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 1-10 are under consideration
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the specification, paragraph [0004] appears to be missing.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is too long with more than 150 words. 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 § 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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the incident energy ray". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ali (US20180134030A1, published 2018) in view of Donahue (US20050011382A1, published 2005).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 6,
Ali teaches a method for forming a flexographic printing plate, comprising:
A) providing a flexographic printing plate precursor consisting essentially of:
a backing film (support), a water-soluble or water-dispersible photosensitive layer comprising a photosensitive resin composition and having a front imaging surface and a backside imaging surface that is in contact with the backing film, and a cover sheet directly in contact with the front imaging surface;
B) removing the cover sheet from the front imaging surface of the photosensitive layer;
C) laminating a mask element directly in contact with the front imaging surface of the water-soluble or water-dispersible photosensitive layer;
D) frontside imagewise exposing the photosensitive layer through the mask element and front imaging surface to provide an exposed photosensitive layer having exposed regions and non-exposed regions; and
E) processing the exposed photosensitive layer to remove non-exposed regions in the exposed photosensitive layer, using an aqueous flexographic developer [claim 1].
Ali further teaches UV exposure [0112], reading on instant claim 2.
However, Ali fails to teach a film-like optical element between the photosensitive layer and the energy source.
Donahue, analogous art, teaches an exposure system for printing plates or other substrates having a photosensitive layer [abstract] which contains a lenticular lens between the light source (LED array) and printing plate, which is oriented with no optical power in the direction of motion (parallel with the surface) of the printing plate so that the irradiance orthogonal to the direction of motion of the printing plate is spread out and integrated [0053], which would enhance directivity of the light source to the plate.
As both Donahue and Ali teach methods for exposing printing plates, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the lenticular lens of Donahue with the exposure method of Ali to ensure that the irradiance orthogonal to the surface of the printing plate is spread out and integrated. Further it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that including the lenticular lens of Donahue with the exposure method of Ali would result in a comparable and expected method for forming a printing plate, reading on instant claims 1, 3, and 6.
Claims 4-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ali (US20180134030A1, published 2018) in view of Donahue (US20050011382A1, published 2005) as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Nakayama (US20100039585A1, published 2010).
Regarding claims 4-5 and 7-10,
Ali et al. teaches the above limitations set forth.
Ali et al. is silent to the material of the lenticular lens.
Nakayama, analogous art, teaches a planar illumination device comprising of a light source and a lenticular lens [abstract], where the lenticular lens is made of a glass material or a resin having a small birefringence amount. With use of a resin having a smaller birefringence amount, a variation in the polarized component of a beam before and after transmittance through the lenticular lens can be suppressed [0066], reading on instant claims 4-5 and 7-10.
As both Nakayama and Ali teach illumination devices comprising of a light source and a lenticular lens, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a lenticular lens made of a glass material or resin as taught by Nakayama as the lenticular lens of Ali for the benefits disclosed by Nakayama. Further, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that a lens in an illumination device could be made of known materials in the art such as a glass material or a resin.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US6245481B1 teaches a similar method of lithographically printing images using lithographic plates. US20200241416A1 teaches a flexographic printing plate precursor. US 20080047445 A1 teaches an exposure device for screen print stencils using a raster plate that accommodates the light-guiding fibers and orients them parallel to the optical axis of the focusing lens system. US20120117521A1 teaches an exposure apparatus for lithography using a programmable mirror array. US20130075376A1 teaches a relief printing plate manufacturing method using a collimator lens to substantially parallel pencils of light. US20080137052A1 teaches an exposure apparatus for exposing a photosensitive substrate [0004], containing an illumination optical system which contains a lenticular lens [0046]. Examiner notes that while Matsumoto disclose “renticular lens”, this appears to be a typographic error, which is corrected to “lenticular lens” in the subsequently published patent US8537334B2.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at (571) 272-3458. 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
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights