DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the RCE received April 2, 2026.
Any bolded text is new language in the Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-16, and 18-20 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.
Claims 1 and 11 are indefinite with respect to the amendment inserting “the third repeating unit being hydrophobic and comprising an acrylate” because formula A3 continue to disclose a hydrophilic unit when R4 is hydrogen and the third comonomeric unit in Chemical Formula 1 includes R4 as hydrogen.
Correction is necessary.
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 1-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STREHMEL et al (2010/0190110) in view of LEE et al (7,238,653).
The claimed invention now recites the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
738
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
STREHMEL et al report a developer composition comprising a hydrophilic polymer, primary, secondary and/or tertiary groups, with sulfonic and phosphoric acid groups and alkylene oxide units as described in the abstract of the reference.
Specific examples of such as D9 and D11 in page 30, Table 7 disclose the alkaline component as potassium hydroxide, which can be replaced with any of the functionally equivalent compounds such as quaternary ammonium hydroxide as taught in para. [0386] to [0393] see examples shown below:
PNG
media_image2.png
154
366
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In addition, the use of hydrophilic copolymers containing units such as sulfonic and phosphoric acid containing groups is taught on page 19, see in para. [0345] is reported. Additional monomers include those disclose in para. [0375] wherein the hydroxyethyl methacrylate is taught as a unit meeting claim 3.
The skilled artisan is directed to use any of the hydrophilic polymers with acidic groups and either sulfonic acid or phosphonic acid and paired with any of the alkaline compounds such as quaternary ammonium hydroxide which would yield an ion exchange meeting the claimed developer in dependent claims 2, 4, 7 and 11-12
Claims 5 and 6 are met by the reported units above for sulfonic acid and phosphoric acid.
Claim 8 report anti-foaming agent K900 in D1 of Table 7.
Claims 9 and 10 are met by the alkaline component in para. [0386] to [0393].
Claims 13 meet the weight content of the hydrophilic polymer in para. [0385].
Claims 14-16 are met by the antifoaming agents disclosed in para. [0420] and [0421] and the alkaline components reported above in para. [0386].
The method steps of claims 18-20 are reported starting in para. [0326] wherein in
LEE et al is cited to report the use of functionally equivalent radiation sources used to form photolithographic images, see column 4, lines 36-41.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of developer composition to formulate a hydrophilic polymer with sulfonic and phosphoric units with a quaternary ammonium compound, anti-foaming agent with the reasonable expectation of having a printing plate which is positive and negative working and improving the quality of the image.
The rejection is repeated wherein the polymeric components in the developer such as the surfactants have molecular weight in the range of 668 g/mol demonstrating the range of polymeric components to optimize the developer properties such as viscosity and flow.
And the hydrophilic polymer in STREMEL et al can be seen as a type of surfactant due to its polymeric properties.
With respect to the presence of the ammonium cation in the STREMEL et al, it is repeated that the alkaline component in STREMEL et al such as the quaternary ammonium would engage in ion exchange and meet the claimed ammonium salt of the claims. further directed to para. [0352] wherein the presence of amino compounds to include quaternized nitrogen counterions may be present in the polymer
The rejection is repeated wherein the STREMEL et al disclose hydroxyethyl methacrylate as reported above and continues to meet amended claim 1 and 11 meeting the definition for R4. In addition, para. [00384] report hydrophobic groups in the hydrophilic polymers teaching the skilled artisan that hydrophobic comonomeric units may be included in the hydrophilic polymer in the developer.
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
April 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights