DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the amendment received June 25, 2026.
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, 11, 16-25, and 28-38 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
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
422
684
media_image2.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_image3.png
804
384
media_image3.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_image4.png
460
382
media_image4.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_image5.png
128
382
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
396
386
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 6-9 the molar absorption coefficient and pKa of compound β, are asserted by Office 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 16 and 17 have been disclosed above for the polymerizable compound and the photopolymerization initiator.
Claims 19-21 for the method are reported 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.
Claim 35- 38 are rejected as b0 is undefined and is met by any of the comonomers reported in any of the FROMMELD references above.
The rejection is repeated wherein the requirement (W01) is interpreted as a polymer A having a unit b0 which is undefined, and the additive compounds reported in the FROMMELD references meet the reduction of the carboxy groups upon exposure.
Claims 1, 11, 16-25, and 28-38 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 11, 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 rejection is repeated wherein the requirement (W01) is interpreted as a polymer A having a unit b0 which is undefined, and the additive compounds reported in the FROMMELD references meet the reduction of the carboxy groups upon exposure.
Claims 2, 12 and 29-34 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.
None of the prior art references of record disclose b0 being a heteroaromatic ring and the additional limitations to claim 29 for defining the heteroaromatic ring.
Claims 39-59 are allowed.
None of the prior art references of record disclose the claimed photosensitive material having requirement (V01) wherein the “photosensitive material dose [sic] not substantially include a polymerizable compound having one or more ethylenically unsaturated groups in a molecule which is interpreted as having 0% in the photosensitive material.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
BARR et al (2004/0063030 A1) disclose polymers which can have an acrylic acid/vinyl pyridine repeating units in photoresist compositions, however there is no direct teaching to use those specific monomers together.
VAN ISEGHEM et al (5,334,485) disclose an acid soluble photoresist composition comprising a vinyl pyridine polymer in the photosensitive composition; however, lacks the directed teaching for an (meth)acrylic acid comonomer.
KANCHIKU et al (2009/0233221 A1) disclose the use of a polymerizable monomer in an amount of 5% to 60% in a photosensitive material for infrared laser exposure and negative working planographic printing plates.
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 on M-F, IFP-Flex.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1401. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/John S. Chu/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737
J. Chu
August 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights