Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/800,458

SOLID-STATE IMAGING APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SOLID-STATE IMAGING APPARATUS HAVING SEALING PORTION DISPOSED IN BONDED MEMBERS

Non-Final OA §112§DOUBLEPATENT
Filed
Aug 12, 2024
Priority
Jun 30, 2010 — JP 2010-149488 +6 more
Examiner
SOHN, SEUNG C
Art Unit
2878
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
7m
Est. Remaining
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allowance Rate
714 granted / 820 resolved
+19.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
836
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.4%
-36.6% vs TC avg
§103
33.0%
-7.0% vs TC avg
§102
54.3%
+14.3% vs TC avg
§112
3.8%
-36.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 820 resolved cases

Office Action

§112 §DOUBLEPATENT
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not disclose the last four lines of claim 1, specifically, “in a cross-sectional view crossing the bonding plane, a first virtual straight line passing through the first part and the second part is arranged between a second virtual straight line passing through the first opening and a first edge of the apparatus which is closest to the first opening among a plurality of edges of the apparatus.” Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,074,181 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because patented claims 1-24 anticipate instant claims 1-22 or the instant claims 1-22 are an obvious variation of the patented claims 1-24. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEUNG C SOHN whose telephone number is (571)272-4123. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8 - 5. 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, GEORGIA EPPS can be reached on 571-272-2328. 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. /SEUNG C SOHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 12, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 28, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112, §DOUBLEPATENT (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12641921
METHOD FOR FORMING STRUCTURE COMPRISING QUANTUM DOTS IN SURFACE CONTROL REGION, SURFACE CONTROL SUBSTRATE HAVING STRUCTURE FORMED TO COMPRISE QUANTUM DOTS, AND PHOTOELECTRIC ELEMENT USING SAME
3y 6m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12638286
METHOD AND SYSTEM TO DETERMINE SURFACE SHAPES OF HELIOSTATS USING FULLY-SAMPLED STARLIGHT IMAGES
2y 2m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12616969
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR INLINE, DUAL-STAGE SAMPLE DILUTION
2y 3m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Patent 12618712
DIFFERENTIAL TRANSIMPEDANCE AMPLIFIER FROM A SINGLE PHOTODIODE
2y 6m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Patent 12622084
IMAGE SENSOR AND IMAGE SENSOR MANUFACTURING METHOD
1y 8m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
87%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+10.2%)
2y 4m (~7m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 820 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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