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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/15/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending. Claim 1 has been amended.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lungu (US 2008/0063980 A1) in view of Pearl et al. (US 2007/0103529 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lungu discloses a printing form precursor ( imaging element; see abstract, examples, claims and [0002 & 0111]) comprising a photopolymerizable layer (“photopolymerizable composition layer” ; [0057]), wherein said a photopolymerizable layer (“composition layer” ) comprising a polymer binder ( styrenic block copolymer; [0082]) in an amount of at least 55% [0080-0082] encompassing the instant claimed range of 10% (w/w) to 90% (w/w); a monomer [0065 and 0067-0072], a photo-initiator [0065 and 0073-0079]), and an additive (crosslinking agents such as melamine:
PNG
media_image1.png
369
523
media_image1.png
Greyscale
or hexamethoxymethyl melamine:
PNG
media_image2.png
472
539
media_image2.png
Greyscale
as the preferred compound of the crosslinking additive; [0091]) meeting the limitation of formula (I) as instantly claimed. Also, Lungu discloses the photopolymerizable layer further comprises one or more additional additives consisting of a sensitizer, a plasticizer [0088], a rheology modifier, a thermal polymerization inhibitor, a colorant, a processing aid, an antioxidant, an antiozants, a stabilizer, a dye, a filler, or combinations of one or more of said additional additives [0090 & 0095].
Lungu does not explicitly recite 1.5% (w/w) to 15%(w/w) of an additive as instantly claimed. However, Lungu teaches crosslinking agents are added to the photopolymerizable compounds as additive , preferably hexamethoxylmethyl melamine [0091] to improve high temperature characteristics, chemical resistance or other mechanical or chemical properties required in the end-use product [0090]. It is noted that weight percentage is optimizable. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215. Nonetheless, the examiner has added Pearl et al. to teach it is well-known to one of ordinary skilled in the art of flexography ( photopolymer) printing to include a modified melamine crosslinking agent [0267-0269] as an additive in view enhancing chemical properties to a photopolymerizable composition [0211] in an amount of about 0.4 weight % to about 55 weight % [0269] encompassing the instant claimed range of 1.5% to 15%. Lungu and Pearl et al. are analogous art in the flexography field. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to include an amount about 0.4 weight % to about 55 weight % as taught by Pearl et al. for the additive as recited by Lungu et al. in view of enhances the chemical properties.
Claim(s) 2-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lungu (US 2008/0063980 A1) in view of Pearl et al. (US 2007/0103529 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Blomquist et al. (US 2016/0355004 A1).
Regarding claims 2-13, Lungu does not explicitly disclose the printing form precursor further comprises a digital layer that is ablatable by infrared radiation and opaque to non-infrared radiation as instantly claimed. However, it is noted that claim language “ a digital layer that is ablatable by infrared radiation” is product by process claim language. The infrared radiation is not a positive recitation in claim 2. Applicant is reminded of MPEP 2113: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process; determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Nonetheless, Lungu recognizes the printing form precursor may comprise additional layers [0118] such as infrared sensitive layer [0126]. Examiner has added Blomquist et al. to teach it is well-known to include a digital layer to a photosensitive printing form precursor ( see abstract , claims, examples and [0003 & 0136-0139]) comprising a photopolymerizable comprising a binder, monomer and photoinitiator in view of having a print surface suitable for printing solids with uniform, dense coverage of ink. Lungu and Blomquist et al. are analogous art in the printing form precursor field. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to modify the printing form precursor of Lungu to include a digital layer as recited by Blomquist et al. in view in aiding in improved high temperature characteristics, chemical resistance and uniformity.
Further regards to claims 3-11, Lungu teaches a hexamethoxymethyl melamine [0091] , which meets the limitation of formula 1 wherein: - A is R1-OR2; each R2 is a C1 alkyl and each R4 and R5 are H.
Further regards to claims 12-13, Lungu teaches a melamine [0091] , which meets the limitation of formula 1 wherein: each A is R3 and wherein at least A is R3.
Claim(s) 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lungu (US 2008/0063980 A1) in view of Pearl et al. (US 2007/0103529 A1). as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Blomquist et al. (US 2016/0355004 A1) and in view of Hayoz et al. (EP 2197840 A1).
Regarding 14-15, Lungu does not explicitly teach the crosslinking agent meeting formula I has at least one or each R3 is C1-C4 alkyl as instantly claimed. However, the examiner has added Hayoz et al. teach a printing plate precursor ( see abstract, claims and examples) comprising a composition comprises methylated melamine resins and butylated melamine resins [0146-0147] meeting the limitation where at least one or each R3 is C1-C4 alkyl as instantly claimed. Lungu , Hayoz et al. and Blomquist et al. are analogous art in the printing form precursor field. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to modify the additive ( crosslinking resin) of Lungu to include methylated melamine resins and butylated melamine resins as recited by Hayoz et al. in view in aiding crosslinking and adhesion properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7, filed 06/15/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lungu (US 2008/0063980 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive due to claim amendments. Therefore, the 102 (a)(1) rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lungu (US 2008/0063980 A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANCEITY N ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:00 am-6:00 pm; IFP; PHP).
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/CHANCEITY N ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights