DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the application received November 28, 2022.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SASAKI et al (2018/0355149).
The claimed invention recites the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
416
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
SASAKI et al report a curable photosensitive composition comprising a salt of an anion that is component that has conjugate acid and a curable compound. The specific absorbance is not explicitly disclosed; however, the same or similar compound is reported having a divalent magnesium metal cation with an acid salt anion as seen in para. [0499] would meet the recited absorbance property claimed.
The salt of anion having a conjugate acid wherein the divalent cation is reported in para. [0175] and includes a magnesium cation shown below:
PNG
media_image2.png
324
372
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The photopolymerizable compound and the photoinitiator are reported in para. [0255] and [0326], respectively.
With respect to the dyes, applicants are directed to para. [0227].
Claims 2-4 are met by the Mg cation reported above in para. [0175].
Claims 5-8 are met by the anions in para. [0499].
Claim 9 is met in para. [0493] from Example 1.
Claim 11-13 are met in para. [0486] for the dye and parts by weight at 2.3.
Claims 14-17 are met by para. [0045] to [0060].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of photosensitive composition to select any of the divalent cations to include magnesium as reported in para. [0175] above in for the additive W found in Example 1 and reasonably same or similar results for improved heat resistance.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WARIISHII et al (2008/0145782) is cited to disclose a divalent cation compound in claim 14.
SHIMADA et al (6,623,910)) report a planographic printing plate precursors with end-capped groups, photoacid and a solvent.
BIRKNER (2009/0012285) disclose a benzimidazolium, 1,1’-(1,4-butanediyl)bis[3-methyl]) cation.
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
November 29, 2025