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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9, 10, 16, and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/31/2026.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Bielak (US 2015/0302286)
Regarding claim 1, Bielak discloses “a flexographic printing plate (paragraph 2) comprising: an image area (Figure 1D), wherein the image area satisfies the following requirement C, the requirement C: assuming that a shading of an image expressed by the image area is formed by halftone dots having a screen ruling α, in a case where a region of the image area corresponding to a region X' where a diameter of the halftone dots is less than 17 µm is defined as a region X, a region of the image area corresponding to a region Y' where a diameter of the halftone dots is 17 µm or more and 45 µm or less is defined as a region Y, and a region of the image area corresponding to a region Z' where a diameter of the halftone dots is more than 45 µm is defined as a region Z, in the region X, the shading is formed by irregularly arranged halftone dots P having a diameter of 17 µm or more and 45 µm or less (paragraphs 5 and 10: smallest dot is about 20 to 30 microns), in the region Y, the shading is formed by halftone dots Q having the screen ruling α (paragraph 10: abrupt transition at the minimum dot size), and in the region Z, the shading is formed by the halftone dots Q having the screen ruling α (paragraph 10: abrupt transition at the minimum dot size), provided that, among the halftone dots P, a diameter of halftone dots Pmin having a smallest diameter is equal to or less than a diameter of the halftone dots Q (paragraph 10: FM screen at minimum dot size is used until the transition point to AM screen).” Examiner notes that the language “in a case where …” does not recite actual structure. The only structure required by the claim consists of: a flexographic plate with an image area comprised of two regions of halftone dots: the region X which has irregularly arranged halftone dots P having a diameter of 17.micron or more and 45 µm or less, and the region comprising Y and Z which is made up of halftone dots Q which are regularly spaced and have a diameter equal to or larger than the Pmin of region X. Paragraph 10 and figure 1D of Bielak describe this exact scenario. Therefore, the flexographic printing plate recited is deemed to be met by Bielak.
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) 2-8, 11-15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bielak in view of Yoshimoto et al. (US 2022/0314680). Regarding claim 2, Bielak discloses all that is claimed, as in claim 1 above, but is generic to the flexographic printing plate, leaving the choice up to one having ordinary skill in the art. It has been held that selection based upon a suitability for an intended purpose is prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.07. Yoshimoto et al. describe a flexographic printing plate that is “obtained from a flexographic printing plate precursor including a support and a photosensitive layer in this order (abstract, especially Example 13), the photosensitive layer contains at least a binder (paragraph 31 or Example 13), a (meth)acrylate having a molecular weight of 600 or less (paragraph 34 or Example 13), a photopolymerization initiator (paragraph 37 or Example 13), and a polymerization inhibitor (paragraph 30 or Example 13), and the following requirements A-1 and B-1 are satisfied, the requirement A-1: in a case where a concentration of a (meth)acryloyl group of the (meth)acrylate in the photosensitive layer is denoted by M, 0.4 ≤ M ≤ 2.0 is satisfied, in which a unit of the concentration is mol/kg (see example 13: 10% of TMP, which has 3 methacryloyl groups giving a molecular weight of 207 g/mol, yields a value M of 100/207=.48) the requirement B-1: in a case where a concentration of the photopolymerization initiator in the photosensitive layer is denoted by I and a concentration of the polymerization inhibitor in the photosensitive layer is denoted by K, 0.5 ≤ I/K ≤ 200 is satisfied, in which a unit of the concentration is mol/kg (see example 13: 3% of 256.3 MW of benzyl dimethylketal /.1% of *124MW of 4-methoxyphenol=62).” The plate of Yoshimoto et al. results in a plate which has reduced dot gain of fine dots and/or improved printability (paragraph 11). 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 the flexographic plate of Yoshimoto et al. as the plate in Bielak: a) because it has been shown in the art to be suitable for the intended purpose; b) in order to reduce dot gain of fine dots; and/or c) improve printability. Regarding claims 3 and 11, 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 recited properties are presumed inherent. See MPEP §2112.01. In this instance, since the flexographic printing plate of Bielak, as modified (see the rejection of claim 2 above) is at least substantially identical to that claimed, the recited property is presumed inherent.
Regarding claim 4, Example 13 of Yoshimoto et al. does not disclose the recited value of M, instead it is calculated by Examiner to be .48. However, Yoshimoto et al. disclose that the amount of the low molecular weight (meth)acrylate can be 5 to 16% (paragraph 33). Thus, for the chosen compound TMP, the range of M would be .48 to 1.55, thus overlapping and meeting the recited range. Regarding claims 5 and 12, Yoshimoto et al. further disclose wherein the photosensitive layer satisfies the following requirement B-2, the requirement B-2: 5 ≤ I/K ≤ 100 is satisfied (the calculated value above in claim 2 is 62).” Regarding claims 6, 13, and 18, Yoshimoto et al. further disclose “wherein the photosensitive layer contains two or more kinds of (meth)acrylates (paragraph 34).” Regarding claims 7, 14, and 19, Yoshimoto et al. further disclose “wherein the photosensitive layer further contains a silicone compound (paragraph 43).” Regarding claim 8, 15, and 20, Yoshimoto et al. further disclose “wherein the flexographic printing plate precursor further includes a heat-sensitive image forming layer, and the support, the photosensitive layer, and the heat-sensitive image forming layer are provided in this order (abstract), and the flexographic printing plate precursor further includes an oxygen barrier layer between the photosensitive layer and the heat-sensitive image forming layer (paragraph 22).”
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
