Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/251,160

METHOD OF MANUFACTURING A SEMICONDUCTOR BODY AND SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Apr 28, 2023
Examiner
GHYKA, ALEXANDER G
Art Unit
2812
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Ams-Osram International GMBH
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
1067 granted / 1278 resolved
+15.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
1312
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
55.5%
+15.5% vs TC avg
§102
15.8%
-24.2% vs TC avg
§112
12.2%
-27.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1278 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 Applicant’s election of Group II (Claims 48-56) in the reply filed on 8/18/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). 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. Claims 48, 50-52, 54-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han et al (US 2017/0237234). With respect to Claim 48, Han et al discloses a semiconductor device (Figures 5B and 5F) comprising: a subcarrier (Figure 5F, 505); a layer sequence comprising a first layer (Figures 5B and 5F, 535, paragraph 54) having a doped semiconductor material and a second layer (Figures 5B and 5F, 535, paragraph 54) deposited thereon, the second layer comprising an undoped semiconductor material (paragraph 54), wherein the first layer comprises at least one porous region, a porosity level of which is at least 20 % by volume (paragraph 46, electrochemical etching process, 60% volume porosity); a mesa structure (Figures 5B and 5F, 545, paragraphs 60-62) introduced in the first and second layers and comprising several depressions; and a functional layer sequence comprising at least one planar third layer located at the second layer comprising the mesa structure (Figure 5F, 560, 565, 570, paragraphs 64-65), wherein the at least one planar third layer has a lattice constant which is different from a lattice constant of the second layer (inherent as different materials would have different lattice structures). See Figures 5B and 5F and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 52-65. With respect to Claim 50, Han et al discloses wherein the first layer comprises at least one non-porous region at least partially surrounded by a porous region. See paragraphs 53-54. With respect to Claim 51, Han et al discloses wherein the at least one non-porous region is separated from the porous region by a trench forming the mesa structure. See Figures 5C and 5F and corresponding text, especially paragraph 63. With respect to Claim 52, Han et al discloses wherein the functional layer sequence comprises a multiple quantum well structure arranged on the third layer. See Figure 5F, especially paragraph 65. With respect to Claim 54, Han et al discloses wherein the first layer comprises a first sub-region having a first degree of porosity and a second sub-region having a second degree of porosity, the first sub-region being separated from the second sub-region by an optional separation layer. See paragraph 50. With respect to Claim 55, Han et al disclose wherein the first layer comprises n-doping and the second layer is undoped, the first and second layers comprising the same base material. See paragraph 54, indium and GaN. 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. 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. Claims 49, 53 and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al (US 2017/0237234). Han et al is relied upon as discussed above. However, Han et al does not disclose the dimensions (Claim 49), the placement of the quantum well (Claim 53) and the concentrations (Claim 56) as required by the Claims at hand. With respect to Claim 49, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to arrive at the limitation “wherein a width of a depression is about 1/5 to 1/20 of a distance between two adjacent depressions”, as changes in size are prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). With respect to Claim 53, , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to arrive at the limitation “wherein a first region of the multiple quantum well structure overlying a porous region of the first layer is configured to emit light of a first wavelength and a second region of the multiple quantum well structure overlying a non-porous region of the first layer is configured to emit light of a second shorter wavelength”, as Han et al disclose the emission of different wavelengths (paragraph 54), and the placement of the different components in the absence of unobvious results, is prima facie obvious as a rearrangement of parts. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).. With respect to Claim 56, Han et al disclose (paragraphs 55 and 65) wherein the second layer comprises an undoped GaN layer and the third layer comprises InGaN . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to arrive at the limitation with an indium content in a range of 0.0001% to 25%, as changes in concentration are prima facie obvious in the absence of unexpected results. See In re Aller, 105 USP233 (CCPA 1955).. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER G GHYKA whose telephone number is (571)272-1669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6. 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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571 272-8458. 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. AGG November 10, 2025 /ALEXANDER G GHYKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 28, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 01, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604609
DISPLAY APPARATUS HAVING A LIGHT-BLOCKING PATTERN
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598970
TOP VIA ON SUBTRACTIVELY ETCHED CONDUCTIVE LINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598958
WAFER TREATMENT METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593661
SEMICONDUCTOR STRUCTURE WITH OVERLAY MARK, METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME, AND SYSTEM FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593485
FORMING AN ELECTRONIC DEVICE, SUCH AS A JBS OR MPS DIODE, BASED ON 3C-SIC, AND 3C-SIC ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+13.8%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1278 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

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

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month