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KEVIN JAMES DRUMMEY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-5419 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mark Huff can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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 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. /K.J.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 1737 /MARK F. HUFF/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1737