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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 15, 17, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. (JP2001-051409A) in view of Shiraki et al. (US 20150000544 A1). Regarding claim 1, Goto et al. disclose a “waterless planographic printing plate precursor (paragraph 1) comprising at least a substrate, a heat sensitive layer and an ink repellent layer in this order (paragraph 13), wherein the heat sensitive layer comprises at least (a) an infrared-absorbing dye (paragraph 45) having a maximum absorption wavelength of 700 to 1,000 nm (paragraphs 45 and 77), (b) a dye that changes color by proton acceptance (paragraphs 16 and 17), and (c) a proton-donating compound (paragraph 20).” Goto et al. fail to disclose “wherein the substrate has a white color layer or a white color surface,” or “wherein the white color layer comprises an organic composition containing a pigment dispersed therein; and wherein a range of reflection densities between an exposed area and a non-exposed area is 0.33 or more.” Shiraki et al. teach coating a substrate with a white coating layer comprising an organic composition (paragraph 39) with a dispersed pigment (paragraph 38) in order to provide a printing plate with excellent image visibility after exposure (paragraphs 23 and 26) such that the plate can be inspected to determine whether the image has been recorded properly (paragraph 10). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the substrate in Goto et al. with a white layer in order to improve the plate inspection properties. Regarding the final limitation that “wherein a range of reflection densities between an exposed area and a non-exposed area is 0.33 or more,” it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by an identical or substantially identical process, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP §2112.01. In this case, since the printing plate precursor of Goto et al., as modified, is at least substantially identical to the claimed printing plate precursor, the recited property is presumed inherent. Regarding claim 2, Goto et al. further disclose “wherein the heat sensitive layer contains 12 to 20% by mass of the infrared-absorbing dye (a) having a maximum absorption wavelength of 700 to 1,000 nm (paragraph 46).” Regarding claim 3, Goto et al. further disclose “comprising a leuco dye as the dye that changes color by proton acceptance (b) (paragraph 17).” Regarding claim 4, Goto et al. further disclose “wherein the dye that changes color by proton acceptance (b) has a maximum absorption wavelength in the range of 500 to 650 nm when accepting protons (at least: 3,3-bis(p-dimethylaminophenyl)-6-dimethylaminophthalide).” Regarding claim 5, Goto et al. further disclose “comprising, as the proton-donating compound (c), a polymer including an active hydrogen-containing structural unit (paragraph 20: novolac resin).” Regarding claim 6, Goto et al. further disclose “comprising, as the proton-donating compound (c), a novolac resin (paragraph 20).” Regarding claim 15, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by an identical or substantially identical process, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP §2112.01. In this case, since the printing plate precursor of Goto et al., as modified, is at least substantially identical to the claimed printing plate precursor, the recited property is presumed inherent. Regarding claim 17, Shiraki et al. further disclose “wherein the white color layer contains titanium oxide (paragraph 45),” but fail to disclose “a content of the titanium oxide is from 2% by volume or more and 30% by volume or less.” However, Shiraki et al. disclose that the titanium oxide should be in an amount of 0.05 to 0.3 g/m2 in order to have good reflection density and good visibility of the print-out image (paragraph 46). It has been held that when the general conditions are disclosed in the art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, to set the amount of titanium oxide to be from 2% to 30% by volume in order to determine the optimum or workable amount to have good reflection density and/or good visibility of the print-out image. Regarding claim 18, Goto et al. further disclose “wherein the dye (b) is at least one selected from the group consisting of 3,3-bis(p- dimethylaminophenyl)-6-dimethylaminophthalide, 3-[4-(diethylamino)-2-hexyloxyphenyl]-3-(1- ethyl-2-methylindol-3-yl)-4-azaphthalide, 3-(4-diethylamino-2-methylphenyl)-3-(1-ethyl-2- methylindol-3-yl)-4-azaphthalide, 3-[(4-diethylamino)-o-tolyl]-6-(dimethylamino)-3-[(4- dimethylamino)phenyl]phthalide, and 3',6'-bis(diphenylamino)spiro[phthalide-3,9'-xanthene] (paragraph 17).” Regarding claim 20, Goto et al. further disclose “wherein the ink repellent layer is a silicone layer (paragraph 55).”
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. and Shiraki et al., further in view of Kuse et al. (US2019/143730). Regarding claim 16, Goto et al., as modified, disclose all that is claimed, as in claim 1 above, including that the white layer can also include a component to increase the dispersibility of the components in the layer ( paragraph 112), but fail to specifically disclose “wherein a particle surface of the pigment of the organic composition is treated with a titanate-based coupling agent.” However, Kuse et al. teach treating the surface of titanium oxide particles with a titanate coupling agent in order to improve the dispersibility of the particles (paragraph 28). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to treat the surface of the titanium oxide particles of Goto et al. with a titanate coupling agent in order to improve the dispersibility of them in the layer.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. and Shiraki et al., further in view of Enomoto et al. (US 2022/0161542). Regarding claim 19, Goto et al., as modified, disclose all that is claimed, as in claim 1 above, except “wherein the dye (b) is at least one selected from the group consisting of 2'-anilino-6'-(N-ethyl- N-isopentylamino)-3'-methylspiro[phthalide-3,9'-xanthene], 2'-anilino-6'-(N,N-dipentan-1- ylamino)-3'-methyl-3H-spiro[isobenzofuran-1,9'-xanthen]-3-one, 2'-anilino-6'-(dibutylamino)- 3'-methylspiro[phthalide-3,9'-xanthene], 2'-anilino-6'-[N-ethyl-N-(4-tolyl)amino]-3'-methyl- 3H-spiro[isobenzofuran-1,9'-xanthen]-3-one, 6-(diethylamino)-2-[(3- trifluoromethyl)anilino]xanthene-9-spiro-3'-phthalide, and 3,3-bis[2-(4-dimethylaminophenyl)- 2-(4-methoxyphenyl)vinyl]-4,5,6,7-tetrachlorophthalide.” However, Goto et al. do disclose that the dye is not particularly limited, so long as it is a dye that forms an acid (paragraph 16), especially a leuco dye (paragraph 17). Enomoto et al. disclose that S-205, or 2'-anilino-6'-(N-ethyl- N-isopentylamino)-3'-methylspiro[phthalide-3,9'-xanthene], is a known acid color-developing agent and leuco dye (paragraphs 603,611, and 1237). It has been held that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.07. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use S-205 as the leuco dye in the modified plate precursor of Goto et al. because it has been shown in the art to be suitable for the intended purpose.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 9:30AM-6:30PM, First Fridays: 9:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853