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, 2, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viehmann et al. (US 2021/0302834) in view of Masato (JP 2009/051157A) and Sato et al. (US 4390616). Regarding claim 1, Viehmann et al. disclose “a stack (paragraph 114) comprising: a lithographic printing plate precursor including an image-recording layer which contains an infrared absorber, a polymerizable compound, and a polymerization initiator (paragraph 41); and an interleaving paper stacked on the lithographic printing plate precursor (paragraph 114); wherein the image-recording layer further contains an acid color forming agent (claim 19, paragraph 108).” Examiner notes that Viehmann et al. do not explicitly say that an interleaving paper is present. However, paragraph 114 merely discloses that when the interleaving paper is not present, the protective layer of one precursor contacts the backside of the substrate of the precursor immediately above it. Therefore, Viehmann et al. are implicitly disclosing both the embodiment when the interleaving paper is not present, and the embodiment when the interleaving paper is present. Viehmann et al. fail to disclose “wherein air permeation resistance of the interleaving paper is 55 seconds or more.” However, Masato et al. disclose using interleaving paper with an air permeation resistance of 60 seconds or more (paragraph 25) in order to achieve a lithographic printing plate with little deterioration in printing durability even when stored for a long period of time (paragraph 12). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the interleaving paper of Viehmann et al. have an air permeation resistance of 60 seconds or more in order to achieve a lithographic printing plate which has little deterioration in printing durability even when stored for a long period of time. Viehmann et al. also fail to disclose “the acid color forming agent includes a leuco colorant, and the leuco colorant includes a compound represented by Formula (Le-2)
PNG
media_image1.png
130
178
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the electron-donating group in Formula (Le-2) is a monoalkyl monoarylamino group, a diarylamino group, a diheteroarylamino group, or a monoarylmonoheteroarylamino group.” However, Sato et al. disclose very well-known dyes that change color in response to an acid (an electron acceptor) (column 1, lines 42-45, column 4, lines 64-68) that are stable and resist discoloration or fading (sentence bridging columns 4 and 5). The dyes include 3,6, bis-diphenylaminofluoran (column 5, line 4), and are colorless or pale before changing color (column 4, lines 65-66) and are therefore leuco dyes.
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. Furthermore, it has been held that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.06. 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 3′,6′-diphenylaminofluoran as the acid color developer of Viehmann et al.: because it is shown in the art to be suitable for the intended purpose; and/or in order to have an image which is stable and resists discoloration. Regarding claim 2, Viehmann et al. disclose “a stack (paragraph 114) comprising: a lithographic printing plate precursor including an image-recording layer which contains an infrared absorber, a polymerizable compound, and a polymerization initiator (paragraph 41); and an interleaving paper stacked on the lithographic printing plate precursor (paragraph 114), wherein the interleaving paper is overlapped with the lithographic printing plate precursor to be in contact with a surface of the lithographic printing plate precursor on an image-recording layer side (paragraph 114),
wherein the image-recording layer further contains an acid color forming agent (claim 19, paragraph 108).” Examiner notes that Viehmann et al. do not explicitly say that an interleaving paper is present. However, paragraph 114 merely discloses that when the interleaving paper is not present, the protective layer of one precursor contacts the backside of the substrate of the precursor immediately above it. Therefore, Viehmann et al. are implicitly disclosing both the embodiment when the interleaving paper is not present, and the embodiment when the interleaving paper is present. Viehmann et al. also fail to disclose “the acid color forming agent includes a leuco colorant, and the leuco colorant includes a compound represented by Formula (Le-2)
PNG
media_image1.png
130
178
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the electron-donating group in Formula (Le-2) is a monoalkyl monoarylamino group, a diarylamino group, a diheteroarylamino group, or a monoarylmonoheteroarylamino group.” However, Sato et al. disclose very well-known dyes that change color in response to an acid (an electron acceptor) (column 1, lines 42-45, column 4, lines 64-68) that are stable and resist discoloration or fading (sentence bridging columns 4 and 5). The dyes include 3,6, bis-diphenylaminofluoran (column 5, line 4), and are colorless or pale before changing color (column 4, lines 65-66) and are therefore leuco dyes.
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. Furthermore, it has been held that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.06. 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 3′,6′-diphenylaminofluoran as the acid color developer of Viehmann et al.: because it is shown in the art to be suitable for the intended purpose; and/or in order to have an image which is stable and resists discoloration. Viehmann et al. also fail to disclose “a color difference ΔE of the image-recording layer before and after storage in a dark room in an environment of 25°C and 55 %RH for 3 days is less than 3.0.” However, Masato et al. disclose using interleaving paper on top with an air permeation resistance of 60 seconds or more (paragraph 25) in order to achieve a lithographic printing plate with little deterioration in printing durability even when stored for a long period of time (paragraph 12). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the interleaving paper of Viehmann et al. have an air permeation resistance of 60 seconds or more in order to achieve a lithographic printing plate which has little deterioration in printing durability even when stored for a long period of time. 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 instance, since the stack of Viehmann et al., as modified, is at least substantially identical to that claimed by Applicant, the recited property of the color difference is presumed to be inherent. Regarding claims 4 and 13, Viehmann et al. further disclose “wherein the polymerization initiator includes an electron-donating polymerization initiator (paragraph 78).” Regarding claims 5 and 14, Viehmann et al. further disclose “wherein the electron-donating polymerization initiator includes a borate compound (paragraph 78).” Regarding claims 8 and 17, Viehmann et al. further disclose “wherein the lithographic printing plate precursor further includes a support (paragraph 41).”
Claim(s) 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viehmann et al., Masato, and Sato et al, further in view of Takeshi (JP 2009-248419A). Regarding claims 10 and 19, Viehmann et al., as modified, disclose all that is claimed, as in claims 1 and 2 above, respectively, except “wherein a pH of the interleaving paper is less than 5.” Viehmann et al., as modified, are silent with regard to the pH, leaving the choice up to one having ordinary skill in the art. Takeshi discloses a similar stack with an interleaving sheet (abstract), the interleaving sheet being disclosed as having a pH of 4 (paragraph 230). 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 a pH of 4 for the pH of the interleaving paper in the modified invention of Viehmann et al. because it has been shown in the art to be suitable for the intended purpose. See MPEP §2144.07.
Claim(s) 11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viehmann et al., Masato, and Sato et al., further in view of Keiichi et al. (JP 2009-023354A).
Regarding claims 11 and 20, Viehmann et al., as modified, disclose all that is claimed, as in claims 1 and 2 above, respectively, except “wherein a basis weight of the interleaving paper is 51 g/m2 or more.” Viehmann et al., as modified, are silent with regard to the basis weight, leaving the choice up to one having ordinary skill in the art. However, Keiichi et al. disclose a similar interleaving paper (abstract) which has a basis weight of 20 to 120 g/m2 (paragraph 22). 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 a basis weight of 20 to 120 g/m2 because it has been shown in the art to be suitable for the intended purpose. See MPEP §2144.07.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viehmann et al., Masato, and Sato et al., further in view of Shibamoto et al. (US 2019/0329545). Regarding claims 6, 7, 15, and 16, Viehmann et al., as modified, disclose all that is claimed, as in claims 1 and 2 above, except “wherein an HOMO value of the infrared absorber is -5.30 eV or less,” or “wherein an HOMO value of the infrared absorber - an HOMO value of the electron-donating polymerization initiator is 0.60 eV or less.” However, Shibamoto et al. discloses using an infrared absorber and an electron-donating polymerization initiator wherein the HOMO value of the infrared absorber - a HOMO value of the electron-donating polymerization initiator is 0.60 eV in order to achieve desired printing durability and tone reproducibility (paragraph 318). 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 an infrared absorber and an electron-donating polymerization initiator wherein the HOMO value of the infrared absorber - a HOMO value of the electron-donating polymerization initiator is 0.60 eV in order to achieve desired printing durability and tone reproducibility. Shibamoto et al. disclose many infrared absorbers having a HOMO of -5.30 eV or less (Table 2). 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 any of the IR absorbers having a HOMO of -5.30 eV or less because they have been shown in the art to be suitable for the intended purpose. See MPEP §2144.07.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viehmann et al., Masato, and Sato et al., further in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2019/0061404). Regarding claims 9 and 18, Viehmann et al. disclose all that is claimed, as in claims 1 and 2 above, except “wherein a value of lightness L* of a surface of the support on an image-recording layer side is 85 or less.” However, Nakamura et al. disclose making the lightness of a surface of the support on an image-recording layer side between 70 and 100 in order to achieve improved image visibility (paragraph 47). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to set the lightness of a surface of the support on an image-recording layer side to between 70 and 85 in order to achieve improved image visibility.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
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