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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/02/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 32 is objected to because of the following informalities: “from a database associated” should be “from a database, associated”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 32-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 32, the claim requires a plate processing device to retrieve process-relevant data from a database, and then to use said data for processing the relief precursor. The specification defines process-relevant data as also including “messages or advice to the operator” (page 4, lines 19-20). However, the specification does not show how messages or advice to an operator are used for processing the relief precursor. Support in the specification is only found for using “process parameters” for processing relief precursors when using a database to retrieve information relating to the type of relief precursor (page 24, lines 22-33).
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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.
Claims 32-37 are 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.
Regarding claim 32, the claim requires a plate processing device to retrieve process-relevant data from a database, and then to use said data for processing the relief precursor. The specification defines process-relevant data as also including “messages or advice to the operator” (page 4, lines 19-20). It is not clear how “messages or advice to the operator” can be used by a plate processing device to process the relief precursor.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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) 32-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mannes (US 2003/0219659). Regarding claim 32, Mannes discloses “a system for identifying a relief precursor (paragraph 43: flexography) or a relief comprising a carrier and a relief-forming layer, the system comprising an optical reading device (item 23) configured to read a code” on the plate which has information related to the processing of the plate (paragraph 27); the system further comprising a plate processor device (item 7) and a transmission means for transmitting said code from the reading device to the plate processing device (paragraph 27) and use information for processing said identified type of relief precursor or relief (paragraph 27). Mannes does not specifically disclose that the information in the code is used to identify the type of relief precursor or relief, or that the plate processing device is configured to retrieve, based on said code, from a database associated process-relevant data for processing said identified type of relief precursor or relief. However, Mannes does disclose that the information is “related” to the processing of the plate (paragraph 27), and that information related to the precursor can be stored in a data store (paragraph 21), and that information used by the controller to process the relief precursor (paragraph 26, claims 1, 17, and 18). Mannes further discloses that the information is written into the plate in the form of a “code” (paragraph 27) which must implicitly be ‘de-coded.’ Furthermore, Mannes discloses “transferring a type identifier to processor 7 for or with each plate” and that the processor “can determine to process a specific plate differently from other plates” (paragraph 36). That is, the processor determines how to process each plate separately, based on a type identifier which is transferred to the processor. Paragraph 27 sets forth that in the alternative embodiment of a communication path, the information is transferred to the processor by the code. Therefore, since the type identifier is the information which is used by the processor to determine how to process each plate, implicitly, the processor must have some means to correlate the type identifier to the processing functions specific to each plate. Since Mannes already discloses using a data store of precursor types correlated with parameters (paragraph 21), Examiner asserts that one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use such a data store which correlates plate types to processing conditions/parameters. See MPEP §2144.07. Regarding claim 33, Mannes further discloses “wherein the process-relevant data for processing the relief precursor or the relief comprise at least one of the following: exposure conditions, ablation conditions, temperature conditions, cleaning conditions, development conditions, drying conditions, storage conditions, device configurations and settings, priority in the process flow and any combination thereof (paragraphs 26 and/or 36).” Regarding claim 34, Mannes further discloses “wherein the database is an updated database (paragraph 21: data store is interpreted to read on this limitation).” Regarding claim 35, Mannes further discloses “wherein the code is representative of data relating to a type of relief precursor among any one of the following: an article number, a batch number, an identification number, information relating to the thickness of the plate or a layer, information relating to length and width, type or any desired combinations thereof (paragraph 21 and/or 36).”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-29 and 36 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Mannes are not persuasive. Mannes discloses “transferring a type identifier to processor 7 for or with each plate to be processed by processor 7 (paragraph 36).” Examiner interprets the this to mean that when the type identifier is transferred with each plate, in the alternative embodiment of communication path, the type identifier is located on the plate, vis-à-vis the code. In such instance, the type identifier would have to be correlated with processing parameters in order to properly process the plate. Examiner contends that using the known method of using a data store which correlates plate types with plate parameters would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
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
Prosecution Insights