Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/253,185

Radiation-Emitting Laser Diode, Method for Choosing Refractive Indices of a Waveguide Layer Sequence for a Radiation-Emitting Laser Diode and Method for Producing a Radiation-Emitting Laser Diode

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
May 16, 2023
Examiner
EHRLICH, ALEXANDER JOSEPH
Art Unit
2828
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
AMS-OSRAM AG
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
21 granted / 33 resolved
-4.4% vs TC avg
Strong +57% interview lift
Without
With
+57.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
69
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
52.7%
+12.7% vs TC avg
§102
21.0%
-19.0% vs TC avg
§112
23.8%
-16.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 33 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 I (claims 15-20, 29) in the reply filed on 2/26/26 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 Claim 21-28 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The five information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 1/3/26, 4/10/25, 2/20/25, 3/11/24, 5/16/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “mode spoiler” (claim 20) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “3.30” should read “4.30” last 2 lines par. 0084. Appropriate correction is required. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 15, 17, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/2 as being anticipated by Hiroki (US-5841799-A), hereinafter “H”. Regarding claim 15, H discloses a radiation-emitting laser diode (fig. 2, col. 4 lines 50-60, col. 6 lines 50-65) comprising: a waveguide layer sequence (fig. 2 sequence 13+32+31) comprising: an active region configured to generate electromagnetic radiation with a preferred polarization direction (fig. 2 active region 32 generates EM radiation w/ preferred polarization, col. 6 lines 50-65 + col. 7 lines 50-65); a first waveguide layer of a first doping type (fig. 2 first waveguide layer 31 n-type, col. 6 line 55); and a second waveguide layer of a second doping type (fig. 2 second waveguide layer 13 p-type, col. 6 line 56, considered second waveguide layer due to physical position/proximity to active region/within core + thickness + material/refractive index relative to that of cladding + effect on TE/TM modes, sufficiently similar structurally + functionally), wherein the active region is arranged between the first waveguide layer and the second waveguide layer (fig. 2 32 between 31 and 13), wherein refractive indices of the waveguide layer sequence form a first effective refractive index for a transverse electric (TE) mode with its electric field oscillating in a first transverse direction and a second effective refractive index for a transverse magnetic (TM) mode with its electric field oscillating in a second transverse direction (waveguide layer indices form TE and TM modes with respective effective refractive indices, col. 7 lines 10-60), and wherein an effective refractive index difference of the first effective refractive index and the second effective refractive index is at least 4*10^-4 (difference is 7.7*10^-3, col. 7 lines 20-35). Regarding claim 17, H discloses the radiation-emitting laser diode according to claim 15, wherein a length of the waveguide layer sequence is at least 500 um and at most 6 mm (fig. 2 cavity length 600 um, col. 6 line 65 – col. 7 line 1). Regarding claim 29, H discloses a radiation-emitting laser diode (fig. 18, col. 17 lines 15-60) comprising: a waveguide layer sequence (fig. 18 all layers) comprising: an active region configured to generate electromagnetic radiation with a preferred polarization direction (632, col. 18 lines 15-25); a first waveguide layer of a first doping type (631 n-type); and a second waveguide layer of a second doping type (613 p-type, considered second waveguide layer due to physical position/proximity to active region/within core + thickness + material/refractive index relative to that of cladding + effect on TE/TM modes, sufficiently similar structurally + functionally), wherein the active region is arranged between the first waveguide layer and the second waveguide layer (632 between 631 and 613), wherein refractive indices of the waveguide layer sequence form a first effective refractive index for a transverse electric (TE) mode with its electric field oscillating in a first transverse direction and a second effective refractive index for a transverse magnetic (TM) mode with its electric field oscillating in a second transverse direction (col. 17 lines 35-65), and wherein an effective refractive index difference of the first effective refractive index and the second effective refractive index is at least 4 * 10-4 and at most 5 * 10-3 (5 * 10-4, col. 17 line 50). 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) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over H in view of Gotz (US-20130287057-A1). Regarding claim 16, H discloses the radiation-emitting laser diode according to claim 15. H does not disclose wherein refractive indices of the active region, the first waveguide layer and the second waveguide layer differ from one another, and/or wherein thicknesses of the active region, the first waveguide layer and the second waveguide layer differ from one another. Gotz discloses a diode laser with active region, first + second waveguide layers all having different thicknesses (fig. 2 + 3, active region 10, first waveguide 12, second waveguide 16, 0065-0068). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have thicknesses of the active region, the first waveguide layer and the second waveguide layer differ from one another to allow for increased tunability/control of the modes within the device (i.e. not restrict to single layer size) (Gotz 0008). Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over H in view of Nitta (US-6091745-A). Regarding claim 18, H discloses the radiation-emitting laser diode according to claim 15, further comprising: a second cladding layer of the second doping type arranged on the waveguide layer sequence on a second main surface (fig. 2 second cladding layer 14 p-type on 13+32+31 on second main surface (top surface of 13)). H does not disclose a first cladding layer of the first doping type arranged on the waveguide layer sequence on a first main surface. Nitta discloses a polarization switching semiconductor laser with a top p-type cladding layer and a bottom n-type cladding layer, where the bottom cladding layer is between the waveguide/active layers and the substrate (fig. 2 laser has top cladding 4 and bottom cladding 2, 2 on substrate 1, col. 5 lines 10-40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace an upper portion of substrate 30 with a bottom n-type cladding layer underneath waveguide layer sequence (on bottom of 31) to improve optical confinement and control over laser function. See modified fig. 2B. PNG media_image1.png 652 1233 media_image1.png Greyscale Modified fig. 2B Regarding claim 19, modified H discloses the radiation-emitting laser diode according to claim 18, further comprising a metallic contact layer arranged on the second cladding layer in an electrically and thermally conductive manner (fig. 2 metallic contact layer/electrode 19a/b arranged on 14 in thermally + electrically conductive manner, col. 6 lines 50-65, col. 7 lines 40-50). Regarding claim 20, modified H discloses the radiation-emitting laser diode according to claim 18, further comprising a substrate arranged on the first cladding layer, wherein the first cladding layer comprises a mode spoiler (modified fig. 2B Modified substrate on New cladding/first cladding layer, New cladding comprises mode spoiler/diffraction grating 21, col. 6 lines 50-65, “arranged on” interpreted to mean ‘underneath’, as shown in applicant’s figs. 1 + 2, substrate 11 under/”arranged on” first cladding 6). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chen US-10461505-B2: Diode laser with structure similar to that of instant application + thickness difference in waveguide layers (fig. 6) Arimura US-7856046-B2: Diode laser with similar structure + grating layer Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alex Ehrlich whose telephone number is (703)756-5716. 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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at (571) 272-1835. 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. /A.E./Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /MINSUN O HARVEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 16, 2023
Application Filed
May 16, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 16, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12581687
ARRAY SUBSTRATE, METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME, AND DISPLAY PANEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573813
QUANTUM CASCADE LASER ELEMENT, QUANTUM CASCADE LASER DEVICE, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING QUANTUM CASCADE LASER DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12573811
LASER DEVICE AND LASER PROJECTION APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12537361
LIGHT-EMITTING COMPONENT, LIGHT-EMITTING ELEMENT ARRAY CHIP, AND OPTICAL MEASUREMENT APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12532654
FLEXIBLE DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 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
64%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+57.1%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 33 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