CTFR 18/059,205 CTFR 68314 DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE This Office action is in response to the amendment received March 17, 2026. Bolded text is new to the previous office action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAKAHASHI et al (2018/0361772) and TENG (2006/0251993) in view of USUI (6,306,254), FUJIKI et al (2014/0224140), MAEMOTO et al (2003/0148207) and KAMITANI et al (2009/0226841) and LEVANON (7,399,576) The claimed invention now recites the following: PNG media_image1.png 266 676 media_image1.png Greyscale TAKAHASHI et al report a planographic printing plate precursor for on-press resin composition comprising a support, an image recording layer containing an infrared absorbing agent. Applicants are directed to para. [0525] wherein interleaving paper for preventing scratches and interposed between the precursors, see below: PNG media_image2.png 214 372 media_image2.png Greyscale TENG also disclose an on-press thermosensitive printing plate having a support and a recording layer having an infrared absorbing agent. The recording layer include a free radical initiator and an ethylenically unsaturated monomer, see para [0024]. Applicants are directed to para. [0042] wherein an interleaf paper can be used in-between the plates to prevent damage and the plates from sticking to each other. PNG media_image3.png 390 378 media_image3.png Greyscale Each of TAKAHASHI et al and TENG lack the disclosure for an interleaf paper having a pH is 5 or more. USUI is cited to disclose the manufacture of interleaf paper for printing plates, see Embodiment 1 below from col. 2, lines 50-63 : PNG media_image4.png 216 368 media_image4.png Greyscale Note the box wherein aluminum sulfate is added until the pH of the mixture is 5, meaning that the composition starts off greater than 5 and reduced until a pH of 5 is reached. Thus, the pH of the interleaf paper made by USUI meets the claimed pH of 5 or more. The skilled artisan can select the interleaf paper of USUI and incorporate it into the packaging for the printing plates of either TAKAHASHI et al or TENG as suggested in those references. KAMITANI et al disclose photosensitive planographic printing plate wherein the interleaf paper is employed to protect a coating layer of the web and is reported to have a pH of 4 to 6 as seen in para. [0095], line 16, see below: PNG media_image5.png 276 368 media_image5.png Greyscale LEVANON disclose a positive working lithographic printing plate which is sensitive to infrared radiation wherein at the time of packaging interleaving material are layered alternatively to provide protection and ready releasability when each element is loaded for thermal imaging. In col. 11, lines 10-39 , the interleaf paper is used for a coefficient of friction test is described to be have a particular density, pH of 7-9.5, porosity, and other properties. This interleaf paper is suitable for use as a protective layer in printing plates and meets the claimed laminate wherein the pH is 6 or more. Claims 2-7 for the infrared absorbing agents are met by para. [0164] in TAKAHASHI et al and para. [0032] of TENG Claims 8-9 for the free-radical polymerizable monomers and polymers, respectively in the recording layer are met by paras. [0028] and [0034] of TENG and paras. [0184] and [0195] of TAKAHASHI et al. Claims 11-14 for the outermost layer is met by the disclosure in paras. [0246] to [0251] of TAKAHASHI et al and para. [0209] in FUJIKI et al. and para. [0515] Coating Solution 2 wherein the overcoat layer contains a light-to-heat converting agent of MAEMOTO et al wherein the discoloring compound is the infrared dye Claims 16-18 and 20 for the outermost layer having a saponified polyvinyl alcohol is met by para. [0209] of FUJIKI et al. Claim 19 is met by para. [0191] in FUJIKI et al (2014/0224140) for the oil sensitizing agent in the protective layer. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of thermosensitive on-press developable printing plates to use the interleaf paper disclosed by KAMITANI et al and/or LEVANON (having a pH of 6 or more) with any of the printing plates of TAKAHASHI et al or TENG with the reasonable expectation of same or similar results for having an interleaf paper to prevent sticking, scratches and damage to the recording layer . 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 15 is 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 disclose the claimed infrared sensitive compound in claim 21 wherein the R 1 variable defined for Formula (2-1) to (4-1) are not disclosed in the prior art references of record. 12-151-07 AIA 07-97 12-51-07 Claim 21 is allowed. None of the prior art references disclose the claimed infrared sensitive compound in claim 21 wherein the R 1 variable defined for Formula (2-1) to (4-1) is not disclosed in the prior art references of record. 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. ANNOURA (2009/0084241) is cumulative to KAMITANI et al above for the interleaf paper having a pH of 4 to 6, see para. [0084]. 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 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 May 30, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/059,205 Page 2 Art Unit: 1737 Application/Control Number: 18/059,205 Page 3 Art Unit: 1737 Application/Control Number: 18/059,205 Page 4 Art Unit: 1737 Application/Control Number: 18/059,205 Page 5 Art Unit: 1737 Application/Control Number: 18/059,205 Page 7 Art Unit: 1737
Prosecution Insights