DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1 and 3-20 are pending. Claim 2 has been canceled.
The foreign priority application No.2020-218007 filed on December 25, 2020 in Japan has been received and it is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 11-13, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeyama et al. (US 2019/0217651) in view of Miyakawa et al. (EP 3 674 796).
With regard to claims 1, 6, 7, and 18, Ikeyama et al. teach a lithographic printing plate precursor laminate which is obtained by laminating a plurality of lithographic printing plate precursors in which an outermost layer on the side where the image recording layer is provided and the outermost layer on the side opposite to the side where the image recording layer is provided are laminated by being directly brough into contact with each other (par.0041).
This laminate meets the limitations of claim 18 for “the laminate is composed of a plurality of lithographic printing plate precursors directly stacked without intervention of interleaving paper”.
The lithographic printing plate precursor includes a hydrophilized aluminum support and a negative-type image recording layer, wherein an arithmetic average height Sa of a surface of an outermost layer on a side opposite to a side where the image recording layer is provided is in a range of 0.3 mm to 20 mm (abstract, par.0019).
Ikeyama et al. further teach that the image recording layer comprises an infrared absorbing agent, a polymerization initiator, a polymerizable compound, and a polymer compound (par.0020), but fail to teach the infrared absorber in claim 1.
Miyakawa et al. teach a negative lithographic printing original plate precursor comprising an image recording layer on an aluminum support (abstract). The image-recording layer comprises an infrared absorber (abstract), which is preferably represented by the formula (IV):
PNG
media_image1.png
280
388
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(par.0089).
Miyakawa et al. further teach that an infrared absorber has a function of converting absorbed infrared rays to heat and a function of migrating electrons and/or energy to a polymerization initiator (par.0063).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use the infrared absorber of formula (IV) of Miyakawa et al. in the image recording layer of Ikeyama et al., because the infrared absorber of formula (IV) is specifically taught by Miyakawa et al. as infrared absorber for an image forming layer comprising an initiator.
The compound of formula (IV) above has HOMO=-5.56eV (see compound OR-17 in par.0408 of the specification of the instant application). The HOMO value is within the range in claim 1 of the instant application.
The image recording layer of Ikeyama modified by Miyakawa meets the limitations of claims 6 and 7 of the instant application.
Therefore, the laminate of Ikeyama modified by Miyakawa is equivalent to the laminate of negative tone lithographic printing plate precursors in claims 1, 6, 7, and 18 of the instant application.
With regard to claim 3, the infrared absorber of formula (IV) above is an infrared absorber of Formula (I) wherein Ar1 and Ar2 are naphthalene rings, Y1 and Y2 are dialkylmethylene groups, R7 and R8 are substituted alkyl groups, R3, R4, R5, and R6 are hydrogen atoms, A1 is NR9R10, R9 is an alkyl group, R10 is trihaloaklylsulfonyl, R1 and R2 are bonded to each other to form a ring.
The examiner would like to note that the specification of the instant application defines that the term “alkyl” allows for substituted alkyl groups (see par.0026).
With regard to claim 8, Ikeyama et al. teach that the image recording layer comprises an infrared absorbing agent, a polymerization initiator, a polymerizable compound, and a polymer compound (par.0020).
With regard to claim 11, Ikeyama et al. teach that the image recording layer contains inorganic particles with an average size of 5 mm to 10mm (par.0474). This range is within the claimed range.
With regard to claim 12, Ikeyama et al. teach that the image recording layer contains inorganic particles with an average size of 5 mm to 10mm (par.0474) and thermoplastic polymer particles with an average particle diameter of 0.005 mm to 2.0 mm (par.0442).
With regard to claim 13, Ikeyama et al. teach that the lithographic printing plate precursor includes a protective layer on the image recording layer (par.0493).
With regard to claim 15, Ikeyama et al. teach that the printing plate precursor comprises a resin layer including at least one kind of particles having an average particle diameter of 0.5 mm to 20 mm provided as the outermost layer on the side opposite to the side where the image recording layer is provided (par.0025)
The resin layer is equivalent to “the outermost layer on the side opposite of the at least one layer containing an infrared absorber with reference to the support” in claim 15.
With regard to claims 16 and 17, Ikeyama et al. teach that the aluminum support includes an aluminum plate and an aluminum anodized film disposed on the aluminum plate, the anodized film comprising micropores (par.0038). The micropores are formed of large-diameter pores extending to a position at a depth of 10nm to 1,000 nm from the surface of the anodized film and small-diameter pores extending to a position at a depth of 20 nm to 2,000 nm from a communication position, the average diameter of the large diameter pores is in a range of 15 nm to 150 nm, and the average diameter of the small-diameter pores is 13 nm or less (par.0040).
With regard to claim 20, Ikeyama et al. teach a method comprising the steps of:
-image-wise exposing the lithographic printing plate precursor, and
-supplying at least one of printing ink or dampening water to the exposed image recording layer (par.0043, par.0514).
It is understood the claimed step of “taking out a lithographic printing plate precursor from the laminate” is performed prior to the step of image-wise exposing a lithographic printing plate precursor.
The lithographic printing plate precursor of Ikeyama modified by Ishiji is a negative-tone precursor (see the abstract of Ikeyama et al.), so the non-exposed portions of the image recording layer is removed in the developing step.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeyama et al. (US 2019/0217651) modified by Miyakawa et al. (EP 3 674 796) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Hayashi et al. (US 2017/0217149).
With regard to claim 9, Ikeyama modified by Miyakawa teach the laminate of claim 8 (see paragraph 5 above). Ikeyama et al. teach that the image recording layer may comprise a polymer compound having particle shape (par.0399), but fail to teach the claimed polymer.
Hayashi et al. teach a negative-working infrared radiation-sensitive lithographic printing plate precursor (abstract), wherein the precursor includes a substrate having a hydrophilic surface and an imageable layer including a polymerizable compound, an infrared absorber, an initiator, and a polymeric binder (par.0011-0017).The polymeric binder may be in the shape of particles and may comprise repeating units derived from styrene and acrylonitrile (par.0154-0155).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use a polymer comprising repeating units derived from styrene and acrylonitrile as the polymer compound having particle shape of Ikeyama modified by Miyakawa, because the polymer is specifically taught for this purpose.
Hayashi et al. further teach a polymer comprising styrene: acrylonitrile in a weight ratio of 1:3.5 (see Table 1 in par.0171).
This ratio is within the range in claim 10.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeyama et al. (US 2019/0217651) modified by Miyakawa et al. (EP 3 674 796) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Ishiji et al. (US 2020/0041899).
With regard to claim 14, Ikeyama modified by Miyakawa teach the laminate of claim 13 (see paragraph 5 above), but fail to teach that the protective layer comprises particles.
Ishiji et al. teach a lithographic printing plate precursor including an image recording layer comprising an infrared absorber on a hydrophilic support(abstract). Ishiji et al. teach that the image forming layer comprises a polymerization initiator (abstract, par.0145), a polymerizable compound (par.0186), and a binder polymer (par.0238).
Ishiji et al. teach that the lithographic printing plate precursor includes a protective layer on the image recording layer (par.0308). The protective layer contains an inorganic layered compound for the purpose of enhancement of oxygen blocking properties. The inorganic layered compound may be mica, with a particle size of 0.5mm to 10mm (par.0311, par.0316).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include mica with a particle size of 0.5-10 mm in the protective layer of Ikeyema modified by Miyakawa, in order to enhance the oxygen blocking property of the protective layer.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeyama et al. (US 2019/0217651) modified by Miyakawa et al. (EP 3 674 796) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Namba et al. (US 2020/0166846).
With regard to claim 19, Ikeyama modified by Miyakawa teach the laminate of claim 6 (see paragraph 5 above), but fail to teach the claimed sheer drop shape of the end part of each printing plate precursor.
Namba et al. teach a lithographic printing plate precursor including an aluminum support and an image-recording layer provided in the support, a sheer droop shape in which an amount X of shear droop is from 25 to 150 mm and a width Y of shear droop is from 70 to 300 mm is provided on an edge portion of the lithographic printing plate precursor (abstract, par.0019). The occurrence of edge stain can be prevented without decreasing performance (par.0261).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to make the lithographic printing plate precursor of Ikeyama modified by Ishiji with a sheer droop shape in which an amount X of shear droop is from 25 to 150 mm and a width Y of shear droop is from 70 to 300 mm is provided on an edge portion of the lithographic printing plate precursor, in order to prevent the occurrence of edge stains.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Ikeyama et al. (US 2019/0217651) fail to teach the laminates in claims 4 and 5.
There are no prior art teachings that would motivate one of ordinary skill to modify Ikeyama et al. and obtain the laminates in claims 4 and 5 of the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-20 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.
The examiner would like to note that:
-the rejection of claims 1-8, 11-17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeyama et al. (US 2019/0217651) in view of Ishiji et al. (US 2020/0041899) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 1;
-the rejection of claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeyama et al. (US 2019/0217651) modified by Ishiji et al. (US 2020/0041899) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Hayashi et al. (US 2017/0217149) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 1; and
-the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeyama et al. (US 2019/0217651) modified by Ishiji et al. (US 2020/0041899) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Namba et al. (US 2020/0166846) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 1.
However, new grounds of rejection for claims 1, 3, and 6-20 are shown in paragraphs 4-8 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 ANCA EOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-9810. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6:30pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights