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 § 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) 1-11 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Yamada et al. (JP2005254696A). Regarding claim 1, Yamada et al. discloses “a printing intaglio plate (paragraph 8) comprising a resin layer constituting a plate surface (paragraph 8), wherein a Shore A hardness of the resin layer is 30 degrees or more and 90 degrees or less (paragraph 8: Shore D of 30 corresponds to Shore A of 75-80), a surface free energy of the resin layer is 10 mN/m or more and 35 mN/m or less (paragraphs 13 and 73), and the resin layer comprises a cell on the plate surface (paragraph 13).” Regarding the final limitation: “a coefficient of variation in cell volume of the cell, for printing at the same ink concentration, is 0.200 or less,” it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by an identical or substantially identical process, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established, and claimed properties are presumed inherent. See MPEP §2112.01. In this instance, the plate of Yamada et al. is substantially structurally identical to that claimed, and also is made by substantially the same method. Namely, Yamada et al. have the same type of resin layer (see rejection above, and also the rejection of claim 4 below), and also uses the same type of laser with the same settings (see the rejections of claims 8-11 below) to form the recesses. Additionally, Yamada et al. teach that the pattern and its depth are “precisely controlled” (paragraph 72). Therefore, the recited property of the coefficient of variation in cell volume of the cell is presumed inherent. Regarding claim 2, since the plate of Yamada et al. is at least substantially identical to that claimed, the recited property of “wherein the same ink concentration is 0.50 or less” is presumed inherent.
Regarding claim 3, Yamada et al. further disclose “wherein the resin layer comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a photosensitive resin and a thermosetting resin (paragraph 12).” Regarding claim 4, Yamada et al. further disclose “wherein the resin layer comprises 0.10 parts by mass or more and 15.0 parts by mass or less of a silicone compound based on a total amount (paragraphs 31 and 32).” Regarding claim 5, Yamada et al. further disclose “wherein a depth of the cell is 0.10 m or more and 100 m or less (paragraph 72).” Regarding claim 6, Yamada et al. further disclose “comprising a cylinder, wherein the resin layer of a cylindrical form is disposed on a surface of the cylinder (paragraph 68).”
Regarding claim 7, Yamada et al. further disclose “comprising a support layer between the cylinder and the resin layer of a cylindrical form (paragraph 68).” Regarding claim 8, Yamada et al. further disclose “comprising processing by forming a depressed portion in the resin layer with a laser (paragraph 72).” Regarding claim 9, Yamada et al. further disclose “wherein an oscillation wavelength of the laser is 100 nm or more and 800 nm or less (paragraph 13).” Regarding claim 10, Yamada et al. further disclose “wherein laser is a pulsed oscillation laser (paragraph 13), and a pulse width of the pulsed oscillation laser is 1 fs or more and 1 ns or less (paragraph 13).” Regarding claim 11, Yamada et al. further disclose “wherein a pulse energy of the laser is 1.00 J or more and 1.00 mJ or less (paragraph 13).” Regarding claim 14, Yamada et al. further disclose “wherein the resin layer is directly irradiated with the laser in the processing (paragraph 13).” Regarding claim 15, Yamada et al. further disclose “comprising, in the processing, disposing the resin layer on the cylinder and then forming the depressed portion (paragraphs 68, 99, and 100).” Regarding claim 16, Yamada et al. disclose “a printing method comprising coating by filling the cell in the printing intaglio plate according to claim 1, with an ink (paragraph 92), and transferring the ink with which the cell is filled, to a surface of a substrate, to obtain a print product (paragraph 92).”
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) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. in view of Sato (WO2021182504A1). The US-equivalent (US20230133371) will be used for citations. Regarding claims 12 and 13, Yamada et al. disclose all that is claimed, as in claim 10 above, except “wherein an overlap ratio of the laser in the processing step is 50.0% or more and 99.9% or less” or “wherein a spot diameter of the laser is 1.0 m or more and 20 m or less.” However, Sato discloses making the overlap ratio 50% or more and 99% or less in order to have sufficient intensity and sufficient engraving rate (paragraph 264) and making the spot diameter 1 µm or more and 20 µm or less in order to accurately form a fine pattern (paragraph 276). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to set the overlap ratio to 50% or more and 99% or less in order to have sufficient intensity and sufficient engraving rate, and also to make the spot diameter between 1 and 20 µm in order to accurately form a fine pattern.
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