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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
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 2-4 and 7-10 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 2-4, 7 and 8 recite “ depth of the tank”. However, the claims as written are indefinite and unclear. The term “depth of the tank” in claims 2-4, 7 and 8 is relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “depth of the tank” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term is not defined the orientation of the depth within the tank. It is not clear how to properly measure the claimed limitation in terms of “depth of the tank”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites“ substantially rectangular parallelepiped shape or a substantially cubic shape, or substantially cylindrical shape.” Claim 10 recites “ substantially rectangular parallelepiped shape or a substantially cubic shape”. However, the claims as written are indefinite and unclear The term “substantially” in claims 9 and 10 is relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by De Caria (US 2019/0094720 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, De Caria discloses a method for producing a recycled developer from a waste developer generated by development of a water-developable flexographic printing original plate that has a photosensitive resin layer made from a photosensitive resin composition containing a water-dispersible resin( see abstract, claims, figures and paragraphs [0003, 0004 , 0006 & 0079-0089]) , wherein the method comprises the steps of: leaving the waste developer to stand still in a tank so as to emerge and flocculate the photosensitive resin composition dispersed in the waste developer and thus form a solid-liquid mixed phase containing a resin flocculate beneath a liquid surfacer of the waste developer ( see figs. 7 and 13 and paragraphs [0050, 0084 and 0135]); and discharging the solid-liquid mixed phase containing the resin flocculate from an outlet formed on a side surface of the tank ( see figs 7 and 8 in connection with paragraph [0085]: notably barrier means 12 can be regarded as an outlet formed on a side surface of the tank) and obtaining, as a recycled developer, a liquid left in the tank ( see figs 13-15 and paragraphs [0135-0137]) , characterized in that a level of the waste developer in the tank at the time of starting the discharge is higher than the lowest position of an aperture of the outlet ( see figs. 7-8 and 13-14).
Regarding claim 5, De Caria teaches when the level of the waste developer in the tank after leaving the waste developer to stand still in the tank is as high as or lower than the lowest position of the aperture of the outlet, the method further comprises a step of transferring water or a developer to the tank before the discharging so as to make the level of the waste developer in the tank higher than the lowest position of the aperture of the outlet ( see figs, 7 and 8 in connection with paragraph [0067] as well as by fogs 10 and 13 in connection with paragraph [0123]).
Regarding claim 6, De Caria teaches the method further comprises a step of, before leaving the waste developer to stand still in the tank, transferring the waste developer from a developing bath to the tank (See fig.10: The used washing liquid is discharged from the washing chamber 55 into the first collecting tank 8 and/or third collecting tank 88).
Regarding claim 9, De Caria teaches the tank has a substantially rectangular parallelepiped shape or substantially cylindrical shape ( see Figs 7 and 13).
Claim(s) 1, 6, 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Muramoto et al. (US 5,759,743).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Muramoto et al. teach a method for producing a recycled developer from a waste developer generated by development of a water-developable flexographic printing original plate that has a photosensitive resin layer made from a photosensitive resin composition containing a water-dispersible resin ( see abstract, claims, figures and col. 1,lines 14-20) , wherein the method comprises the steps of: leaving the waste developer to stand still in a tank so as to emerge and flocculate the photosensitive resin composition dispersed in the waste developer and thus form a solid-liquid mixed phase containing a resin flocculate beneath a liquid surfacer of the waste developer ( “ the cylindrical solid content concentration tank 10 of figs. 2 and 3 and col. 7, lines 53-65); and discharging the solid-liquid mixed phase containing the resin flocculate from an outlet formed on a side surface of the tank ( figs. 2 and 3 and col. 8, lines 9-14: “ slurry containing concentrated solid content floating in the vicinity of the liquid surface of the solid content concentration tank 10 is supplied by an overflow ( representing an outlet) to the continuous type vacuum filtration unit 12”) and obtaining, as a recycled developer, a liquid left in the tank ( see fig. 2 and col. 7, lines 53-65 & claim 1), characterized in that a level of the waste developer in the tank at the time of starting the discharge is higher than the lowest position of an aperture of the outlet ( see figs. 2 and 3 see the level of the flocculated developer liquid in the solid content concentration tank 10 and the position of the outlet ).
Regarding claim 6, Muramoto et al. teach the method further comprises a step of, before leaving the waste developer to stand still in the tank, transferring the waste developer from a developing bath to the tank (See fig.2: The used developer is discharged from the developing tank 4 via a flocculation reaction tank 7 into the cylindrical solid content contraction tank 10).
Regarding claim 9, Muramoto et al. teach the tank has a substantially rectangular parallelepiped shape or substantially cylindrical shape ( see Figs 2 and 3).
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 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(s) 2-4, 7, 8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Caria (US 2019/0094720 A1) and/or Muramoto et al. (US 5,759,743) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above.
Regarding claims 2-4, 7 and 8, neither De Caria nor Muramoto et al. do not explicitly disclose the specific relationship between the levels of the waste developer in the tank, the lowest position of the aperture and the depth of the tank with the parameters as defined by instant claims 2-4, 7 and 8. It is noted it is not clear from the claims or specification what applicants intends “depth of the tank” to be defined as. Nonetheless, the tank , aperture and waste developer of both De Caria and Muramoto et al. appears to be substantially the same tank, aperture and wase developer as recited by instant claims. It is well-known of one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the invention that the adjustment of the height of the level of the waste developer in the tank, the positioning of the aperture of the outlet and the depth of the tank are adjustable and 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. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to modify the levels of the waste developer in the tank, the lowest position of the aperture and the depth of the tank of De Caria and Muramoto et al with respect to each other represents merely a design matter which can be easily adjustable. - In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284, 285; 212 F.2d 197 (CCPA 1954)
Regarding claim 10, neither De Caria nor Muramoto et al. do not explicitly disclose the maximum width of the aperture of the outlet is 50% or more of the maximum width of the tank as instantly claimed. It is well-known of one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the invention that the positioning of the aperture of the outlet and the depth of the tank are adjustable and 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. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to modify the lowest position of the aperture and the depth of the tank of De Caria and Muramoto et al with respect to each other represents merely a design matter which can be easily adjustable. - In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284, 285; 212 F.2d 197 (CCPA 1954)
Regarding claim 11, neither De Caria nor Muramoto et al. do not explicitly disclose the recycled developer has a concentration of solid content of 3.5 mass% or less as instantly claimed. However, it is well-known to one of ordinary skilled int eh art that concentration amounts are 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. Therefore, it would have been obvious and highly likely to consider De Caria and Muramoto et al. to provide a recycled developer having a concentration of the solid impurity within the claimed parameters of instant claim 11 in view of routine optimization.
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, 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.
/CHANCEITY N ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737