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 “Provided are” should be deleted. It 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: HOMO should be spelled out for the acronym it defines for first time in a claim set. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 10-11, 15 -17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Enomoto et al. (EP 3991985 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 10-11, Enomoto et al. teach ( see abstract, examples , claims, and tables 2-4) an on-press developable lithographic printing plate precursor comprising a support and an image-recording layer, wherein the image-recording layer contains – an electron-accepting polymerization initiator ( I-1 to I-4 on page 106); - an electron-donating polymerization initiator ( B-1 to B-4 on page 106); - an infrared absorber ( D-1 to D-8 on page 105) and – a salt compound A having a HOMO value between -6.2 and -4.4 eV ( the compound I-3 is also a salt compound having a tetraphenylborate anion in paragraphs [0832] has HOMO of -5.92eV and the compounds B-1, B-2, B-4 and B-5 are salt compounds which have HOMOs of -6.12 to -5.77 eV [0832]).
Regarding claim 15, Enomoto et al. teach the electron-accepting polymerization initiator is preferably an iodonium salt compound or s sulfonium salt compound [0089].
Regarding claim 16, Enomoto et al.. teach the image recording layer further contains an acid color forming agent ( leuco colorant; claims 19-23).
Regarding claim 17, Enomoto et al. teach the printing plate precursor further comprising an overcoat layer ( outermost layer as protective layer; [0456-0459]) on a surface of the image-recording layer, wherein the overcoat layer contains a compound represented by Formula 1-1 ( [0489-0524]).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Enomoto et al. teach a method of preparing a lithographic (planographic) printing plate, comprising: exposing the on-press development type printing plate precursor in a shape of an image; supplying at least one selected from the group consisting of a printing ink and dampening water on a printer to remove an image-recording layer in an non-image area and to prepare a lithographic ( planographic) printing plate; and performing printing using the obtained printing plate ( See examples and paragraphs [0741-0752]).
Claim(s) 1, 8, 11, 15 -17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aizu et al. (WO 2021/241688 A1; citations from EP 4159441 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 11, Aizu et al. ( see abstract, claims , examples and paragraphs [0194-0202, 0236, 0454-0455, 0616-0683 and 0693-0695]) teach an on-press development type lithographic (planographic) printing plate precursor comprising a support [0517-0520]; and an image-recording layer (coating liquids 1-1, 2-1, 3 and 4 .e. (coating solution 2-1) ) on the support, wherein the image-recording layer contains an electron-accepting polymerization initiator ( Int-1 to Int-3), an electron-donating polymerization ( TBP and Int-3, IR-4 and OR-5 which have a tetraphenylborate anion which is electron donating), an infrared absorber; and a salt compound A having a HOMO value between -6.2 eV and -4.4 eV ( TBP, Int-3, IR-4 and IR-5 are all also salt compounds having a tetraphenylborate anion, which has a HOMO value -5.92eV , Furthermore, the image-recording coating solution (2-1) [0645] being adjusted to following rations: 0.11000 parts of an electron-accepting polymerization initiator Int-1, 0.02500 parts of an electron-donating polymerization initiator TPB, 0.00600 parts of an infrared absorber IR-1, and 0.0200 parts of an infrared absorber IR-2 (HOMO: -5.31 eV encompassing the instant claimed ranged of a salt compound A having a HOMO value of an anion constituting a salt in the salt compound A of -6.2 eV or more and -4.4 eV or less). IR-2 has an organic cation and the salt compound is an aromatic salt compound ( page 60).
Regarding claim 15, Aizu et al. teach the electron-accepting polymerization initiator is preferably an iodonium salt compound or s sulfonium salt compound [0236].
Regarding claim 16, Aizu et al. teach the image recording layer further contains an acid color forming agent ( leuco colorant; [0454-0455]).
Regarding claim 17, Aizu et al. teach the printing plate precursor further comprising an overcoat layer ( outermost layer as ozone blocking layer; [0062-0064]) on a surface of the image-recording layer, wherein the overcoat layer contains a compound represented by Formula 1-1 ( [0098-0115]).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Aizu et al. teach a method of preparing a lithographic (planographic) printing plate, comprising: exposing the on-press development type printing plate precursor in a shape of an image; supplying at least one selected from the group consisting of a printing ink and dampening water on a printer to remove an image-recording layer in an non-image area and to prepare a lithographic ( planographic) printing plate; and performing printing using the obtained printing plate ( See examples and paragraphs [0597-0615]).
Claim(s) 1, 8, 10-11, 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe et al. (WO 2022/13880 A1) as evidenced by Iwai et al. ( JP 2007-090850 A).
Regarding claims 1, 8 , 10-11 and 18, Watanabe et al. ( see abstract, claims , examples , tables 1-4and paragraphs [0027-0240, 0372 and in particular 0027, 0031, 0132-0142, 0181-0203, 0234-0240 and 0372]) teach an on-press development type lithographic (planographic) printing plate precursor where an image recording layer on a hydrophilic support body contains an electron-accepting polymerization initiator, an electron-donating polymerization initiator, a specific infrared absorber where the HOMO is -5.60 to -5.45 eV, and another absorber that is a cyanine pigment disclosed in JP 2007-90850 A; paragraphs [0035-0043]). The “other infrared absorber” and the “ specific infrared absorber” disclosed in Watanabe et al. respectively correspond to the “infrared absorber” and “ salt compound A” as recited by the instant claims and meets the limitation of organic cation for salt compound , aromatic salt compound and sulfonate compound of the salt compounds [0134-0138]. Watanabe et al. teach as the “other infrared absorber” the cyanine pigments disclosed in JP 2007-90850 A ( see paragraphs [0035-0043); and those cyanine pigments disclose as evidenced by Iwai et al. (JP 2007-90850 A) corresponds to the “infrared absorber” in the invention as in claim 18.
Regarding claim 15, Watanabe et al. teach the electron-accepting polymerization initiator is preferably an iodonium salt compound or s sulfonium salt compound [0186].
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Watanabe et al. teach a method of preparing a lithographic (planographic) printing plate, comprising: exposing the on-press development type printing plate precursor in a shape of an image; supplying at least one selected from the group consisting of a printing ink and dampening water on a printer to remove an image-recording layer in an non-image area and to prepare a lithographic ( planographic) printing plate; and performing printing using the obtained printing plate ( See examples and paragraphs [0323-0328]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 2-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto et al. (EP 3991985 A1) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 2-7, Enomoto et al. do not explicitly recite a “content of the salt compound A in molars equivalents to “electron-accepting polymerization initiators, or electron-donating polymerization initiators or infrared absorber “ as instantly claimed. It is well-understood to one of ordinary skilled in the art that the “content amount and molar equivalents” are 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. Also, Enomoto et al. do recognize content amount of salt compound A as well as content amounts for electron-accepting polymerization initiator, electron-donating polymerization initiator and infrared absorber ( see Examples and Tables 2-4). Further, it is noted that Enomoto et al. teach the same chemical compound of salt compound A, electron-accepting polymerization initiator , electron-donating polymerization initiator and infrared absorber as recited by independent instant claim 1. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. [MPEP 2112.01 In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify/optimize the salt compound A as well as content amounts for electron-accepting polymerization initiator, electron-donating polymerization initiator and infrared absorber to yield desired content amount.
Regarding claim 9, Enomoto et al. do not explicitly recite “wherein a proton accepting energy of the anion constituting the salt in the salt compound A is 0.294 Hartee or less” as instantly claimed. The proton accepting energy of anion is measurable and 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, it is noted that Enomoto et al. teach the same chemical compound of salt compound A as recited by independent instant claim 1. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. [MPEP 2112.01 In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify anion of the salt compound A of Enomoto et al. to include a proton accepting energy of 0.294 Hartee or less as instantly claimed.
Claim(s) 2-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aizu et al. (WO 2021/241688 A1; citations from EP 4159441 A1) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 2-7, Aizu et al. do not explicitly recite a “content of the salt compound A in molars equivalents to “electron-accepting polymerization initiators, or electron-donating polymerization initiators or infrared absorber “ as instantly claimed. It is well-understood to one of ordinary skilled in the art that the “content amount and molar equivalents” are 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. Also, Aizu et al. do recognize content amount of salt compound A as well as content amounts for electron-accepting polymerization initiator, electron-donating polymerization initiator and infrared absorber ( see Examples Further, it is noted that Enomoto et al. teach the same chemical compound of salt compound A, electron-accepting polymerization initiator , electron-donating polymerization initiator and infrared absorber as recited by independent instant claim 1. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. [MPEP 2112.01 In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify/optimize the salt compound A of Aizu al. as well as content amounts for electron-accepting polymerization initiator, electron-donating polymerization initiator and infrared absorber to yield desired content amount.
Regarding claim 9, Aizu et al. do not explicitly recite “wherein a proton accepting energy of the anion constituting the salt in the salt compound A is 0.294 Hartee or less” as instantly claimed. The proton accepting energy of anion is measurable and 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, it is noted that Aizu et al. teach the same chemical compound of salt compound A as recited by independent instant claim 1. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. [MPEP 2112.01 In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify anion of the salt compound A of Aizu et al. to include a proton accepting energy of 0.294 Hartee or less as instantly claimed.
Claim(s) 1-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaguchi et al. (US 2023/0359121 A1).
Regarding claims 1-16 and 19-20, Sakaguchi et al. teach an on-press development type lithographic printing plate precursor ( see abstract, claims , examples and Table 3) comprising a support and an image-recording layer on the support containing an electron-accepting polymerization initiator (iodonium compound or sulfonium compound; [0130-0135]); am electron-donating polymerization initiator [0156]; an infrared absorber [0163]; and a salt compound A (sulfonate compound [0092] or aromatic salt compound or phosphate compound [0098-0118] or phosphate compound having an aromatic ring ( D1 or D2)or napthalenesulfonate compound [0093]; [0070-0129]). The image recording layer further comprises a chromogenic agent, which is a leuco colorant (claim 11 and examples). Sakaguchi et al. teach a method of preparing a lithographic printing plate, comprising: exposing the on-press development type printing plate precursor in a shape of an image; supplying at least one selected from the group consisting of a printing ink and dampening water on a printer to remove an image-recording layer in a non-image area and to prepare a lithographic printing plate; and performing printing using the obtained printing plate ( See examples and claims 19-20).
Further regards to claim 1, Sakaguchi et al. do not explicitly recite a HOMO value of an anion constituting a salt in the salt compound A is -6.2 eV or more and -4.4eV or less as instantly claimed. Also, it is noted that borate compound is a salt with a HOMO value of -5.93 eV or more [0154-0155] meeting the limitation of salt compound HOMO value of instant claim 1. However, it is noted that Sakaguchi et al. teach the same salt compound A as recited by the instant claims. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. [MPEP 2112.01 In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify anion of the salt compound A of Sakaguchi et al. to include a HOMO value of an anion constituting a salt in the salt compound A is -6.2 eV or more and -4.4eV or less as instantly claimed.
Further regards to claims 2-7, Sakaguchi et al. do not explicitly recite a “content of the salt compound A in molars equivalents to “electron-accepting polymerization initiators, or electron-donating polymerization initiators or infrared absorber “ as instantly claimed. It is well-understood to one of ordinary skilled in the art that the “content amount and molar equivalents” are 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. Also, Sakaguchi et al. do recognize content amount of salt compound A as well as content amounts for electron-accepting polymerization initiator, electron-donating polymerization initiator and infrared absorber ( see Examples Further, it is noted that Sakaguchi et al. teach the same chemical compound of salt compound A, electron-accepting polymerization initiator , electron-donating polymerization initiator and infrared absorber as recited by independent instant claim 1. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. [MPEP 2112.01 In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify/optimize the salt compound A as well as content amounts for electron-accepting polymerization initiator, electron-donating polymerization initiator and infrared absorber to yield desired content amount.
Further regards to claim 9, Sakaguchi et al. do not explicitly recite “wherein a proton accepting energy of the anion constituting the salt in the salt compound A is 0.294 Hartee or less” as instantly claimed. The proton accepting energy of anion is measurable and 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, it is noted that Sakaguchi et al. teach the same chemical compound of salt compound A as recited by independent instant claim 1. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. [MPEP 2112.01 In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify anion of the salt compound A of Sakaguchi et al. to include a proton accepting energy of 0.294 Hartee or less as instantly claimed.
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