DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the amendment received March 23, 2026.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over SUZUKI et al (2012/0219911) is withdrawn in view of the amendment to claim 1 which now recites that the overlayer comprises a hydrophilic polymer and a hydrophobic polymer.
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) 1-9 is/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 MAEMOTO et al. (2003/0148207).
The claimed invention now recites the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
296
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
MAEMOTO et al likewise discloses an overlayer comprising a hydrophilic polymer blended with a hydrophobic polymer particles, see para. [0420] shown below:
PNG
media_image2.png
92
364
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The working example can be found on page 51, para. [0515] Coating Solution 2, below:
PNG
media_image3.png
368
390
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The reference fails to disclose the contact angle of a water droplet; however, the presence of hydrophobic polymer particles provides for a hydrophobicity to the protective layer as to repel water and would be expected to be at a greater angle than 36 degrees. The content of the polymer fine particles is in an amount four times the polyacrylic acid, making the surface hydrophobic implying an angle at 90 degrees or greater. Contact angles less than 90 degrees indicates some hydrophilic properties.
The rejection is repeated wherein the analysis by AI for an 80% hydrophobic polymer and 20% hydrophilic polymer blend would yield an expected contact angle typically in the range of 70o to 95o and considered partially hydrophobic to weakly hydrophilic, see image below:
PNG
media_image4.png
274
702
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Thus, the claimed range as now recited for 36o to 80o would be inherently met by the coating solution 2 for the overcoat layer in MAEMOTO et al.
Claims 1-9 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of MAEMOTO et al (20030148207) and SUZUKI et al. (2012/0219911).
The claimed invention now recites the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
296
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
MAEMOTO et al has been discussed for above for the on-press lithographic printing plate having hydrophobic polymer particles in the protective layer which would inherently meet the contact angle of a water droplet as claimed.
Claims 13-14 and 17 are met at by SUZUKI et al at para. [0091].
Claims 15-16 is inherently asserted as to the infrared absorber reported in para. [0081] of SUZUKI et al.
Claims 18-19 are met by the disclosure of micropores in para. [0154] of MAEMOTO et al.
Claim 20 for the method is met by the exposure to an infrared semiconductor laser reported on page 23, para. [0201] to [0203], having a wavelength of 760 nm to 1200nm.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of on-press lithographic plates to duplicate the examples found in MAEMOTO et al and SUZUKI et al with the reasonable expectation of same or similar results for good ink receptivity and high printing durability.
The rejection is repeated for the AI estimate for the contact angle of water on an 80/20 weight ratio of a hydrophobic polymer to the polyacrylic acid hydrophilic polymer in MAEMOTO et al. shown in paragraph 5 of the Office action.
Claims 10-12 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 references of record disclose the particular discoloring compound having a Formula 1-1 in the outermost layer.
Claims 21-23 are seen as allowable over the prior art of record.
None of the references of record disclose the particular discoloring compound having a Formula 1-1 in the outermost layer.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
YU et al (2006/0292486) and NOGLIK et al (2004/0081911) both disclose overcoat layer comprising a resin and resin mixtures, see paras.[0061] in both references.
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
June 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights