DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the RCE received January 26, 2026.
Claims 1-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KURA et al (7,425,585) or SUZUKI et al (5,738,971)
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-9, 11-17, and 19-38 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 FROMMELD et al (5,057,398), (4,940,647) and/or (4,767,445).
The claimed invention now recites the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
478
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FROMMELD et al ‘398 anticipates the claimed invention at Example 2 in column 9, lines 6-56 in which the composition comprises a copolymer of methyl methacrylate/methacrylic acid, a polymerizable compound (trimethylolethanetriacrylate) and a photoinitiator in an amount of 0.7 parts by weight of 2-tribromomethylquinoline ( a quinone derivative), see below:
PNG
media_image2.png
804
384
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Example 2 continues on to disclose a method wherein the composition is coated on an aluminum plate which is conductive, exposed to a metal halide lamp and developed.
FROMMELD et al ‘647 anticipate the claimed invention at Example 2, column 7, lines 9-36 wherein the composition comprises a terpolymer of methyl methacrylate/n-hexylmethacrylate/methacrylic acid, a photopolymerizable compound and a photoinitiator comprising a quinoline derived compound, see below:
PNG
media_image3.png
460
382
media_image3.png
Greyscale
FROMMELD et al ‘445 anticipate the claimed invention at Example 5, column 10, lines 61 – column 11, line 23 wherein the composition comprises a copolymer of methyl methacrylate/methacrylic acid, a photopolymerizable compound and a photoinitiator comprising a quinoline derived compound, see below.
PNG
media_image4.png
128
382
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
396
386
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 6-9 the molar absorption coefficient and pKa of compound β, are asserted Office by to be inherent with respect to those properties wherein the same or similar derived compounds are recited in the FROMMELD et al references as the quinoline would continue to contains those properties based on the structure of the heterocyclic ring of quinoline.
Claim 11 is met by the disclose copolymers in FROMMELD et al having a (meth)acrylic acid.
Claims 13 and 14 for the content of the aromatic rings to the carboxy groups is met by the content of the photopolymerization initiator being
With respect to claim 15, for the content of compound β at 4% to 35% by mass, FROMMELD et al ‘445 report in col. 3, lines 5-8 that the photoinitiators are employed in a concentration of 0.01 to 10% by weight preferably 0.2 to 4% by weight thus meeting the limitations of claim 15 , see below:
PNG
media_image6.png
64
376
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claims 16 and 17 have been disclosed above for the polymerizable compound and the photopolymerization initiator.
Claims 19-21 for the method are reported in above in Example 2 of FROMMELD et al ‘398.
Claims 22 to the temporary support is disclosed in col. 7, lines 15-29 of FROMMELD et al ‘398.
Claims 23-25 are asserted to be inherent wherein the transmittance is inseparable from the quinoline compound itself as a natural property and the reduction rate is inherent based on the content of the quinoline compound in the composition.
Claims 26 has been disclose above in the copolymer of having methacrylic acid.
Claim 27 would be inherent based on the content of the quinoline used in the composition and the change in solubility of the polymer A in a developer.
Claims 28-38 are rejected along with claim 1 wherein option (V01) is the rejected a selected option, while condition (W01) is not selected.
Claims 1, 2, 6-9, and 11-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FROMMELD et al (5,057,398), (4,940,647) and/or (4,767,445) above further in view of DUDMAN et al (6,090,865).
The claimed invention is recited above.
FROMMELD et al ‘467 has been discussed above for their composition comprising a terpolymer of methyl methacrylate/n-hexylmethacrylate/methacrylic acid, a photopolymerizable compound and a photoinitiator comprising a quinoline derived photoinitiator.
FROMMELD et al ‘467 disclose equivalent photoinitiators such as benzophenone with the quinoline derived compounds, see col. 3, lines 4-9.
Claims 6-9, 11-17, and 19-38 are rejected above in the previous rejection over FROMMELD et al .
With respect to claim 18 for the photopolymerization initiators, DUDMAN et al report a photopolymerizable composition wherein known photoinitiators include benzophenone along with α-aminoacetophenone, see col. 33, lines 37-48 and col. 34, lines 27-41, wherein equivalent photoinitiators used in combination include benzophenones and α-aminoacetophenones. The skilled artisan would expect any of the listed photoinitiators to function in the same or similar manner such that the use of aminoacetophenone is prima facie obvious to the skilled artisan, see below the text below:
From column 33:
PNG
media_image7.png
192
384
media_image7.png
Greyscale
From column 34:
PNG
media_image8.png
242
382
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of photosensitive composition to add any equivalent photopolymerization initiator such as α- aminoacetophenone in place of known photoinitiators like benzophenone in a mixture with the quinoline derivatives in the examples of the FROMMELD et al ‘467 reference and reasonably expect same or similar results for improved shelf life, stable photopolymerizable compositions which are highly light sensitive and that adhere well to metal surfaces as taught in FROMMELD et al ‘467.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
IRVING et al (2007/0269750) is cited of interest for a photopolymerizable composition containing quinoline dyes as photoinitiators, see para. [0038].
DEMACHI et al (2007/0269720) is cited of interest for a photopolymerizable composition containing quinoline dyes as photoinitiators, see para. [0074].
containing a carboxy repeating unit and pyridine as a polymerization inhibitor, see col. 5, line 48.
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
March 12, 2026