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).
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because exceeds 150 words in length and the language “ There are provided “ should be deleted. The abstract should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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, 3-6, 8, 9 , 12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohishi et al. (EP 2221670 A2).
Regarding claims 1, 3-6, 8, 9 , 12, and 14-18, Ohishi et al. ( see abstract, claims and figures 1 & 3) teach an automatic developing apparatus and a processing method for a relief printing plate precursor [0001]. Ohishi et al. teach ( see Figs. 1 & 3 and [0051]) a washout processor that develops an imagewise exposed flexographic printing plate precursor using a washout solution, the washout processor comprising: a developing tank that is filled with the washing solution (developing tank 308); a development unit that performs the development by removing a non-exposed portion of the flexographic printing plate precursor using the washing solution in the developing rank ( developing unit 300); and a flow creation unit that flows the washing solution in at least one region of a first region where the flexographic printing plate precursor is carried into the washing solution of the developing tank a second region where the flexographic printing plate precursor is carried out from the washing solution of the developing tank, in an intersecting direction to cross a width of the flexographic printing plate precursor with respect to a traveling direction of the flexographic printing plate precursor ( spray pipe 330). It is noted that the “first regions” and “second regions” are treated as the same regions based on instant claim 5. The washout processor of Ohishi et al. further comprises a transporting unit ( see rollers as well paragraphs [0017-0018]), a temperature adjusting device and a heater ( [0052-0053] and a filter unit [0072 & 0077]. Ohishi et al. disclose that the flow creation unit flows the washing solution at a liquid flow rate of 50 cm/sec or more ( 100 to 1000 ml/minute; [0072]).
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8, 9 , 12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Motoi et al. (JP 2013-134407 A; see machine translation for citations).
Regarding claims 1, 3-6, 8, 9 , 12, and 14-18, Motoi et al. (see abstract, claims, Example 1 and figures) teach a method and an apparatus for developing a photosensitive flexographic printing plate [0001] and example 1) comprising a washout processor that develops an imagewise exposed flexographic printing plate precursor using a washing solution, the washout processor comprising: a developing tank (developer tank) that is filled with the washing solution; a development unit that performs the development by removing a non-exposed portion of the flexographic printing plate precursor using the washing solution in the developing tank (part of the device with the brush); and a flow creation unit that flows the washing solution in at least one region of a first region where the flexographic printing plate precursor is carried into the washing solution of the developing tank or a second region where the flexographic printing plate precursor is carried out from the washing solution of the developing tank, in an intersecting direction to cross a width of the flexographic printing plate precursor with respect to a travelling direction of the flexographic printing plate precursor (supply port on the side surface of the developing tank). It is noted that the “first regions” and “second regions” are treated as the same regions based on instant claims. Motoi et al. disclose a filter [0028] is used meeting the limitations of claim 8.
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, 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motoi et al. (JP 2013-134407 A; see machine translation for citations) in view of Mogi et al. (WO 2021/106702 A1; citations from EP 4067997 A1).
Regarding claims 2, 7 and 13, Motoi et al. (see abstract, claims and figures) teach a method and an apparatus for developing a photosensitive flexographic printing plate [0001] and example 1) comprising a washout processor that develops an imagewise exposed flexographic printing plate precursor using a washing solution, the washout processor comprising: a developing tank (developer tank) that is filled with the washing solution; a development unit that performs the development by removing a non-exposed portion of the flexographic printing plate precursor using the washing solution in the developing tank (part of the device with the brush); and a flow creation unit that flows the washing solution in at least one region of a first region where the flexographic printing plate precursor is carried into the washing solution of the developing tank or a second region where the flexographic printing plate precursor is carried out from the washing solution of the developing tank, in an intersecting direction to cross a width of the flexographic printing plate precursor with respect to a travelling direction of the flexographic printing plate precursor (supply port on the side surface of the developing tank).
However, Motoi et al. fails to explicitly disclose adding a rinsing unit as recited by instant claims 2 and 13. Nonetheless, examiner has added Mogi et al. to teach it is well-known in the art of washout processor and a washing method in which an imagewise exposed flexographic printing plate precursor is developed using a washing solution [0001] includes a rising unit to supply a rinsing liquid to the developed flexographic printing plate precursor ( se fig, 2 and claims). Mogi et al. and Motoi et al. are analogous art in the flexographic printing field. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the washout processor and washing method of Motoi et al. to include a rinsing unit as taught by Mogi et al. in view design choice and enhancing developmental properties.
Claim(s) 10, 11 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motoi et al. (JP 2013-134407 A; see machine translation for citations) as applied to claims 1 or 12 above.
Regarding claims 10, 11 and 19-20, Motoi et al. do not explicitly recites a heater includes a pipe, a block in which a part of the pipe is buried , and heating heater provided in the block, and the block is formed of a metal material as instantly claimed. However, Motoi et al. disclose and recognize a heater [0027 and 0043] is included in the washing method and washing apparatus ( see figures) and is used to adjust the temperature of the washing solution. The elements of a pipe and block inside a heater is well-known and conventional parts or elements of heaters. Therefore, the heater of Motoi et al. would implicitly include a pipe and block as instantly claimed. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the heater of Motoi et al. to include a pipe, a block in which a part of the pipe is buried , and heating heater provided in the block, and the block is formed of a metal material in view of design choice.
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