DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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(s) 1, 3,4, 6, 9, 13, 16, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Araki (2020/0353741).
Araki disclose a an on-press development type lithographic printing plate wherein the device comprises a support, an image recording layer, and an outermost layer. The outermost layer comprises a hydrophobic area on at least a part of its surface. The hydrophobic area preferably polymer particles ([0082]-[0100]; instant claim 4) formed by applying the hydrophobic particles and a water-soluble polymer which is present in the non-hydrophobic area. The water-soluble polymer is preferably polyvinyl alcohol ([0116] having a dispersible group; instant claim 6), and while the reference is silent with respect to eh degree of saponification, commonly used commercially available PVA polymers have a saponification degree of ~75% or greater, to provide suitable hydrophilicity (instant claim 9) The hydrophobic area has a sea-island structure ([0082]) with an area of 20% to less than 100% of the surface area, and an area wherein there in no hydrophobicity ([0067]-[0074]; instant claim 1). The contact angle of the of the hydrophobic area is 25 o C to 60 o C or greater (instant claims 1 and 3; [0068]-[0070]).
The image recording layer comprises a polymerizable compound, an IR absorber, and an initiator ([0139]; instant claim 13). Preferred initiators include onium salts ([0168]; instant claim 16).
The method of preparing the plate includes image-wise exposing the plate precursors to form exposed and unexposed areas, supplying at least one of printing ink or dampening water to remove the non-exposed areas, and the printing plate is used for printing (instant claims 19 and 20; claims 13 and 14, [0351]-[0361], [0547]-[0549]).
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.
Claim(s) 5, 7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki.
Araki has been discussed above. The reference further teaches that the hydrophobic particles may be a resin such as melamine and urethanes, which is are known crosslinking resins, therefore, the reference teaches one of ordinary skill in the art to use crosslinking polymer particles ([0075]-[0081]; instant claim 5).
The water-soluble polymer comprises a dispersible group including those are preferred by the instant invention such as those having a polyoxyalkylene structure, wherein the polymer would include a group of formula Z, with a linking group, a hydrophobic group, and hydrophilic oxyalkylene group (instant claims 6-8; [0106]-[0119]).
Given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the printing plate precursor of Araki, choosing as the water-soluble polymer that having a group of formula Z having a polyoxyalkylene oxide structure as taught to be suitable by Araki, or wherein the hydrophobic particles include a crosslinked resin as also taught to be suitable by Araki. The resultant material would also meet the limitations of the instant claims.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki in view of Matsumura (JP 2008-292910 and its machine translation).
Araki has been discussed above. The reference teaches that additional known additives may be included in the outermost layer, but fails to specifically disclose a preservative.
Matsumura teaches a printing plate precursor comprising a protective layer, wherein the protective layer comprises a preservative and a water-soluble polymer such as PVA, similar materials to the outermost layer of Araki (abstract). The suggested preservatives include parabens, sodium benzoate, cresol, benzyl alcohol, and others similar to those taught by the instant specification.
Given the teachings of the references, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the material of Araki, choosing to include the known additive of a preservative in the outermost layer to improve printing durability and running characteristics as taught by Matsumura.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki in view of Ohashi (JP 2006-205394 and its machine translation).
Araki has been discussed above. The reference teaches that additional known additives may be included in the outermost layer, but fails to specifically disclose a discoloring compound.
Ohashi disclose a printing plate precursor comprising a covering (protective) layer, wherein the layer comprises a water-soluble polymer, and may comprise the color change agent A instead of the image-forming layer, which decomposes when exposed to infrared rays ([0019], [0347]-[0354]; instant claims 11 and 12).
Given the teachings of the references, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the material of Araki, choosing to include the known additive of color change agent in the protective layer as taught to be known for similar materials by Ohashi, wherein the resultant material would also meet the limitations of the instant claims.
Claim(s) 14, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki in view of Heylen et al (2011/0315034).
Araki has been discussed above. The reference teaches an image recording layer comprising an infrared absorbing dye of structure similar to that the instant invention (and would possess similar properties such as the energy level of HOMO as set forth by instant claims 14 and 15). The reference further teaches that an initiator is included, and known initiators maybe used, however, the reference fails to specifically teach the initiator of formula (II).
Heylen et al disclose a printing plate precursor comprising similar general additives and compounds as Araki, and further teach that known and suitable polymerization initiators includes those having a structure falling within the scope of the instant formula (I).
Such compounds include 4-hydroxyphenyl-tribromomethylsulfone ([0044]-[0058]). Given the teachings of the references, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the material of Araki, choosing the prepare the material with a polymerization initiator of formula (II) taught to be known and useful by Heylen et al, wherein the resultant material would also meet the limitations of the instant claims.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki in view of Kunita (6,875,557).
Araki has been discussed above. The reference teaches that a polymerizable compound having multiple functional groups is present in the layer, but fails to specifically teach one having at least seven functional groups.
Kunita teaches a printing plate precursor wherein the polymerizable compound comprises at least two functional groups, and teaches compounds wherein trifunctional or more are used (Tables 5 and 6, wherein n > 3) and preferably the compounds comprise 4 to 8 polymerizable functional groups (column 55, lines 41-55).
Given the teachings of the references, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the material of Araki, choosing the prepare the material with a polymerizable compound having seven or greater polymerizable function al groups as taught to be known to increase the crosslinking degree by Kunita. The resultant material would also meet the limitations of the instant claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has canceled claim 2 and incorporated the limitations of the now cancelled claim into the independent claim 1.
In light of the amendment, applicant has argued that the Araki et al reference fails to fairly teach or suggest that the water contact angle at 25 o C on the surface of the outermost layer measured at 30 seconds after the water is landed as a droplet of water-in-pol is 120 to 160 o C, and argues that the reference teaches a preferred range of 80 to 100 o C (response, page 9, paragraph 1).
As further noted in the response (and discussed in the office action), the broadest teachings of the reference include a water contact angle of preferably 65 o C or greater, and 75 o C or greater, which includes the claimed range. The water contact angle is affected by the material of the outermost layer, and the materials discussed above and taught by Araki fall within the scope of the claimed invention and given the similarity to the claimed material, would be expected to inherently possess similar properties, and Araki et al teaches a broad range which includes the claimed range, despite its most preferred range being slightly outside of the lower end of the range as set forth by the instant claim 1. The reference teachings are not limited to the most preferred embodiments and examples.
Furthermore, Araki et al aims to adjust the contact angle to scum-suppressing (same as applicant), and given the broad range of Araki et al , one of skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed contact angle range through routine experimentation and optimization to achieve to optimal scum-suppressing.
Applicant has also pointed to the inventive examples in the instant specification as demonstrating that unexpected and superior results are achieved by the claimed contact angle (now in independent claim 1), and that plates having the contact angle achieve improved on-press development residue suppressiveness, printing durability, and receptivity. The examples are not commensurate in with the limitations of claim 1, as they do not cover the breadth of the range and show points outside of the end points to demonstrate that the results are achieve across the range and that the range demonstrate unexpected and superior results as opposed to points outside of the range. Applicant’s examples have contact angles at 120, 130, 135, 140, and 145 o C in Tables 4 to 6, with the highest point in the middle of the range of 120 to 160 o C, with no points near the higher end. The comparative examples only on the lower end of the range, and well outside of the lower end of the range (lower end is 120 o C) at 30, 50, and 80 o C. Therefore, the examples are not commensurate in scope with the claimed range and are unpersuasive.
Therefore, the arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections of record are maintained.
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 AMANDA C WALKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 5:30am to 4pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/AMANDA C. WALKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722