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 .
Claims 15-17 and 20-29 are currently pending. Claims 1-14 and 18-19 have been canceled. Claims 15 and 20 have been amended. Claim 29 has been added as new.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15-17 and 20-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the weight of the sample used in the analysis" . There is no positive recitation of a sample recited in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim as written is indefinite and unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 16-17 and 20-29 depends on claim 15; therefore, the claims are also indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claim(s) 15-17 and 20-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahara et al. (CN 107924129 A) in view of Ido et al. (JP 2015158551 A1) and in further in view of Sato et al. (WO 2019/139055 A1).
Regarding claims 15-17 and 20-29, Kawahara et al. disclose a photosensitive resin printing plate precursor (equivalent to " a photosensitive resin printing plate precursor" ) (see abstract, examples and claims & paragraphs [ 0019] to [ 0026] of the specification) comprising: (A) a partially saponified polyvinyl acetate compound (equivalent to " a photosensitive resin layer containing at least: a polymer (A) having an olefinic double bond" of the present application); (B) a polyamide having a basic nitrogen; (C) a compound having an ethylenic double bond (equivalent to " the photosensitive resin layer contains at least a compound (B) having an ethylenic double bond" of the present application); and (D) a photopolymerization initiator (equivalent to " the photosensitive resin layer contains at least the photopolymerization initiator (C)" of the present application), the photosensitive resin layer comprises at least a lower layer (equivalent to " the photosensitive resin layer comprises at least a second photosensitive resin layer inside the photosensitive resin layer" herein) and a print surface layer (equivalent to " the photosensitive resin layer has at least a first photosensitive resin layer comprising a print surface" herein), the photosensitive resin printing plate precursor having, in sequence, the support (equivalent to " support" herein), the underlayer, and the print toplayer (equivalent to " photosensitive resin printing plate precursor having at least a support and a photosensitive resin layer" herein), and as the (A) partially saponified polyvinyl acetate compound, the partially saponified polyvinyl acetate compound (A1 ) having an average degree of polymerization of 1200 to 2600 is contained in the print face layer and the partially saponified polyvinyl acetate an average degree of polymerization of 400 to 800 is contained in the lower layer. Kawahara et al. teach the first photosensitive layer has a thickness of 5 µm or more and 100 µm or less (0.01 mm or more and 4.99 mm or less; see citations above). Kawahara et al. teach the second photosensitive layer has a thickness of 2 mm or less and 100 µm or more less (greater than or equal to 0.1 mm and less than or equal to 4.99 mm; see citations above).
Further regards to claims, Kawahara et al. do not explicitly recite an ethylenic double bond equivalent F1 (g/eq) of polymer (A) in the first photosensitive resin layer is higher than the ethylenic double bond equivalent F2 (g/eq) of polymer (A) in the second photosensitive resin layer as stated in section (3) of the instant claims. Nonetheless, the examiner has added Ido et al. teach a photosensitive resin printing plate precursor ( see abstract, claims ,examples and paragraphs [0006-0074] of the specification), having, in this order, a support, a first immediate layer, and a photosensitive resin layer ( “ first photosensitive resin layer having a printed side”), wherein the photosensitive resin layer comprising partially saponified polyvinyl acetate having a saponification degree of 70% or more and a number average polymerization degree of 300 to 2000 (equivalent to " polymer (A) of olefinic double bonds" herein), a partially saponified polyvinyl acetate having a saponification degree of 70% or more and a number average polymerization degree of 300 to 2000 (equivalent to " polymer (A) of olefinic double bonds" of the present application) is contained in the second intermediate layer (equivalent to " second photosensitive resin layer comprising an interior of the photosensitive resin layer" of the present application), the partially saponified polyvinyl acetate contained in the second intermediate layer (equivalent to " (A) component (A-2)" in the second photosensitive resin layer in the distinction) is a partially saponified polyvinyl acetate having a larger number average polymerization degree than the partially saponified polyvinyl acetate contained in the photosensitive resin layer (equivalent to " (A) component (A-1 )" in the first photosensitive resin layer in the distinction), the second intermediate layer does not contain a compound having a reactive group in it. The present application is capable of obtaining a photosensitive resin printing plate precursor that does not develop relief cracks and peeling between the substrate and the relief upon development, and has adhesion under printing conditions that does not produce obstacles. As can be seen , Ido et al. gives the following technical implications: an intermediate layer between the support and the first photosensitive resin layer having a printing surface, the degree of polymerization of the polymer (A) of olefinic double bonds in the intermediate layer is greater than the degree of polymerization of the polymer (A) of olefinic double bonds of the printing face layer, and this technical means plays the same role as in the present application, i. e. It is possible to suppress peeling of the photosensitive resin layer during development. As is well known to those skilled in the art, there is a correlation between the degree of polymerization (crosslink density) of the polymer and the double bond equivalent of the ethylenically double bonded polymer, when the double bond equivalent is low, able to increase the crosslink density (degree of polymerization) of the polymer, thus, under the teaching of Ido et al. , it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art readily envisions the need to make the olefinic double bond equivalent F1 (g/eq) of (A) component (A-1 ) in the first photosensitive resin layer greater than the olefinic double bond equivalent F2 (g/eq) of (A) component (A-2) in the second photosensitive resin layer, such that the cross-linking density (degree of polymerization) of the intermediate layer (second layer) is greater than the cross-linking density (degree of polymerization) of the printed facing layer (first layer), replacing the photosensitive resin layer in Kawahara et al. with such first and second layers, thereby obtaining a technical effect of suppressing peeling of the photosensitive resin layer during development.
Further regards to claims, Kawahara et al. do not explicitly recite a weight average molecular weight MI of said component (A-1) is 20,000 or more and 200,000 or less as instantly claimed and wherein said F1 is 1,000 (g/eq) or more and 19,000 (g/eq) or less as instantly claimed. Examiner has added Sato et al. to teach a photocurable adhesive composition and a sheet thereof (equivalent to " photosensitive resin printing plate precursor" ) (see claims 1 -5 ), a photocurable adhesive layer formed from the photocurable adhesive composition is irradiated by energy rays comprising a (meth) acrylic polymer (equivalent to the " polymer (A) having ethylenic double bonds" of the present application) and a photopolymerization initiator. The double bond equivalent of the (meth) acrylic polymer (equivalent to the " polymer (A) having olefinic double bonds" of the present application) is preferably 1 , 000 to 5 , 000 g/eq (falling within the range of " 1 , 000 (g/eq) or more and 1 9, 000 (g/eq) or less" of the present application, i. e. , disclosing the value range of " double bond equivalent F1 " of the present application). If the double bond equivalent weight of the (meth) acrylic polymer is 5 , 000 g/eq or less, curing is sufficiently performed when the photocurable adhesive composition is irradiated with an energy ray to obtain heat resistance at high temperature heating, and if 1 , 000 g/eq or more, adhesion with an article substrate (equivalent to the " support" of the present application) can be well maintained and heat resistance at high temperature heating can be obtained. Furthermore, the weight average molecular weight of the (meth) acrylic polymer of Sato et al. is 50,000 to 500,000 encompassing the instant claimed range of 20,000 to 200,000. Sato et al. recognize the role of being able to increase the adhesion between the layer of photosensitive resin composition and the substrate (equivalent to the " support" of the present application). Therefore, It is well known to those skilled in the art that if the compactness is good, stripping upon development can be prevented, and therefore, the value of F1 by those skilled in the art is made in light of double bond equivalents as disclosed in Sato et al.
Further regards to claim 17, Kawahara et al. do not explicitly recite the ratio of (F1/F2) as instantly claimed. However, the ratio is optimizable. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215. The ratio of F1 with respect to F2 (F1 /F2) being greater than 1 . 0 and less than 5 . 0, is a conventional choice made according to practical needs in the teaching of the ratio of the values of the degree of polymerization of the polymers of the printed face layer and the intermediate layer disclosed in Ido et al. (see citations above).
Further regards to claims 25-28, Kawahara et al. teach a method for producing printing plates (see paragraphs [0102] to [0118 ] of the specification)< In case the photosensitive printing plate precursor is not provided with a thermal masking layer (I) (hereinafter referred to as analog plate), when provided with a cover film (H), after the peeling thereof, the original film of the negative or positive sheet is intimately bonded to the photosensitive resin layer (F) and UV light is irradiated, thereby photocuring the photosensitive resin layer (F) (equivalent to the " exposure step of photocuring at least the photosensitive resin layer of the photosensitive resin printing plate precursor with UV light to photocure an exposed part of the photosensitive resin layer" of the present application); followed by immersing the exposed photosensitive printing plate precursor in a developer, development is performed with a brush type developer that removes an uncured portion by rubbing with a brush, thereby forming an embossed image on a substrate (equivalent to " Development Procedure in which at least an uncured portion of a photosensitive resin layer is removed using water and/or an organic solvent" of the present application). In addition, Kawahara et al. teach the printing plate is adapted for dry offset printing. See citations about.
In conclusion, the technical solution of the claims, combining Ido et al. and technical means customary in the art on the basis of Kawahara et al. is obvious to the person skilled in the art, this claim is therefore devoid of outstanding essential features and significant advancements
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 15-17 and 20-29 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 CHANCEITY N ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:00 am-6:00 pm; IFP; PHP).
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, Mark Huff can be reached at 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.
/CHANCEITY N ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737