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 Status
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 12-14, 16, 18-21, 23, 27, 31-34, and 37-39 are under consideration
Claims 5, 8-11, 15, 17, 22, 24-26, 28-30, 35-36, and 40 are canceled
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 7, 18-19, and 32 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, “and/or wherein the second first intensity profile” should be “and/or wherein the second intensity profile”.
In claims 7 and 18-19, periods should be used instead of commas to indicate decimal points. Examples including: “1,5” should be “1.5”, “0,05” should be “0.05”, and “0,08” should be “0.08”.
In claim 32, “such that the speed the one or more exposure passes of the first exposing step” should be “such that the speed of the one or more exposure passes of the first exposing step”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: In figure 7, the reference characters 1 and 6 are not disclosed in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-7, 12, 14, 18-21, 23, 27, 31-34, and 37-39 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.
Regarding claim 6, the “and/or” of the claim limitation “the first exposing step comprises a first number of exposure passes, and/or wherein the second exposing step comprises a second number of exposure passes”, the claim further discloses the first number is different from the second number, which would necessarily require that the method comprises of both the first and second numbers. The examiner suggests changing “and/or” to “and”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation " the second dose". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 14, it is unclear what is meant by “both directions”.
Claim 18 recites the limitations "the second average speed” and “the first average speed”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitations “the second average intensity” and “the first average intensity”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitations “the second speed” and “the second intensity”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 21, regarding the claim limitation “optionally further comprising, based on the input first and second speed profile, whether or not to perform back-exposing during the first and/or the second exposing step”, it is unclear if “whether or not to perform back-exposing during the first and/or the second exposing step” is meant to be a determining factor, such as the instant “based on the input first and second speed profile”, or meant to be an effect of the input first and second speed profile. The examiner suggests changing this claim limitation to ““optionally further comprising, based on the input first and second speed profiles, determining whether or not to perform back-exposing during the first and/or the second exposing step”.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance:
Claim 6 recites the broad recitation where the first number is different from the second number, and the claim also recites that the first number is more preferably higher than the second number, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 7 recites the broad recitation that preferably the first and second dose are between 0.2 to 30 J/cm2 each, and the claim also recites that more preferably the first dose is between 0.2 and 20 J/cm2 and the second dose is between 2 and 28 J/cm2, which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 18 recites the broad recitation that a ratio is higher than 1.5, and the claim also recites that the ratio is preferably higher than 2 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 18 recites the broad recitation that a ratio is higher than 0.05, and the claim also recites that the ratio is preferably higher than 0.08 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 19 recites the broad recitation that a ratio is higher than 0.15, and the claim also recites that the ratio is preferably higher than 0.5, more preferably higher than 1, which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 19 recites the broad recitation that a ratio is higher than 0.5, and the claim also recites that the ratio is preferably higher than 0.7, more preferably higher than 1, which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 23 recites the broad recitation that the back-exposing is performed “before, after, or during the first and second exposing steps”, and the claim also recites that the back-exposing is performed “during the first and/or second exposing steps”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claims 6-7, 18-19, 23, 27, and 39, The phrase "preferably" and/or “more preferably” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are necessarily part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 31, the claim limitation “control means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosed “control means” uses the term “means”, which is uses the term "means," which is modified by functional language and is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the claimed functions. Although the specification describes a “control means”, the specification fails to disclose the structure of the control means that can perform the claimed functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 39, the claim limitation “moving means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosed “moving means” uses the term “means”, which is uses the term "means," which is modified by functional language and is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the claimed functions. Although the specification describes a “moving means”, the specification fails to disclose the structure of the moving means that can perform the claimed functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claims so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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)(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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fronczkiewicz (US 2018004093 A1, published 2018).
Regarding claim 3,
Fronczkiewicz teaches a method for producing flexographic printing plates, using as starting material a photopolymerizable (photosensitive layer) flexographic printing element, [abstract] comprising steps of producing a mask by imaging the digitally imageable layer (step of providing a mask on a photosensitive layer) [0030], exposing the photopolymerizable, relief-forming layer (relief precursor) which may comprise of a plurality of exposure cycles with actinic light with an intensity of 100 to 10000 mW/cm2 from a plurality of UV-LEDs, the energy input into the photopolymerizable, relief-forming layer per exposure cycle being 0.1 to 5 J/cm2 (reading on a first and second exposure step) [0031, 0033]. Fronczkiewicz further teaches examples where the average speed of a first exposure step is higher than the average speed of a second exposure step (different speed profiles) [0146-0149, table 1], where each exposure step would have a different intensity profile (which is a representation of intensity with respect to time, as per the instant specification, particularly instant figure 2], reading on instant claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 13, and 16 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Independent claim 1 discloses a method for exposing a relief precursor with a light source comprising of a step of providing a mask on a photosensitive layer of the precursor, a first exposing step comprising exposing during one or more exposure passes the precursor through the mask according to a first intensity profile, and a first speed profile, a second exposing step comprising exposing during one or more exposure passes the precursor through the mask according to a second intensity profile different from the first intensity profile and a second speed profile different from the first speed profile; wherein the average intensity during an exposure pass of the first exposing step is higher than the average intensity during an exposure pass of the second exposing step.
A search did not find the claimed invention.
The closest prior art Fronczkiewicz teaches a similar method, as disclosed above.
However, Fronczkiewicz fails to teach their method where the average intensity or average speed of a first exposing step is higher than that of a second exposing step. Rather, they teach that the exposure intensity is the same [0145].
Neither Fronczkiewicz nor the prior art in general provide sufficient motivation to make it obvious to modify their method to arrive at the instantly claimed invention.
Claims 2, 13, and 16 depend on allowable independent claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2018126721 A1 teaches a method for producing flexographic printing plates, using as starting material a photopolymerizable flexographic printing element, comprising of a plurality of exposure steps where the (i) number of exposure steps, (ii) exposure intensity, (iii) energy input per exposure step, (iv) duration of the individual exposure steps, and (v) overall duration of exposure are controlled [0032]. However, they fail to teach that the average intensity of a first exposure step is higher than a second exposure step. US 20180210345 A1 teaches a method and apparatus to expose photosensitive printing plates with a predetermined radiation density from the main side (top) and a predetermined radiation density from the back side (bottom).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2261. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5:30 EST.
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, Mark Huff can be reached at (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 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.
/A.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/JONATHAN JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights