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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 21, 2025 has been entered.
Drawings
It is noted that applicant’s amendment dated March 26, 2025 stated that there were attached replacement drawing sheets specifically illustrating the upper engraved surface of the photopolymer plate (see page 6 of the response dated March 26, 2025). However, these drawing sheets appear to be missing because they could not be located in the file.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Since the replacement drawing sheets do not appear to have been submitted with the 03/26/25 amendment, note the upper engraved surface of the photopolymer plate as recited in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rach et al. (US 5,753,414) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art of Figures 2-A and 2-B described on page 6, lines 1-15 of the specification (hereafter referred to as AAPA of Figures 2A-2B).
With respect to claim 1, Rach et al. teaches a pre-assembled structure (Fig. 3) for printing, the structure comprising:
a photopolymer plate 20 comprising a layer of photopolymer 22 having an upper engraved surface (i.e., relief layer 26), and being incorporated on a first polyester sheet 30;
a support base 38 including a second polymer sheet (see column 7, lines 13-15); and
a padded foam 36 (see column 7, lines 16-20) independent from the support base 38, the padded foam comprising an upper surface, a lower surface opposite to the upper surface, and lateral surfaces, and being adhesively incorporated between the first polyester sheet 30 of the photopolymer plate 20 and the second polymer sheet of the support base 38, wherein the lower surface of the padded foam is in contact with the second sheet and the upper surface of the padded foam 36 is directly in contact with the first polyester sheet 30 of the photopolymer plate 20. See, in particular, Figure 3 and column 7, lines 10-32.
While Rach et al. does not specifically teach the size of the padded foam to be such that only a portion of the upper surface of the padded foam is directly in contact with the first polyester sheet, it has been held that a mere change in size does not patentably distinguish over the prior art. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Additionally, note that AAPA of Figures 2-A and 2-B teach it is well known in the art to have a foam sheet 7’ that is larger than both the photopolymer plate 2 and first polyester sheet 4 is well known in the art. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rach et al. to have a foam sheet sized larger than the photopolymer plate and first polyester sheet such that only a portion of the upper surface of the padded foam is directly in contact with the first polyester sheet because having a foam sheet sized larger than the polyester sheet/photopolymer plate is a well-known configuration with predictable results to provide a plate structure that is easy to manufacture and allows for improved print quality.
Additionally, while Rach et al. teaches the material of the second sheet may comprise “polyvinylchloride or other material that is typically used in the art” in column 7, lines 13-15, Rach et al. does not specifically teach the sheet may be polyester. AAPA of Figures 2A-2B teaches it is well known in the art to provide a flexographic printing plate comprising a printing layer having a first polyester sheet and a support base including a second polyester sheet. See, for example, the printing layer 2, the first polyester sheet 4, the support base 5’ and the second polyester sheet 6’ as shown in Figures 2A-2B and described in page 6, lines 1-15. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the polymer layer of Rach et al. to be a polyester sheet as taught by AAPA of Figures 2-A and 2-B, as it would simply require the obvious substitution of one support layer material for another to provide a base layer providing appropriate stabilization of the printing plate.
With respect to claim 2, note Rach et al. as modified by AAPA teaches the preassembled structure as recited in claim 1 and further note the padded foam 36 of Rach et al. acts as the joining means that fixes the support base 38 to the photopolymer plate 20 and is comprised of a sheet having adhesive on both sides as described in column 7, lines 16-20.
With respect to claims 3-4, note Rach et al. as modified by AAPA teaches the preassembled structure as recited in claims 1-2 and further note the padded foam 36 of Rach et al. completely covers the sheet of the support base 38, as shown in Figure 3.
With respect to claims 5-6, note Rach et al. as modified by AAPA teaches the preassembled structure as recited in claims 1-2 and further note the portion of the padded foam 36 shown in Figure 3 of Rach et al. directly in contact with the photopolymer plate 20 “corresponds to” the upper engraved surface, as broadly recited.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 21, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive of any error in the above rejections.
In particular, applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6 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. Note that, as set forth in the above rejection, the combined teachings of Rach et al. in view of AAPA render obvious the pre-assembled structure of claims 1-6.
Furthermore, the Examiner points out that while the padded foam relationship as recited in claim 1 has been illustrated in Figures 1-A and 1-B of the drawings (see below reproduced marked-up images from applicants 3/26/25 response), applicant’s specification does not describe this structural relationship or set forth any particular criticality to having only a portion of the upper surface of the padded foam directly in contact with the first polyester sheet as now recited.
PNG
media_image1.png
690
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally, it is noted that applicant argues on page 6 of the remarks that “the claimed structure, which requires less than full contact on the upper surface due to lateral restriction, achieves a technical and economic benefit-specifically, “a reduction in the amount of padded foam to be used in each job, estimated between 20-30%.” Applicant goes on to point out that since the prior art teaches full coverage, this specific structural limitation is not taught or suggested by the prior art. The Examiner disagrees with this argument for several reasons.
First, the argument that the padded foam as recited in claim 1 would result is less foam usage does not appear to consistent with the description in the specification. In particular, the specification describes that the structure object of the invention allows for a reduction of foam since only an amount of foam corresponding to the printing surfaces can be used (see page 4, lines 6-9) and also describes that the foam can either cover the entire extension of the second polyester sheet 6 or optionally covers only the extension of the engraved areas of the photopolymer plate (see page 5, lines 29-31). Thus, the specification appears to be stating that any reduction in the amount of foam used is a result of what is assumed to be an unillustrated embodiment, wherein the foam layer only extends the same length as the plate and would thereby result in using less foam. The language of amended claim 1 appears to be reciting the foam layer as specifically depicted in Figures 1-A and 1-B (see, for example, the marked up images from applicants 03/26/25 response above). The foam layer in the illustrated embodiment would not appear to result in the use of less foam since the foam layer appears to be the same size as the foam layer shown in the prior art embodiment of Figures 2-A and 2-B. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are confusing and unclear and the Examiner maintains that Rach et al. as modified by AAPA renders obvious the pre-assembled structure as recited.
In view of all of the above reasoning, the Examiner is not persuaded of any error in the above rejection(s).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESLIE J EVANISKO whose telephone number is (571) 272-2161. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am-4:00 pm.
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, Stephen D Meier can be reached at 571-272-7149. 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.
/Leslie J Evanisko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853