Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/267,940

ION SENSOR AND ION SENSOR MANUFACTURING METHOD

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Jun 16, 2023
Examiner
SALERNO, SARAH KATE
Art Unit
2814
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Hamamatsu Photonics K K
OA Round
2 (Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
620 granted / 852 resolved
+4.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +15% lift
Without
With
+14.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
45 currently pending
Career history
897
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
55.5%
+15.5% vs TC avg
§102
35.7%
-4.3% vs TC avg
§112
7.1%
-32.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 852 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Applicant's amendment/arguments filed on 2/25/26 as being acknowledged and entered. By this amendment claims 3-6, and 15 are canceled, and claims 1-2, 7-14, and 16 are pending and claims 14 and 16 are withdrawn. 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. 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. Claims 1-2, and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fife (US PGPub 2012/0000274). Claim 1: Fife teaches (Fig 2, 6) an ion sensor comprising: a substrate(136); and a plurality of pixels provided on a first surface of the substrate (Fig. 6), wherein each pixel of the plurality of pixels includes a charge storage portion, a first electrode (186), a second electrode (188), a third electrode (184), a fourth electrode (156), and an ion sensitive film (196), the charge storage portion is formed in a region of the substrate along the first surface, and configured to accumulate charges to be injected into a potential well formed in a portion of the substrate overlapping with the third electrode when viewed in a thickness direction of the substrate, the first electrode is disposed on the first surface, and configured to control an amount of charge injection from the charge storage portion to the potential well, the second electrode is disposed on the first surface, and is configured to perform control for transferring charges from the potential well to the outside, the third electrode is disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode on the first surface, the fourth electrode is electrically connected to the third electrode and is disposed on an opposite side of the third electrode from the substrate, the ion sensitive film is provided on a surface of the fourth electrode on a side opposite to the substrate side, and configured to change a potential in accordance with a change in ion concentration of a medium in contact with the ion sensitive film, and a width of the ion sensitive film in a facing direction in which the first electrode and the second electrode face each other is greater than a separation width between the first electrode and the second electrode (Fig. 2). Fife does not teach a portion of the first electrode overlaps with the third electrode when viewed in the thickness direction. The claim does not specify if the first electrode is above the third or vice versa. Overlapping electrodes are common in the semiconductor art as evidenced by several references as seen in the PTO-892 as necessary for the design and function of the device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electrodes to overlap as overlapping is common in the industry. Claim 2: Fife teaches (Fig 2, 6) a surface of the fourth electrode opposite to the substrate side is a flat surface, and the ion sensitive film is formed in a flat shape along the surface of the fourth electrode. Claim 7: Fife teaches (Fig 2, 6) the portion of the first electrode is disposed on an opposite side of the third electrode from the substrate. Claim 8: Fife teaches a width in the facing direction of a first portion of the first electrode that overlaps with the third electrode is smaller than a width in the facing direction of a second portion of the first electrode that does not overlap with the third electrode. Overlapping electrodes are common in the semiconductor art as evidenced by several references as seen in the PTO-892 as necessary for the design and function of the device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electrodes to overlap as overlapping is common in the industry. Claim 9: Fife teaches (Fig 2, 6) the width of the first portion is smaller than or equal to 25% of the width of the second portion. Claim 10: Fife teaches (Fig 2, 6) an ion sensor comprising: a substrate(136); and a plurality of pixels provided on a first surface of the substrate (Fig. 6), wherein each pixel of the plurality of pixels includes a charge storage portion, a first electrode (186), a second electrode (188), a third electrode (184), a fourth electrode (156), and an ion sensitive film (196), the charge storage portion is formed in a region of the substrate along the first surface, and configured to accumulate charges to be injected into a potential well formed in a portion of the substrate overlapping with the third electrode when viewed in a thickness direction of the substrate, the first electrode is disposed on the first surface, and configured to control an amount of charge injection from the charge storage portion to the potential well, the second electrode is disposed on the first surface, and is configured to perform control for transferring charges from the potential well to the outside, the third electrode is disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode on the first surface, the fourth electrode is electrically connected to the third electrode and is disposed on an opposite side of the third electrode from the substrate, the ion sensitive film is provided on a surface of the fourth electrode on a side opposite to the substrate side, and configured to change a potential in accordance with a change in ion concentration of a medium in contact with the ion sensitive film, and a width of the ion sensitive film in a facing direction in which the first electrode and the second electrode face each other is greater than a separation width between the first electrode and the second electrode (Fig. 2). Fife does not teach a portion of the second electrode overlaps with the third electrode when viewed in the thickness direction. Overlapping electrodes are common in the semiconductor art as evidenced by several references as seen in the PTO-892 as necessary for the design and function of the device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electrodes to overlap as overlapping is common in the industry. Claim 11: Fife teaches (Fig 2, 6) the portion of the second electrode is disposed on an opposite side of the third electrode from the substrate. Claim 12: Fife teaches a width in the facing direction of a third portion of the second electrode that overlaps with the third electrode is smaller than a width in the facing direction of a fourth portion of the second electrode that does not overlap with the third electrode. Overlapping electrodes are common in the semiconductor art as evidenced by several references as seen in the PTO-892 as necessary for the design and function of the device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electrodes to overlap as overlapping is common in the industry. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 2/25/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that, the specific configuration of the first and third or second and third electrode overlapping in the thickness direction, leads to particular functions or performance of the device. The claim language as presented requires at least a partial overlap of the electrodes in the thickness direction but gives no further details on what parts of the electrodes overlap or the type of electrode. Additionally any part of the electrodes can overlap instead of a specified section (left middle top etc.) therefor not giving specific physical features to lead one of ordinary skill in the art to link the claim language to enhanced performance as described in applicant’s arguments. The references given in the previous office action show several related instances where an overlap of electrodes occur and read on the claims as presented. It is also noted that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). It has also been held that products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior arts teach the identical chemical structure the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 15 USPQ 2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prior art cited reads on the physical limitations, or the current physical limitations are known in the art and are therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH KATE SALERNO whose telephone number is (571)270-1266. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-2:30pm. 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, Wael Fahmy can be reached at 5712721705. 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. /SARAH K SALERNO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 16, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 05, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Feb 25, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 23, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598942
METHOD FOR ANALYZING LAYOUT PATTERN DENSITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12571927
RADIATION SENSOR AND MANUFACTURING METHOD FOR SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12563729
Method for Generating Vertical Channel Structures in Three-Dimensionally Integrated Semiconductor Memories
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12563818
Methods of Forming Semiconductor Devices
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12557283
SEMICONDUCTOR MEMORY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+14.7%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 852 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month