Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/264,768

OPTOELECTRONIC DEVICE AND METHOD

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Aug 09, 2023
Examiner
HUGHES, DEANDRA M
Art Unit
3992
Tech Center
3900
Assignee
AMS-OSRAM AG
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
138 granted / 177 resolved
+18.0% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
198
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.7%
-36.3% vs TC avg
§103
21.5%
-18.5% vs TC avg
§102
14.0%
-26.0% vs TC avg
§112
29.5%
-10.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 177 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
NON-FINA L REJECTION Acknowledgements 1. Claims 1- 22 were presented for examination on Aug. 9 , 2023. Preliminary amendment was presented on Aug. 9, 2023 wherein claims 7 and 19 were cancelled. Thus, claims 1-6, 8-18, and 20-22 are pending and grouped as follows: c laims 1-6 and 8-17 ; claims 18 and 20-22 . 2. This application is a 371 of PCT/EP22/53179 filed Feb. 9, 2022 . Thus, t he presumed effective filing date of the instant application is Feb. 9, 2022 . Claim Objections 3. Claim 11 is objected to because of an apparent typographical error. Specifically, it appears that the claim phrase “ between cap and optical element ” is intended to read “ between the cap and the optical element .” Claim 12 is objected to because of an apparent typographical error. Specifically, it appears that the claim phrase “ between cap and substrate carrier ” is intended to read “ between the cap and the substrate carrier .” Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 4 . Claims 1- 6, 8-17, 20 , and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Specifically, claim 1 claims “ a sensor device adapted to emit an EM signal between the cap and the substrate carrier for detecting damage to the cap .” It is unclear, however, whether the phrase “ for detecting damage to the cap ” modifies the “ sensor device ” or alternatively, the “ substrate carrier .” In the interest of compact prosecution, this limitation will be interpreted as if it modifies “ the sensor device .” Claim 2 is rejected because it depends on claim 1 . As to claim 3 , which depends upon claim 2 , claims “ the sensor device is configured to generate a status signal in dependence on a deviation of the detected signal interacted with the cap from a setpoint value .” There is no antecedent basis for the claimed “ the detected signal .” As to claim 4 , there is no antecedent basis for “ the output EM signal .” Specifically, it is unclear which EM signal would comprise the “ output ” signal. As to claim 5 , there is no antecedent basis for “the emitted EM signal.” Note that while base claim 1 claims “ a sensor device adapted to emit an EM signal… ” the claim does not require an EM signal to be emitted. Claim s 6 and 8 are rejected because it depends on claim 1 . As to claim 9 , the phrase “ causes a change in the emitted EM signal which can be detected by the sensor device ” is insolubly ambiguous because it is unclear whether the emitted EM signal is or is not detected. Claim s 10-1 7 are rejected because it depends on claim 1 . As to claim 20 , the claim phrase “ the generated signal ” is insolubly ambiguous because it is unclear whether the antecedent basis is the generated “ negative state signal ,” the generated “ wireless signal ,” or the generated “ response signal .” As to claim 22 , the claim phrase “ the generated EM signal is changed due to a damage or a removal or a change of position of the cap and/or the optical element caused change of a capacitive or inductive coupling of the cap and/or the optical element with a sensor device ” is insolubly ambiguous because it is unclear what “ caused the change…. ” Allowable Subject Matter 5. Claims 1-6 and 8-17 , while not in condition for allowance, contain allowable subject matter. Specifically, the closest prior art is US 2022/0294179 to Sakai et al. (hereafter “Sakai”). Saka i , however, does not disclose or make obvious “ a sensor device adapted to emit an EM signal between the cap and the substrate carrier for detecting damage to the cap; wherein the cap is adapted for wireless interaction with the emitted EM signal; wherein the cap comprises a transmitting element for generating a wireless signal in response to the emitted EM signal; and wherein the transmitting element comprises a temporary energy storage for storing energy from the EM signal emitted by the sensor device ” in combination with the other limitations of the claims. Claim s 18 and 2 1 are allowed. The prior art does not disclose or make obvious “ generating a wireless EM signal in the space between the cap and the substrate carrier, said wireless EM signal interacting with the cap and/or the optical element; detecting a response signal modified by the interaction and comparing it to a set point ” in combination with the other limitations of the claims. Note that the limitation “ generating a negative state signal if the response signal modified by the interaction deviates from a range defined by the set point …” is a conditional limitation. MPEP §2111.04. Conclusion 6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DEANDRA M HUGHES whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6982 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Generally M-Th 8AM-6PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Hetul Patel can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-4184 . 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. Signed: /DEANDRA M HUGHES/ Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 09, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597089
IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD AND APPARATUS AND RELATED DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent RE50852
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR VIEWING SPORTS CONTENT WITHIN A VIRTUAL REALITY ENVIRONMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent RE50813
LIQUID SUPPLYING DEVICE HAVING TANK AND CARTRIDGE ATTACHABLE THERETO
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12560770
Optical Coupling
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12554078
Optical Coupling
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+19.2%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 177 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