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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-3,5,8,11,13-14,16-18 and 20 in the reply filed on March 16, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 22,36,39-44 and 46 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The “means for causing relative motion between the printing plate and the one or more arrays” in claims 8 and 11, because the further limitation of including a drum.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim 11 is 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 11 recites the limitation “the means for causing relative motion” in line 1. 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 11, 13, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietz et al. [US 2018/0217502, cited in the IDS filed on March 16, 2026] in view of Sievers et al. [WO 2020/216948, provided by the Applicant on September 16, 2024].
For claim 1, Dietz teaches an apparatus (see Figs. 1 and 2) for exposing a partially processed photopolymer printing plate to post-exposure radiation and finishing radiation (all exposure post imaging, see [0067] and [0068]), the printing plate defining a whole area having a first full lateral dimension and a second full lateral dimension perpendicular to the first lateral dimension (dimensions of flexographic printing plates), the printing plate further comprising a laser ablated masking (LAMS) layer (see [0048]), the apparatus comprising:
a plurality of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) arranged in one or more arrays (UV-LEDs in manner known in principle, see Figs. 1 and 2 and [0088] and [0112]),
the plurality of LEDs configured to emit the post exposure radiation in a UVA spectral range and to emit the finishing radiation in a UVC spectral range (UVA and/or UVC light, see [0112]);
a surface (transport device (T1)) for receiving the printing plate in a location disposed to receive the post exposure radiation and the finishing radiation;
one of more controllers (controller 11 for controlling the device, see [0057] and [0099]) configured to activate the one or more arrays to cause the plurality of sets of LEDs to emit radiation toward the printing plate; and
a thermal plate processor (heating elements, [0110]), an imager configured to laser ablate the LAMS layer in accordance with imaging information (a device for writing a mask into the digitally imagable layer by means of a laser, see [0058] and [0156]), or a combination thereof.
Dietz fails to explicitly teach a first set of LEDs configured to emit the post exposure radiation in a UVA spectral range and a second set of LEDs configured to emit the finishing radiation in a UVC spectral range and one of more controllers connected to the one or more arrays.
Sievers teaches a first set of LEDs configured to emit the post exposure radiation in a first spectral range (first array of species 132, see Figs. 3A-4B) and a second set of LEDs configured to emit the finishing radiation in a second spectral range (second array of species 134, see Figs. 3A-4B) and one of more controllers connected to the one or more arrays (controllers for independent control, see page 10 lines 10-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the sets of LEDs having different wavelength and controllers as taught by Sievers in the LED arrays as taught by Dietz in order to provide a desired intensity and dose based on a material characteristic of the plate.
For claim 2, in the combination, Sievers teaches the first set of LEDs is arranged in a first lamp and the second set of LEDs is arranged in a second lamp (individual rows, see Figs. 3A, 3B, and 4B).
For claim 3, in the combination, Sievers teaches the first set of LEDs and the second set of LEDs are arranged in a single lamp (staggered array, see Figs. 3C and 3D).
For claims 5, 8, 11, 16, and 17, Dietz teaches the apparatus may include a drum, see [0004], but fails to explicitly teach the one or more arrays are configured to expose the full first lateral dimension of the printing plate over less than the full second lateral dimension of the printing plate, further comprising means for causing relative motion between the printing plate and the one or more arrays, wherein the one or more arrays are configured to be stationary and the means for causing relative motion is configured to move the plate and includes a drum that defines the surface for receiving the printing plate and that is configured to rotate relative to the one or more arrays, and means for moving the one or more arrays axially relative to the drum, the printing plate is disposed between the plurality of LEDs and the surface for receiving the printing plate, the first set of UV LEDs is also configured to emit front side main exposure radiation toward the front side of the printing plate disposed on the surface.
Sievers teaches the one or more arrays (105, see Fig.1) are configured to expose the full first lateral dimension of the printing plate (along the axis of direction covering full width, see page 4) over less than the full second lateral dimension of the printing plate (transverse direction, see Fig. 1), further comprising means (109) for causing relative motion between the printing plate and the one or more arrays, wherein the one or more arrays are configured to be stationary and the means for causing relative motion is configured to move the plate and includes a drum (101), that defines the surface for receiving the printing plate (103) and that is configured to rotate relative to the one or more arrays, and means for moving the one or more arrays axially relative to the drum (exposure unit 105 may cover less than the full width of the plate on the drum and may raster back and forth in the longitudinal direction, see page 4), the printing plate is disposed between the plurality of LEDs and the surface for receiving the printing plate (plate 103 on the drum 101, under the array 105, see Fig. 1), the first set of UV LEDs is also configured to emit front side main exposure radiation toward the front side of the printing plate disposed on the surface (UVA range, see page 5 lines 8-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the drum moving arrangement as taught by Sievers instead of flatbed arrangement as taught by Dietz in order to provide a more compact arrangement and speed control.
For claim 13, Dietz recognizes controlling the power and exposure time, see [0161], in the combination, Sievers teaches the one or more controllers (controllers for independent control, see page 10 lines 10-22) includes a first controller configured to independently control power to the first set of LEDs and a second controller configured to independently control power to the second sets of LEDs, wherein the first controller and the second controller are configured to cause the first set of LEDs to emit a different intensity than the second set of LEDs (different output intensities of arrays that are independently controllable, see page 6 line 11-page 7 line 10).
For claim 18, Dietz teaches at least one third set of UV LEDs configured to emit a back side main exposure radiation toward the back side of the printing plate disposed on the surface (reverse exposure 1, see Fig. 1); wherein the one or more controllers is configured to cause the at least one third set of LEDs to emit radiation toward the printing plate (controller 11, see [0099]).
For claim 20, Dietz teaches the apparatus further comprises a plate dryer (7, see [0104]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietz in view of Sievers as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Konermann et al. [US 5,557,857, cited in the IDS filed on March 16, 2026].
For claim 14, Dietz recognizes controlling the power and exposure time, see [0161], but fails to explicitly teach the one or more controllers are configured to cause at least the first set of LEDs to have a different exposure time than at least the second set of LEDs.
Konermann teaches the times for producing either wavelength can be determined by experience or controlled as a function of the actual condition of the plates (see col. 5 lines 39-41), recognizing the need for individual times for each wavelength.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide different times as taught by Konermann in the exposure of two different wavelengths as taught by Dietz in order to control the aftertreatment based on a material characteristics of the plate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gouch et al. [US 2009/0197013] teaches in [0038] a final curing station where it is irradiated with UV-A (and optionally UV-C) to fully cure the deposited material and Vanmaele et al. [US 2013/0269558] teaches in [0129] and [0130] partial intermediate curing with UV-A radiation and final curing with UV-C light has the property that the outside skin of the print master is fully hardened.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven H Whitesell whose telephone number is (571)270-3942. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM (MST).
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
/Steven H Whitesell/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights