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, 8, 9, 11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stebani et al. (US 2016/0229172). Regarding claims 1-3, Stebani et al. disclose “a film for flexographic printing plate production (paragraph 91), comprising: a base material (paragraph 84); and an ablation layer (paragraph 70) stacked on the base material (paragraph 91), wherein the ablation layer comprises a resin having a constituent unit (1) represented by the following general formula (1) (paragraph 73: copolymer with isobutene),
PNG
media_image1.png
156
182
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(1) wherein, in the formula (1), R1 and R2 each independently represent a non-polar group, and R3 and R4 each independently represent a hydrogen atom or a non-polar group (paragraph 73: isobutene. In polymers resulting from isobutene, R1 and R.2 would be methyl groups, which are non-polar, alkyl groups, and R3 and R4 would be hydrogens).” Stebani et al. fail to disclose a range for the width of the base material, leaving the choice up to one having ordinary skill in the art. However, in the non-limiting example 3, the film is 100 µm thick (paragraph 179). It has been held that when claimed ranges do not overlap, but are close, a prima facie case of obviousness exists when values are “so mathematically close that the difference between the claimed ranges [is] virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality. See MPEP §2144.05(I). In this instance, 100 µm is negligibly different from the recited “less than 100 µm,” and one having ordinary skill in the art would expect that, for example, having a PET film of 99.99 µm would have the same properties as a PET film that is 100 µm. Regarding claim 4, Stebani et al. disclose all that is claimed, as in claim 1 above, including that the binders of the ablatable layer can include copolymers made with vinylimidazole (paragraph 73). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to copolymerize with vinylimidazole because Stebani et al. explicitly suggest using it. Regarding claim 5, Stebani et al. further disclose “wherein the base material comprises a resin having a polyester or polyolefin skeleton (paragraph 85: PET).” Regarding claim 6, Stebani et al. further disclose “wherein the base material is made of a resin having a polyester or polyolefin skeleton (paragraph 85: PET).” Regarding claim 8, Stebani et al. further disclose a “stack comprising: an original flexographic printing plate having a photosensitive resin composition layer (paragraph 89: A + B + C); and the film for flexographic printing plate production according to claim 1 on the original flexographic printing plate (paragraph 89: D + E).” Regarding claim 9, Stebani et al. disclose a “method for producing a flexographic printing plate using the stack according to claim 8, comprising: drawing by irradiating the film for flexographic printing plate production with an infrared ray to draw and process a pattern (paragraph 97); exposing by irradiating the photosensitive resin composition layer with an ultraviolet ray to form a pattern using, as a mask, the ablation layer on which the pattern has been drawn and processed in the drawing (paragraph 100); and developing by removing an unexposed portion of the photosensitive resin composition layer (paragraph 103).” Regarding claim 11, Stebani et al. further disclose “wherein the base material of the film for flexographic printing plate production is made of a resin having a polyester or polyolefin skeleton (paragraph 85: PET).”
Claim(s) 7, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stebani et al. in view of Pietsch et al. (US 2019/039149). Regarding claims 7 and 12, Stebani et al. disclose all that is claimed, as in claims 7 and 9 above, except “wherein the base material is made of a resin having a polyolefin skeleton.” However, Stebani et al. do disclose that the top layer can be, for example, PET (paragraph 85). Pietsch et al. disclose a similar arrangement wherein a protective top layer can be PET or polyethylene (paragraph 73). It has been held that selection based upon a suitability for an intended purpose is prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.07. Additionally, 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: a) use polyethylene as the protective top layer of Stebani et al. because it has been recognized in the art as being suitable for the intended purpose; and/or b) substituting polyethylene for the PET of Stebani et al. because it has been shown in the art to be equivalent for the same purpose.
Regarding claim 10, Stebani et al. disclose all that is claimed, as in claim 9 above, except “wherein the photosensitive resin composition comprises a polymer having a carbonyl group.” However, Stebani et al. do disclose that the layer (B) has binders (paragraph 53). Pietsch et al. disclose a similar arrangement with a relief forming layer that has a binder and that polyamides are known as being useful for said binders (paragraph 33). 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 and/or add a polyamide as a binder in the arrangement of Stebani et al. because it has been shown in the art to be suitable for the intended purpose.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stebani et al. in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAP). Regarding claim 13, Stebani et al. disclose all that is claimed, as in claim 9 above, except “further comprising: recovering the unexposed portion removed in the developing, for use in production of a new original flexographic printing plate.” However, AAPA discloses recovering unexposed portion removed in the developing for production of a new original flexographic printing plate in order to reduce the burden on the environment. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to recover unexposed portion removed in the developing for production of a new original flexographic printing plate in order to reduce the burden on the environment.
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