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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/07/2026 has been entered.
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 1-10 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 1, the claim newly requires “computationally examining … how firmly individual elevations of the printing plate are anchored to a base of the printing plate or scanning surface.” However, the specification does not set forth what is involved in the so-called “examining”; specifically, what is examined? What determines the firmness of the anchoring? The portion of the specification cited by Applicant to lend support for the amendment merely states that “it is possible to gain knowledge as to how firmly the individual elevations (printing points) are anchored to the base of the printing plate.” However, the specification neither describes nor shows the manner in which the knowledge is gained.
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 1-10 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 1, the Regarding claim 1, the claim newly requires “computationally examining … how firmly individual elevations of the printing plate are anchored to a base of the printing plate or scanning surface.” However, it is not clear what is involved in the so-called “examining”; specifically, what is examined? What determines the firmness of the anchoring? The portion of the specification cited by Applicant to lend support for the amendment merely states that “it is possible to gain knowledge as to how firmly the individual elevations (printing points) are anchored to the base of the printing plate.” However, the specification neither describes nor shows the manner in which the knowledge is gained. Therefore, it cannot be determined what Applicant intends to claim. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be ignored.
Further regarding claim 1, the penultimate limitation recites “using appropriate knowledge about an optimal structure depth in the decision.” It has been held recitation of a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced is indefinite. See MPEP §2173.05(q). In this instance, no active, positive steps are present to recite how the appropriate knowledge is used to make the decision.
Furthermore, the metes and bounds of what is meant by the modifier “appropriate” in the term “appropriate knowledge” cannot be ascertained.
Additionally, claim 1 is drawn to a “method for determining a location-dependent structure depth.” The final two limitations involve generating decisions, which have nothing to do with determining a location-dependent structure depth. Therefore, it is not clear what Applicant intends to be claimed.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwab (US 2020/0353742) in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 2023/0126302).
Regarding claim 1, Schwab teaches “a method for determining a location-dependent structure depth of a flexo-graphic printing plate or scanning surface, the method comprising: providing a light source (item 19) and irradiating at least a portion of a structured surface of the flexographic printing plate or the scanning surface with light (Figure 4a, paragraph 76); and providing a camera (item 21) configured to generate an image of a structure at the portion of the structured surface or the scanning surface, the camera being a 1D camera or a 2D camera (paragraph 76, Figure 5); causing the light to strike the structure in the portion in a direction substantially parallel to the surface of the flexographic printing plate or scanning surface (Figure 4a); causing the structure to generate a location-dependent shaded area in a path of the light (Figure 4a); and wherein the light source and the camera are arranged relative to one another to enable the camera to detect the location-dependent shaded area (Figure 4a); and calculating by a computer the location-dependent structure depth from the location-dependent shaded area detected by the camera (paragraphs 77 and 88), classifying the structure depth by a computational classification according to predetermined step heights and computationally examining whether there are regions that fall below or exceed a predetermined step height (paragraph 92: the determination of the presence of a dust particle necessarily requires the depth at the position dust particle to be measured and determined to be higher than the step height of the plate that is expected); and generating a computationally implemented decision whether the flexographic printing plate or the scanning surface is usable (paragraph 92: if a dust particle is detected, implicitly, the plate is determined to be unusable since the dust particle is displayed to a user for removal) and thereby using appropriate knowledge about an optimal structure depth in the decision (the knowledge about an optimal structure depth in this instance is the knowledge that the optimal structure depth is the depth at which the dust particle is touching the plate).” Regarding the final limitation “generating a decision whether or not corrections should be made to an etching process or a laser process for a further printing plate or scanning surface,” Yamamoto et al. disclose scanning the surface of a flexographic printing plate, comparing the information from the scan to what is expected, and then preventing an unsuitable plate from being used (paragraphs 206 and 207). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the scanning and testing of Yamamoto et al. into the system of Schwab in order to prevent an unsuitable plate from being used. Examiner notes that when the outcome is as expected, it is decided that the printing plate can be used (paragraph 207), and therefore, implicitly, it is decided that no corrections should be made. Regarding claim 2, Schwab further teaches “wherein the location-dependent structure depth is a relief depth of the flexographic printing plate or scanning surface.” Regarding claim 3, Schwab further teaches “wherein the relief depth is an etched relief depth (paragraph 83).” Regarding claim 4, Schwab further teaches “wherein the relief depth is a lasered relief depth (paragraph 43).” Regarding claim 5, Schwab further teaches “which comprises displaying the relief depth as a topographic image of the flexographic printing plate or scanning surface (Figure 5).” Regarding claim 6, Schwab further teaches “which comprises statistically analyzing the relief depth and displaying a result of the analysis (paragraph 91: issuing a warning when a tolerance is exceeded).” Regarding claim 7, Schwab further teaches “wherein the camera is one of a series of a plurality of multiple cameras (paragraph 51).” Regarding claim 8, Schwab further teaches “which comprises additionally determining with the computer a thickness of the flexographic printing plate or scanning surface (paragraph 92).” Regarding claim 9, Schwab further teaches “which comprises additionally determining with the computer vacant areas of the flexographic printing plate or scanning surface (paragraph 103).” Regarding claim 10, Schwab further teaches “which comprises rotating the flexographic printing plate or scanning surface and detecting a rotation by an encoder (paragraph 108).”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. To the extent that they are applicable to the instant rejection, they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Schwab uses a reference object. While this is true, Schwab also discloses an embodiment that does not use a reference object. It is this embodiment which is used in the 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
Prosecution Insights