DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on 7/21/2026. In particular, claim 1 has been amended to a bound acrylonitrile content of 18 mol% or more and new claim 8 has been added. This presents the claims in a manner with a scope not previously examined. Thus, the following action is properly made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 6/26/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The NPL document Office Action dated June 5, 2026, issued in counterpart JP Application No. 2023-511140 does not have a concise explanation of relevance or translation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawahara (JPH10-123710). As the JP reference is not in English, citations are made to the attached translation.
Kawahara teaches a photosensitive resin matrix for flexographic printing plates (¶ 1-2) which include an example where a chlorinated polyethylene, polybutadiene, a core phase affinity polymer III, an acrylate group containing oligobutadiene, benzyldimethyl ketal are added together (¶81, 85) where the core phase affinity polymer III is a terminal carboxyl group containing acrylonitrile butadiene oligomer that has been neutralized with lithium hydroxide (¶ 76). The polybutadiene corresponds to claimed component (a), the acrylate group containing oligobutadiene corresponds to claimed component (b), the core phase affinity polymer III corresponds to claimed component (c), and benzyldimethyl ketal corresponds to claimed component (d). Neutralization with lithium hydroxide results in a lithium salt of the carboxyl group and lithium is an alkali salt. Kawahara teaches forming a flexographic printing plate (¶ 67) on a substrate (¶ 82). Kawahara teaches an example where 14 parts polybutadiene is used with 6 parts core phase affinity polymer (¶ 81, 85) which gives a ratio of 2.3:1 and meets the range of claim 8.
Claim 8 uses the product-by-process format by use of the language, “obtained from…” Case law holds that:
Even 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. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
To the extent that the process limitations in a product-by-process claim do not carry weight absent a showing of criticality, the reference discloses the claimed product in the sense that the prior art product structure is seen to be no different from that indicated by the claims. In this case, a polybutadiene obtained from a water dispersible latex is structurally identical to polybutadiene, in that it is a polymer of butadiene. The process limitation “obtained from a water dispersible latex” does not provide any structural information regarding the polymer itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahara (JPH10-123710) in view of Araki (JP 2003-107701). As the JP reference is not in English, citations are made to the attached translation.
Kawahara teaches a photosensitive resin matrix for flexographic printing plates (¶ 1-2) which include an example where a chlorinated polyethylene, polybutadiene, a core phase affinity polymer III, an acrylate group containing oligobutadiene, benzyldimethyl ketal are added together (¶81, 85) where the core phase affinity polymer III is a terminal carboxyl group containing acrylonitrile butadiene oligomer that has been neutralized with lithium hydroxide (¶ 76). The polybutadiene corresponds to claimed component (a), the acrylate group containing oligobutadiene corresponds to claimed component (b), the core phase affinity polymer III corresponds to claimed component (c), and benzyldimethyl ketal corresponds to claimed component (d). Neutralization with lithium hydroxide results in a lithium salt of the carboxyl group and lithium is an alkali salt. Kawahara teaches forming a flexographic printing plate (¶ 67) on a substrate (¶ 82). Kawahara teaches an example where 14 parts polybutadiene is used with 6 parts core phase affinity polymer (¶ 81, 85) which gives a ratio of 2.3:1 and meets the range of claim 8.
Kawahara teaches the core phase affinity polymer III (corresponding to claimed component (c)) is used in about 6 pbw with respect to about 100 parts composition (¶85, 81) which meets claim 4.
Claims 1 and 8 use the product-by-process format by use of the language, “obtained from…” Case law holds that:
Even 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. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
To the extent that the process limitations in a product-by-process claim do not carry weight absent a showing of criticality, the reference discloses the claimed product in the sense that the prior art product structure is seen to be no different from that indicated by the claims. In this case, a polybutadiene obtained from a water dispersible latex is structurally identical to polybutadiene, in that it is a polymer of butadiene. The process limitation “obtained from a water dispersible latex” does not provide any structural information regarding the polymer itself.
Kawahara does not explicitly recite an amount of acrylonitrile of 18 mol% or more.
Araki teaches photosensitive flexographic printing plates (¶1-2, 7) that include a hydrophilic copolymer, a thermoplastic elastomer and an photopolymerizable monomer (¶ 7) where the hydrophilic copolymer includes acrylonitrile (¶ 14) in an amount of 5-25 wt% (¶ 14). Araki teaches examples having 18 and 20 wt% acrylonitrile (Table 1) which corresponds to about 20 and 22 mol%, respectively. These examples meet the claimed range and the broad range of Araki overlap the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the amount of acrylonitrile as taught by Araki because if too much is used, then water resistance is not good and if too little is used, then insufficient aqueous developability is achieved (¶14).
Claim(s) 1, 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahara (JPH10-123710) in view of Araki (JP 2003-107701) and Usui (JPH06-289610).
Kawahara teaches a photosensitive resin matrix for flexographic printing plates (¶ 1-2) which include an example where a chlorinated polyethylene, polybutadiene, a core phase affinity polymer III, an acrylate group containing oligobutadiene, benzyldimethyl ketal are added together (¶81, 85) where the core phase affinity polymer III is a terminal carboxyl group containing acrylonitrile butadiene oligomer that has been neutralized with lithium hydroxide (¶ 76). The polybutadiene corresponds to claimed component (a), the acrylate group containing oligobutadiene corresponds to claimed component (b), the core phase affinity polymer III corresponds to claimed component (c), and benzyldimethyl ketal corresponds to claimed component (d). Neutralization with lithium hydroxide results in a lithium salt of the carboxyl group and lithium is an alkali salt. Kawahara teaches forming a flexographic printing plate (¶ 67) on a substrate (¶ 82). Kawahara teaches an example where 14 parts polybutadiene is used with 6 parts core phase affinity polymer (¶ 81, 85) which gives a ratio of 2.3:1 and meets the range of claim 8.
Kawahara teaches the core phase affinity polymer III (corresponding to claimed component (c)) is used in about 6 pbw with respect to about 100 parts composition (¶85, 81) which meets claim 4.
Claims 1 and 8 use the product-by-process format by use of the language, “obtained from…” Case law holds that:
Even 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. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
To the extent that the process limitations in a product-by-process claim do not carry weight absent a showing of criticality, the reference discloses the claimed product in the sense that the prior art product structure is seen to be no different from that indicated by the claims. In this case, a polybutadiene obtained from a water dispersible latex is structurally identical to polybutadiene, in that it is a polymer of butadiene. The process limitation “obtained from a water dispersible latex” does not provide any structural information regarding the polymer itself.
Kawahara does not explicitly recite an amount of acrylonitrile of 18 mol% or more.
Araki teaches photosensitive flexographic printing plates (¶1-2, 7) that include a hydrophilic copolymer, a thermoplastic elastomer and an photopolymerizable monomer (¶ 7) where the hydrophilic copolymer includes acrylonitrile (¶ 14) in an amount of 5-25 wt% (¶ 14). Araki teaches examples having 18 and 20 wt% acrylonitrile (Table 1) which corresponds to about 20 and 22 mol%, respectively. These examples meet the claimed range and the broad range of Araki overlap the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the amount of acrylonitrile as taught by Araki because if too much is used, then water resistance is not good and if too little is used, then insufficient aqueous developability is achieved (¶14).
Kawahara does not explicitly recite the diene is derived from a latex.
However, Usui teaches photosensitive flexographic plate polymer compositions (¶ 1) which use an emulsion polymerized diene polymer latex (¶ 4, 7) which includes monomers of butadiene and acrylonitrile (¶7). It would have been obvious to use a latex derived diene polymer because it provides particle sizes of 0.03-0.7 microns homogeneously dispersed (¶11) and it results in a plate making process that is simplified and has working time reduced, has improved water resistance, and avoids solvents that contribute to pollution (¶20).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument regarding the amount of acrylonitrile present, Araki teaches an overlapping range of acrylonitrile for the purpose of water resistance and aqueous developability.
Regarding Applicant’s argument regarding new claim 8, Kawahara teaches an example where 14 parts polybutadiene is used with 6 parts core phase affinity polymer (¶ 81, 85) which gives a ratio of 2.3:1 and meets the range of claim 8.
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 ROBERT C BOYLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 10am-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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/ROBERT C BOYLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights