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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-7, 10-13, and 19-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arlt (US 2022/0305769) in view of Fronczkiewicz et al. (US 10175580), further in view of Lenssens et al. (US 2022/0276568). Regarding claims 1, 4, and 5, Arlt teaches “a method of flood exposing (abstract, paragraph 34) a photocurable printing blank to actinic radiation from a UV light source to crosslink and cure the photocurable printing blank (title, abstract, paragraph 14)” through a mask (paragraph 38); “the method comprising the steps of: a) positioning the photocurable printing blank in an exposure unit (Figure 9), wherein the exposure unit comprises a plurality of UV light tubes arranged in the exposure unit at a distance from a surface of the photocurable printing blank (Figure 9) and connected to a controller that is capable of modulating and/or controlling output intensity of each of the plurality of UV LED light tubes (paragraphs 60, 57, Figure 6), wherein the plurality of UV light tubes are capable of exposing the photocurable printing blank to actinic radiation (paragraph 14); and b) flood exposing the photocurable printing blank through the photographic negative or the digitally imaged mask layer to actinic radiation from the UV light tubes (paragraphs 2, 34, 56, and 60); wherein the controller provides individual control of each of the plurality of UV LED light tubes (paragraph 56); wherein each of the plurality of UV LED light tubes is modulated and/or controlled to have an output intensity” that is desired (paragraph 56). Arlt fails to explicitly disclose the type of printing plate used, the exposure system being generic to the type of printing plate to be cured, therefore leaving the choice up to one having ordinary skill in the art. Fronczkiewicz et al. disclose a flexographic printing plates which are curable via UV radiation which comprise a “photocurable printing blank comprising a support (column 4, line 38), at least one photocurable layer upon the support (column 4, line 39), wherein the at least one photocurable layer is capable of being selectively crosslinked and cured upon exposure to actinic radiation at a desired wavelength (column 4, lines 46-48, column 13, lines 24-26), wherein the at least one photocurable layer comprises (a) at least one elastomeric binder (column 9, line 41), (b) at least one ethylenically unsaturated monomer (column 9, lines 41-42, column 11, lines 8-9), and (c) a photoinitiator having an absorption profile in the desired wavelength region used for exposing the at least one photocurable layer to actinic radiation (column 9, line 42), and a photographic negative or digitally imaged mask layer disposed on the at least one photocurable layer (column 4, lines 44-48).” It has been held that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.07. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the blank flexographic plate of Fronczkiewicz et al. as the photopolymer plate in the method of Arlt because it has been shown in the art to be a known and suitable plate for making a flexographic printing plate used for printing. Upon carrying out the modification, the method has the effect that “portions of the at least one photocurable layer not covered by the photographic negative or digitally imaged mask layer crosslink and cure upon exposure to actinic radiation from the UV light tubes to create the relief image therein (column 13, lines 22-26 of Fronczkiewicz et al.).” Arlt also fails to disclose “wherein each of the plurality of UV LED light tubes is modulated and/or controlled to have an output intensity of about 5 to about 50 mW/cm2 when arranged at a distance of about 1 to about 2 inches from the surface of the photocurable printing blank,” but does disclose that the exposure system is designed to adjust radiation output according to application requirements, including the amount of energy required to cure the plate (paragraph 55). Thus, the specifics of the arrangement and the output intensity are left up to one having ordinary skill in the art. Fronczkiewicz et al. disclose that the typical energy required for the crosslinking ranges from 5 to 25 J/cm2 (column 5, lines 17-18). Lenssens et al. disclose a similar exposure apparatus (abstract, Figures) which preferably controls UV LED light such that the apparatus provides 30 mW/cm2 at a distance of 1.4 inches in order to effectively expose a printing blank (paragraph 35). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to control the exposure in the modified method of AAPA to provide 30 mW/cm2 at a distance of 1.4 inches a) because it has been shown in the art to be suitable for the intended purpose of exposing a printing blank; and/or b) in order to effectively expose the printing blank.
Regarding claim 2, Arlt further teaches “wherein the plurality of UV LED light tubes and photocurable printing blank do not move relative to each other during the flood exposure step (Figure 9).” Regarding claim 6, Arlt further teaches “wherein the UV LED light tubes operate at a wavelength between about 350 nm and about 395 nm (paragraph 64).” Regarding claim 7, Arlt further teaches “wherein the UV LED light tubes operate at a wavelength between about 355 nm and about 375 nm (paragraph 64).”
Regarding claim 10, Arlt further teaches “wherein each of the UV LED light tubes comprises at least three rows of LED chips arranged along the length of the UV LED light tube (Figure 3).” Regarding claims 11 and 12, Arlt, as modified, discloses all that is claimed, as in claim 1 above, but fail to specifically disclose how far apart from each other the LED chips are. However, Arlt does disclose that the number of LEDs per tube length is a parameter that can be changed (paragraph 44), and that the distribution of the LEDs can be any spacing which is found to be advantageous (paragraph 64). Furthermore, the figures give a general idea as to the spacing. It has been held that when the general conditions are known in the art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05. Furthermore, Examiner asserts that one having ordinary skill in the art would know that the number of LED chips on the light bar would affect the intensity of the light that the plates are exposed to, and also how consistent the intensity of the light is (the more LED chips, the more even the exposure). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, to set the distance between the LED chips to be about 0.5 inches to 1 inch along the length of the tube in order to determine the optimum or workable amount/spacing of LED chips.
Regarding claim 13, Arlt further discloses “wherein the plurality of UV LED light tubes comprises at least 5 UV LED light tubes (Figure 9).” Regarding claim 19, Arlt further disclose “wherein each of the plurality of UV LED light tubes are controlled to compensate for output intensity decay (paragraphs 22 and 56).” Regarding claims 20 and 23, Arlt, as modified, discloses all that is claimed, as in claim 1 above, except wherein the flood exposure is at most 5 minutes. However, Fronczkiewicz et al. disclose that the typical energy required for the crosslinking can be 5 J/cm2 (column 5, lines 17-18). Lenssens et al. disclose a similar exposure apparatus (abstract, Figures) which preferably controls UV LED light such that the apparatus provides 30 mW/cm2 at a distance of 1.4 inches in order to effectively expose a printing blank (paragraph 35). Therefore, given these conditions, to give the required amount of 5 J/cm2 in order to successfully crosslink the photopolymer, it would take 166.7 seconds, or 2.8 minutes, thus meeting the claim limitations. Regarding claim 21, Arlt, as modified, discloses all that is claimed, as in claim 10 above, except “wherein each row of LED chips is separately connected in series to allow for individual operation of each row of LED chips.” However, Lenssens et al. teach connecting a subset of LEDs in series so that the intensity of the subset can be controlled together (paragraph 16). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to connect the rows of LED chips in series so that the intensity of the entire row can be controlled. Examiner asserts that a row of LED chips would be a simple and logical subset that one having ordinary skill in the art could easily envisage and choose. Regarding claim 22, Arlt further discloses “wherein each row of LED chips is arranged on a different plane or at an angle with respect to another row of LED chips in order to adjust the angle of the light emitted from the UV LED light tubes (paragraph 45).”
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arlt, Fronczkiewicz et al., and Lenssens et al., further in view of Argiros et al. (US 20030188655). Regarding claims 8 and 9, Arlt, as modified, discloses all that is claimed, as in claim 1 above, including that the array is configured to provide light over the full length and width of the plate, and preferably is slightly larger than the plate size by a predetermined margin (paragraph 57), but fails to disclose a specific dimension. Argiros et al. disclose that typical flexographic printing plates can be 58”x80” (paragraph 3). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the UV LED light tubes slightly larger than 58” in order to expose the known flexographic printing plate size of 58”.
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arlt, Fronczkiewicz et al., and Lenssens et al., further in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA). Regarding claims 14-16, Arlt, as modified, discloses all that is claimed, as in claim 13 above, but fails to disclose “wherein the plurality of UV LED light tubes comprises at least 30 UV LED light tubes.” However, Arlt does disclose that the number of sources can be varied (paragraph 58), that the array should be large enough to cover the full length and width of the plate (paragraph 57), and that the purpose is to replace existing fluorescent tubes (paragraph 19). AAPA discloses that existing systems can include between 10 and 30 tubes to expose the surface of the plate (paragraph 14 of AAPA). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to set the amount of UV LED light tubes to at least 30 in order to have an array which covers the full length and width of a printing plate which would require that many in order to successfully expose the plate.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arlt, Fronczkiewicz et al., and Lenssens et al., further in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and Argiros et al.
Regarding claim 17 and 18, Arlt, as modified, discloses all that is claimed, as in claim 13 above, including that there is an on center spacing, S, between adjacent tubes (paragraph 58, Figure 9), and that the purpose is to replace existing fluorescent tubes (paragraph 19). Arlt fails to disclose a specific distance for the spacing. AAPA discloses that existing systems can include between 10 and 30 tubes to expose the surface of the plate (paragraph 14 of AAPA). Argiros et al. disclose that typical flexographic printing plates can be 58”x80” (paragraph 3). It has been held that when the general conditions are disclosed in the art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05 Given the width of 58” for printing plate, to evenly space the 10 to 30 UV LED light tubes across approximately 58 inches, one having ordinary skill in the art would have to space the tubes about 1.9 to 5.8 inches apart, which overlaps the recited range of distances.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant’s argument that Examiner has not addressed the differences between a light bar system and a bank light system are not persuasive. The limitation of a bank light system is clearly disclosed by Arlt, as discussed supra. Fronczkiewicz et al. and Lenssens et al. are relied upon for disclosing the plate properties, and for giving direction with respect to how the components and polymers of the plates should be exposed. The photochemical requirements of the plate do not change simply because the source of exposure changes; the same amount of energy at a specific wavelength is required to cause the chemical reactions to occur. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would certainly consult the teachings Fronczkiewicz et al. and Lenssens et al. to aid in determining the correct exposure conditions.
Applicant’s argument that Lenssens et al. do not describe using an output intensity of 30 mW/cm2 is erroneous. Paragraph 35 clearly states that front exposure is between 30 and 500 mW/cm2. Furthermore, Lenssens et al. state that the exposure is for a “predetermined surface area” of the precursor (paragraph 35), and that the dose of radiation for the predetermined area is in the range of 0.01 to 200 J/cm2, with a preference being higher than 10 J/cm2 (paragraph 36). This clearly aligns with Fronczkiewicz et al. which teaches 5-25 J/cm2 (column 5, lines 17-18). One having ordinary skill in the art, when combining the teachings as suggested, would understand that the amount of energy supplied to the precursor is the key factor in effectively exposing the precursor, and would have thus controlled the radiation system of Arlt to provide the appropriate amount of radiation. Furthermore, since Arlt discloses that the exposure system is designed to adjust radiation output “according to application requirements” (that is, the specifics of the precursors; paragraph 55), and because Lenssens et al. disclose a similar exposure bar as the ones used by Arlt and also disclose the general conditions of the distance of the bar from the precursor (see the rejection supra), Examiner maintains that the placement of the exposure system and adjustment of the exposure amount are clearly things which one having ordinary skill in the art would be taught to do by the cited references in order to effectively expose the printing blanks/precursors.
Similarly, with respect to the exposure time, the point of all of the references is to provide the appropriate amount of radiation to properly expose the precursors. Thus, given that the typical energy required is disclosed by Fronczkiewicz et al., and the distance and output are generally known from Lenssens et al., the time of exposure at the conditions specified (see the rejection of claims 20 and 23 supra) are deemed to fall within the time range recited.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this instance, with respect to the rejection of claims 8 and 9, Argiros et al. are relied upon for their disclosure that printing plates of size 58”x80” were known at the time of the filing of the invention. It has been held that selection based upon a suitability for an intended purpose is prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.07. Thus, using the known printing plate having a width of 58” would be prima facie obvious because it was already known from the prior art, NOT from Applicant’s disclosure.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 9:30AM-6:30PM, First Fridays: 9:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights