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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract exceeds 150 words. The language “An object of the present invention is to provide” and “Another object of the present invention is to provide”, “ of the present invention” should be deleted. The abstract should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Independent claim 1 recites “development-type”. Dependent claims 16 and 17 recite “decomposition-type”. The addition of the word “type” to an otherwise definite expression (e.g., Friedel-Crafts catalyst) extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1955). The claims as written are indefinite and unclear. Appropriate correction is required. Examiner suggesting deleting the hyphen”-“ and/or deleting the term “type.
Independent claim 1 recites “ a color-forming factor of the acid color-forming agent… is 20,000 or more”. However, the claim as written is indefinite and unclear. Applicants have failed to have clear “upper limit”. Appropriate correction is required. Examiner suggests amending independent claim 1 to recite the limitation of claim 9.
Claim 8 recites “the micropores”; however, there is lack of anteceding basis for this limitation. Applicant only have support for a micropore. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim as written is indefinite and unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-20 depend on claim 1; therefore, the claims are also indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. Appropriate correction 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto et al. ( WO 2020/262692 A1; citations from USPGPUB 20220111629 A1) in view of Namba et al. (US 2014/0326151 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, 6, 9-20, Enomoto et al. (see abstract, claims, figures, examples and paragraphs [0973 and 01183-1549]) teach an on-press development type [0089] planographic printing plate precursor comprising a support and an image-recording layer [0100], wherein the support has an aluminum alloy plate and an anodic oxide film [0849-0878] disposed on the aluminum alloy plate, the image-recording layer contains an infrared absorber [0379-0397], an acid color-forming agent ( acid color-developing agent; [0126]).
Further regards to the claims, Enomoto et al. do not explicitly teach the color-forming factor used to determine by the measurement of X as instantly claimed. However, Enomoto et al. recognize a brightness change ΔL of 3.0 or more (5.0 or more) ( claim 1) and a molar absorption coefficient ɛ of the generated coloring material of 35,000 or more [0018 & 0157]. It is noted considering the large brightness ( lightness) change ΔL and the large molar absorption coefficient ɛ of the generated coloring material, the coloring coefficient determined by the measurement X of the present application is also considered to be large. The color-forming factor is optimizable. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215. Therefore, at the time of the invention it would be obvious that it is highly likely that the coloring coefficient of the present application falls within the range of 20,000 to 100,000. In addition, even if the likelihood was not high, it would be easy for a person of ordinary skilled in the art to make the coloring coefficient of the present application satisfy the range of 20,000 to 100,000 by increasing the lightness ( brightness) change ΔL and the molar absorption coefficient ɛ of the generated coloring material.
Also, Enomoto et al. disclose an intermetallic compound is present of the surface of the aluminum plate following an electrochemical surface roughening treatment [0973], but does not explicitly disclose the density of the intermetallic compounds having a major axis of 2.0 µm or more on the surface on the opposite side of the support body from the image-recording layer as instantly claimed. However, the examiner has added Namba et al. (see abstract, claim 6 and paragraphs [0233-0342]) teach it is well-known to one of ordinary skilled in the art of lithographic (planographic) printing plate support having an aluminum alloy plate and anodic oxide film disposed on the aluminum alloy plate that reducing the amount of intermetallic compounds contained in the aluminum plate is preferably and it would have been easy for a person of ordinary skilled in the art to set the density of the intermetallic compounds having a major axis of 2.0 µm or more on the surface on the opposite side of the support body from the image recording layer to 1,000 pieces/mm2 or less ( 500 pieces/mm2 or less or 10 pieces/mm2 or less) in view of routine optimization. The density is optimizable. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Further regards to claim 6, Enomoto et al. teach the anodic oxide film has a micropore extending in a depth direction from a surface of the anodic oxide film and disclose a support body having an anodized coating that satisfies the additional mater specified in claim 6 of the instant claims ( see claims 21-22 of Enomoto et al. and paragraphs [0849-0938]).
Further regards to claim 10, Enomoto et al. teach the coloring material produced from the coloring material precursor (color forming substrate generated from the acid color-developing agent) has a maximum absorption wavelength of 500 nm to 650 nm in the wavelength range of 380 nm to 750 nm ( claim 1).
Further regards to claim 11, Enomoto et al. teach the acid agent used is one having at least one of the groups represented by formulas (1a) to (1d) as instantly claimed ( see claims 4-6 & paragraph [0181]).
Further regards to claims 12-14, Enomoto et al. teach the image-recording layer ( claim 14) further contains an electron-accepting polymerization initiator ( onium salt compound; [0307]) and an electron-donating polymerization initiator ( borate salt compound; [0348-0350] & [0356]), wherein a total content of the electron-accepting polymerization initiator and the electron-donating polymerization initiator is1.0 molar equivalent or more with respect to a content of the acid color-forming agent ( see examples & claim 14).
Further regards to claim 15, Enomoto et al. teach the image-recording layer further contains a polymer particles [0518].
Further regards to 16-17, Enomoto et al. teach the infrared absorber includes a decomposition type infrared absorber which is decompounds by exposure to infrared rays represented by formula 1-1 meeting the limitation of formula (A) ( see paragraphs [0392-0397]).
Further regard to claims 18-19, Enomoto et al. teach a protective ( overcoat) layer on the image recording layer [01103], which contains a color-forming substance precursor ( color-developing substance precursor; [1129-1130]).
Further regards to claim 20, Enomoto et al. teach a manufacturing method of a planographic printing plate comprising an exposure step and an on-press development step of supplying at least one of a printing ink or a dampening water on a printing press to remove the non-exposed portion of the image wise-exposed image-recording layer and to manufacture a planographic printing plate ( claims 23-24 and examples).
Claim(s) 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto et al. ( WO 2020/262692 A1; citations from USPGPUB 20220111629 A1) in view of Namba et al. (US 2014/0326151 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsuura et al. (WO 2022/138710 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Enomoto et al. do not explicitly disclose a density of recessed portion which is obtained by measuring a surface of the support on a side of the anodic oxide film as instantly claimed or surface area ratio ΔS.. measuring … on a surface of the support on a side of the anodic oxide film as instantly claimed. However, it is noted that both the density of recessed portion and surface area ratio is optimizable. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Nonetheless, the examiner has added Matsuura et al. ( see abstract, claims, examples and paragraphs [0002, 0176-0231] to teach it is well-known to one of ordinary skilled in the art of planographic printing plate precursor to disclose [0002] a support body where the surface in the anodized film side satisfies the additional features specified in claim 4 of the present application. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to use the support body of Matsuura et al. as the support body for the lithographic printing plate of Enomoto et al.
Nonetheless, the examiner has added Matsuura et al. ( see abstract, claims, examples and paragraphs [0002, 0176-0231] to teach it is well-known to one of ordinary skilled in the art of planographic printing plate precursor to disclose [0176-0231] a support body where the surface in the anodized film side satisfies the additional features specified in claim 5 of the present application. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to use the support body of Matsuura et al. as the support body for the lithographic printing plate of Enomoto et al.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto et al. ( WO 2020/262692 A1; citations from USPGPUB 20220111629 A1) in view of Namba et al. (US 2014/0326151 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Merka et al. (US 2021/0094336 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Enomoto et al. do not explicitly disclose anodized film having a micropore, which the micropore is composed of an upper hole portion, a middle hole portion and a lower hole portion as instantly claimed. However, the examiner has added Merka et al. ( see abstract, claims, examples , fig. 1and paragraphs [0261-0310]) to teach it is well-known to one of ordinary skilled in the art of lithography to disclose a support body having an anodized film that additionally satisfies the matter specified in claim 7 of the present application and it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to use the anodized film of Merka et al. as an anodized film for the lithographic printing plate precursor disclosed in Enomoto et al.
Regarding claim 8, Enomoto et al. do not explicitly disclose anodized film having a micropore as instantly claimed. However, the examiner has added Merka et al. ( see claim 5 and paragraph [0264]) to teach it is well-known to one of ordinary skilled in the art of lithography to disclose a support body having an anodized film that additionally satisfies the matter specified in claim 8 of the present application and it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to use the anodized film of Merka et al. as an anodized film for the lithographic printing plate precursor disclosed in Enomoto et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANCEITY N ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:00 am-6:00 pm; IFP; PHP).
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, Mark Huff can be reached at 571-272-1385. 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.
/CHANCEITY N ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737