DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the amendment received September 3, 2025.
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, 4, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAITO et al (2018/0275515) in view of DOTTINGER et al, YAMAZAWA et al (2009/0155721) and SOMMERFELD et al (5,985,998).
The claimed invention now recites the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
490
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
SAITO et al report a flexographic printing plate comprising a hydrophilic copolymer, a polymerizable unsaturated monomer, and a photopolymerization initiator. The hydrophilic copolymer is a water-dispersed latex such as acrylonitrile-butadiene copolymer latex as seen in para. [0034] and can contain another polymer particle such as styrene-butadiene copolymer latex as seen in para. [0036].
The plasticizer reported in SAITO et al is disclosed in para. [0105] which include sebacic esters and/or phthalic esters.
PNG
media_image2.png
192
428
media_image2.png
Greyscale
DOTTINGER et al report the content of the plasticizers preferably in the amounts of 2.0% to 8.0% by weight and specifically report the amounts by weight of 7.0%, 7.0%, 2.5%, and 8.0% and 5.0% as seen in Examples 1-6 in Tables 1-5, pages 8-10.
YAMAZAWA et al report a flexographic printing plate comprising composition comprising a thermoplastic elastomer, a photopolymerizable unsaturated monomer and a photopolymerization initiator.
With respect to claim 5, applicants are directed to para. [0062] wherein the photosensitive composition can optionally contain a particulate polymer such as a polyamide polymer to suppress defects such as lowering physical properties and chipping of the printing plate para, [0064], see below:
PNG
media_image3.png
120
436
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
118
424
media_image4.png
Greyscale
YAMAZAWA et al further report the use of the same plasticizers in SAITO et al, see para. [0066] for sebacic acid ester and phthalate esters.
SOMMERFELD et al disclose that photopolymerizable compositions may also include plasticizers to modify adhesion, flexibility, hardness, solubility and other mechanical or chemical properties in the composition which include dibutyl suberate, diethyl adipate. These plasticizers are listed as equivalent to dioctyl phthalate and diethyl sebacate reported above in SAITO et al, see column 22, lines 48 – 63 shown below:
PNG
media_image5.png
332
466
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of flexographic printing plates as reported in SAITO et al to have equivalent plasticizers such as dibutyl suberate, diethyl adipate in place of sebacic acid ester and phthalic acid esters as a plasticizer in an amount of 2.0 to 8.0 % by weight as taught in DOTTINGER et al and to add a particulate polymer such as polyamide in the photosensitive layer as reported in YAMAZAWA et al for the purpose of suppressing defects.
The amendments to claim 1 have been addressed above for the latex butadiene skeleton copolymer as well as the polyamide polymer amended in claim 6. SAITO et al as the primary reference disclose flexographic printing plates having a latex based polymer with plasticizers. The cross-over use of plasticizers in latex-based or thermoplastic based flexographic printing plates is known and shown in the prior art, such that their interchangeable use would be prima facie obvious to the skilled artisan in flexographic printing plates.
Evidence of unexpected results in the case showing the improved results with the listed plasticizers over the prior art plasticizers, may provide an argument for unobviousness of the equivalent plasticizers in the rejection.
The rejection is repeated and may final.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
September 15, 2025