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 .
Summary
The Applicants arguments and claim amendments received on 01/14/2026 are entered into the file. Currently, claim 1 is amended; claims 7-16 and 18-20 are withdrawn; claim 17 is cancelled; claim 21 is new; resulting in claims 1-6 and 21 pending for examination.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2015/0125662).
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. teaches a printing plate (etching plate), as shown in annotated Figure 2 below, comprising an etching pattern including an alignment key portion (first intaglio pattern portion) spaced apart from an edge portion of the printing plate (etching plate) and having a first depth; and a bezel pattern (second intaglio pattern portion) adjacent to the alignment key (first intaglio pattern portion) having a second depth, wherein the second depth is greater than the first depth as illustrated by Figure 2 ([0028-0035, 0039-0064, 0067-0068]).
PNG
media_image1.png
266
575
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As shown in the Figure above, the bezel pattern (second intaglio pattern portion) is at an outer periphery of an entirety of the alignment key portion (first intaglio pattern portion) designated in the figure.
Regarding claim 21, Kim et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches, as shown in Figure 2 above, that the alignment key portion (first intaglio pattern portion) and the bezel pattern (second intaglio pattern portion) are connected to each other via the alignment key portion therebetween.
Claims 1, 3, 6 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Imayoshi et al. (JP 2006-231824, machine translation via EPO provided).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Imayoshi et al. teaches an intaglio plate (etching plate), as shown in annotated Figure 1 below, comprising a pixel pattern a portion (14; first intaglio pattern portion) spaced apart from an edge portion of the intaglio plate (etching plate) and having a first depth of 8mm and an alignment reference mark (13; second intaglio pattern) having a depth of 20mm, wherein the depth of the alignment reference mark (13; first intaglio pattern) is greater than the depth of pixel pattern a portion (14; first intaglio pattern portion) (Figure 1, 4a-h, 5a-h; [0007, 0016-0018, 0044-57, 0061-74, 0076-0079]). The intaglio plate (etching plate) further comprises a frame pattern portion (11; third intaglio pattern portion) formed between the a pixel pattern a portion (14; first intaglio pattern portion) and the alignment reference mark (13; second intaglio pattern), as shown in Figure 1 below, wherein in the frame pattern portion (11; third intaglio pattern portion) in inclined at an angle.
PNG
media_image2.png
349
692
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Imayoshi et al. teaches, as shown in Figure 1 above, that the alignment reference mark (13; second intaglio pattern) is at an outer periphery of an entirety of the pixel pattern a portion (14; first intaglio pattern portion).
Regarding claim 6, Imayoshi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 3 above, and as shown in Figure 1, annotated below, the angle of the incline of the bottom of the frame pattern portion (11; third intaglio pattern portion) is less than 90˚.
PNG
media_image3.png
292
557
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Imayoshi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and as shown in Figure 1, the pixel pattern a portion (14; first intaglio pattern portion) and the alignment reference mark (13; second intaglio pattern) are connected to each other by the frame pattern portion (11; third intaglio pattern portion).
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.
Claims 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2015/0125662).
Regarding claim 2, Kim et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. While the reference does not expressly teach that the width of the alignment key (first intaglio pattern portion) is substantially equal to a width of an inner bezel area of a window and the width of the second intaglio pattern portion is substantially equal to a width of an outer bezel area of a window, such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious matter of design choice based upon the desired pattern to be produced on the final product.
Regarding claim 3, Kim et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. While the reference does not expressly teach that the printing plage comprises a third pattern with a portion inclined at an angle, such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious matter of design choice based upon the desired bezel pattern formed on the final product.
Regarding claim 4, Kim et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 3 above. While the reference does not expressly teach that the sum of the width of the alignment key (first intaglio pattern portion) and the width of the third pattern are substantially equal to a width of an inner bezel area of a window and the width of the bezel pattern (second intaglio pattern portion) is substantially equal to a width of an outer bezel area of the window, such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious matter of design choice for the resultant pattern formed on the final product.
Regarding claim 5, Kim et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Kim et al. further teaches that the depth of the intaglio pattern forming may be from 20mm to 200mm ([0060]), which overlaps with the claimed ranges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the depths of the alignment key (first intaglio pattern portion) and bezel pattern (second intaglio pattern portion) in the printing plate (etching plate) taught by Kim et al. such that the depth of each portion fall within the ranges recited by claim 5 as an obvious matter of design choice based upon the desired patter. Furthermore, as shown by Figure 2, the depth of the alignment key (first intaglio pattern portion) is less than the depth of the bezel pattern (second intaglio pattern portion), therefore, based on the disclosed range, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the depth of the alignment key (first intaglio pattern portion) would be at the lower end of the 20mm to 200mm and the depth of the bezel pattern (second intaglio pattern portion) would be at the upper end of the range of 20mm to 200mm taught by Kim et al. ([0060]) .
Regarding claim 6, Kim et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 3 above, and while the reference does not expressly teach that the angle of the third pattern portion is less than 90˚, such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious matter of design choice based upon the desired pattern formed on the final product.
Claims 2, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imayoshi et al. (JP 2006-231824, machine translation via EPO provided).
Regarding claim 2, Imayoshi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. While the reference does not expressly teach that the width of the pixel pattern a portion (14; first intaglio pattern portion) is substantially equal to a width of an inner bezel area of a window and the width of the alignment reference mark (13; second intaglio pattern) is substantially equal to a width of an outer bezel area of a window, such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious matter of design choice based upon the desired pattern to be produced on the final product.
Regarding claim 4, Imayoshi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 3 above. While the reference does not expressly teach that the sum of the width of the pixel pattern a portion (14; first intaglio pattern portion) and the width of the frame pattern portion (11; third intaglio pattern portion) are substantially equal to a width of an inner bezel area of a window and the width of the alignment reference mark (13; second intaglio pattern) is substantially equal to a width of an outer bezel area of the window, such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious matter of design choice for the resultant pattern formed on the final product.
Regarding claim 5, Imayoshi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. The reference teaches that the depth of the pixel pattern a portion (14; first intaglio pattern portion) is 8mm and the depth of the alignment reference mark (13; second intaglio pattern) is 20mm, wherein the variations in the pattern dimensions can be controlled to +/- 1.0 mm (Figure 1, 4a-h, 5a-h; [0007, 0016-0018, 0044-57, 0061-74, 0076-0079]).
In paragraph [0042] of the instant specification, the term “about” is said to be “used as terms of approximation and not as terms of degree, and, as such, are utilized to account for inherent deviations in measured, calculated, and/or provided values that would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art”.
The claimed range of “about 10mm to about 20mm”, based on the guidance provided by the disclosure, would account for inherent deviations, such that the depth taught by Imayoshi et al. of 8 mm with a variation control of +/- 1.0 mm, would overlap with the endpoint of the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exits.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
Applicant's arguments filed 01/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on page 9 that Kim et al. does not teach or suggest that the alignment key (112) corresponding to the first intaglio pattern portion is closer to the edge of the printing plate compared to the intaglio portion 110 corresponding to the second intaglio pattern portion, and therefore, the reference does not teach that the intaglio pattern portion (110) is at an outer periphery of an entirety of the first intaglio pattern portion as presently claimed. This argument is not persuasive.
In light of the Applicants arguments, the rejections over Kim et al. have been amended to address the new limitation. As stated in the rejections above, the alignment key portion, designated in the annotated figure above (reproduced here for reference), corresponds to the first intaglio pattern portion, and the bezel pattern corresponds to the second intaglio pattern portion.
PNG
media_image4.png
266
575
media_image4.png
Greyscale
L
It is noted that the claims recite “a first intaglio pattern portion” and a “second intaglio pattern portion”, therefore, one alignment key portion, designated in the figure above, of the printing plate of Kim et al. corresponds to the “first intaglio pattern portion”, even though there are other alignment key portions with in the printing plate. As shown by the annotated image above, the designated bezel pattern portion is at an outer periphery of an entirety of the designated alignment key portion, thus meeting the limitation of instant claim 1.
With respect Imayoshi et al., the Applicant argues on pages 9-10 that the pixel portion 14 is closer to an edge portion than the pixel pattern 15 with greater depth, and pixel pattern 15 is not an outer periphery of an entirety of the pixel pattern 14. This argument is not persuasive.
In light of the Applicants arguments, the rejections over Imayoshi et al. have been amended to address the new limitation.
As stated in the rejections above, and shown by Figure 1 of the reference reproduced below, a portion of pixel pattern a corresponds to the first intaglio pattern portion and a portion of the alignment reference mark corresponds to the second intaglio pattern.
PNG
media_image2.png
349
692
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It is noted that the claims recite “a first intaglio pattern portion” and a “second intaglio pattern portion”, therefore, one portion of pixel pattern a corresponds to the first intaglio pattern portion even though there are other pixel pattern a portions with in the printing plate. As shown by the annotated image above, the alignment reference mark portion is at an outer periphery of an entirety of the designated portion of pixel pattern a, thus meeting the limitation of instant claim 1.
In response to applicant's argument on page 10 with respect to claim 2 that the claimed configuration helps to prevent the printed pattern layer that overlaps the bezel area from being removed in the case where only the single tone printing process is performed, and the cited references are not concerned with achieving such effect, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The argument is with respect to the intended use of the claimed etching plate, and therefore is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument on page 11 with respect to the rejection of claim 3 over Kim et al., that the present application describes that the inclined pattern portion may help reduce pressure and prevent damage on the pad, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The argument is with respect to the intended use of the claimed etching plate, and therefore is not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 3 over Imayoshi et al., the Applicants argues on page 11 that the frame pattern 11 is not between the pixel pattern 14 and the pixel pattern 15. This argument is moot as it does not address the manner in which Imayoshi et al. is used in the above rejections to address the limitations of the claims, as the rejection has been amended to address the newly added amendments from the response filed 01/14/2026.
With respect to newly added claim 21, the claim is rejected by both Kim et al. and Imayoshi et al. in the above rejections.
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 LAURA POWERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 10:00AM-3:00PM.
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 Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
LAURA POWERS
Examiner
Art Unit 1785
/LAURA C POWERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785