Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 19/055,701

ION-SELECTIVE MEMBRANE, ION-SELECTIVE ELECTRODE, ION SENSOR, AND SPECIMEN TESTING DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 18, 2025
Priority
Feb 20, 2024 — JP 2024-023892 +1 more
Examiner
KAUR, GURPREET
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Canon Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 0m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% — above average
65%
Career Allowance Rate
507 granted / 780 resolved
+5.0% vs TC avg
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+36.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
805
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.4%
-38.6% vs TC avg
§103
79.4%
+39.4% vs TC avg
§102
5.9%
-34.1% vs TC avg
§112
5.3%
-34.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 780 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION 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) 1-5 and 7-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US 2025/0208084, provisional filing date April 1, 2022) in view of Fuhrmann et al. (EP 3537153). Claims 1, 3-4 and 14. Wei et al. teach an ion-selective membrane (protective membrane 16) comprising, a polymer (PVC, ethylene polymer) and a membrane solvent (plasticizer, trioctyl trimellitate (TOTM) [0038], the membrane solvent satisfying CLogP>9 (logP is 13.35, see attach ChemSpider Data Sheet) and including a compound represented by the following structure: PNG media_image1.png 300 300 media_image1.png Greyscale [AltContent: rect] Wherein X1 is an alkyl ester group having 8 carbon atoms, X2, X3, X5 are each independently a hydrogen atom and X4 and X6 is an alkyl ester group having 8 carbon atoms. Wei et al. teach hydrogen ionophore, tridodecylamine is present in the membrane [0038] but do not teach ionophore of a metal porphyrin compound in the membrane. Wei et al. teach potentiometric sensor could be used for other ionic analytes by using different formulation of protective membranes [0024]. However, Fuhrmann et al. teach test strip comprised of analyte selective electrode for detecting anions such as chloride or hydrogen [0028][0091] comprised of polymer matrix [0032] chloride selective carrier molecule such a metal porphyrin [0073] and plasticizer [0094]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention in view of Fuhrmann et al. teaching to substitute hydrogen ionophore with chloride ionophore/carrier in Wei et al. protective membrane to form chloride selective membrane based sensor. Claim 2. Wei et al. teach formula as above in rejection of claim 1, X1 is an alkyl ester group having 8 carbon atoms, and X4, is an alkyl ester group having 8 carbon atoms. Claim 5. Wei et al. teach formula as above in rejection of claim 1 which satisfies formula (2) X7 alkyl ester group which has a hydrophobicity constant of aromatic substituent is 0. X8 and X9 are each independently a hydrogen atom, R1 to R8 are each independently an alkyl group having 8 carbon atoms. Claim 7. Modifed Wei et al. teach the polymer is a polymer having a cross-linked structure (polymer is cured/crosslinked with curing agent; see page 38). Claim 8. Modified Wei et al. teach the ion-selective membrane is a chloride ion-selective membrane (see rejection of claim 1 above). Claims 9 and 10. Wei et al. teach comprising an ionic additive (organic salt such as tetraarylborate salt [0030]. Claim 11. Wei et al. teach an ion-selective electrode comprising the ion-selective membrane according to claim 1 applied to an electrode configured of at least one type of conductor (the protective membrane is applied to working electrode; [0030]). Claim 12. Wei et al. ion sensor comprising the ion-selective electrode according to claim 11, a reference electrode, and a measurement device configured to measure a potential difference between the ion-selective electrode and the reference electrode (potentiometric sensor comprised of working electrode and reference electrode; [0025] and meter to measure potential between the electrodes; [0029]). Claim 13. Wei et al. teach specimen testing device comprising the ion-selective electrode according to claim 11 and a mechanism for supplying a specimen to the ion-selective electrode (the biologic media or cell culture are applied to working electrode for measuring pH; [0034]). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GURPREET KAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7895. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6. 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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. /GURPREET KAUR/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 1759
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 18, 2025
Application Filed
Jun 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12662577
TEMPERATURE-INSENSITIVE MEMBRANE MATERIALS AND ANALYTE SENSORS CONTAINING THE SAME
3y 2m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12653430
INTERFERENCE REJECTION MEMBRANES COMPRISING CROSSLINKED POLY(VINYL ALCOHOL) MATRICES FOR IMPLANTABLE GLUCOSE SENSORS
4y 7m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12650400
BIOSENSOR
3y 1m to grant Granted Jun 09, 2026
Patent 12644861
MODULAR MULTI-CHANNEL POTENTIOSTAT
3y 5m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Patent 12644856
REFERENCE ELECTRODES OF ELECTROCHEMICAL SENSORS
3y 2m to grant Granted Jun 02, 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
65%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+36.4%)
3y 5m (~2y 0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 780 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