Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/546,582

METHOD FOR PRODUCING AN OPTOELECTRONIC SEMICONDUCTOR COMPONENT AND OPTOELECTRONIC SEMICONDUCTOR COMPONENT

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Aug 15, 2023
Examiner
HOSSAIN, MOAZZAM
Art Unit
2898
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
AMS-OSRAM AG
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
694 granted / 792 resolved
+19.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
52 currently pending
Career history
844
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.7%
-37.3% vs TC avg
§103
45.5%
+5.5% vs TC avg
§102
31.3%
-8.7% vs TC avg
§112
16.6%
-23.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 792 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, without traverse, of group I, claims 18-29 in ”Response to Election / Restriction Filed -08/15/2023”, is acknowledged. This office action considers claims 18-34 pending for prosecution, of which claims 30-34 are withdrawn, and claims 18-29 are examined on their merits. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (10; Fig 3; [0050] or C 18, L 18-37)= (element 60; Figure No. 8; Paragraph No. [0050]) or Column No 18, Line Nos. 18-17. For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” or “Column No, Line Nos" shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document. Claims 18, 20-24 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Beernink; Kevin J. et al. US 5708674 A) hereinafter Beernink. Regarding Claim 18. Beernink teaches a method for producing an optoelectronic semiconductor component (10; Fig 3; final semiconductor body in Fig 10), the method comprising (see the entire document, Figs 3-10, column 6, line 46 to column 11 line 59, along with subject matter referenced in other figures, specifically, as cited below): PNG media_image1.png 346 454 media_image1.png Greyscale Beernink Figure 10 A) providing a semiconductor body (Fig 10) comprising, sequentially in a vertical direction , a first layer (n-AlInP; Column 10 Line 16-17) of a first conductivity type (n-type), an active layer (QW1,QW2; Fig 10; Column 11, Line 14-34) formed as a quantum well structure provided for emission of electromagnetic radiation (laser), and a second layer (p-AlInP; Column 10 Line 16-17) of a second conductivity type (p-type); and B) irradiating the semiconductor body (60; Fig 10) with a focused electromagnetic radiation (“by scanning a focused and modulated laser beam so that its radiation is absorbed primarily in the lateral regions where intermixing is desired”; Column 11, lines 34-37) such that a focus region (INTERMIXED region in Fig 10) of the electromagnetic radiation lies within the active layer and overlaps with the quantum well structure (QW1), wherein the electromagnetic radiation has an intensity which is sufficiently large in the focus region to cause point defects in the quantum well structure so that a defect region (INTERMIXED in Fig 10) is formed and so that a generation of the point defects is limited to the focus region (focused .. laser beam … absorbed where intermixing is desired”; Column 11, lines 34-37), and wherein a density of point defects in the first layer (n-AlInP fig 10) and the second layer (p-AlInP; Fig 10) is not changed in B. Regarding Claim 20. Beernink as applied to the method for producing the optoelectronic semiconductor component according to claim 18, further teaches, (the method) further comprising, in C), performing an annealing (Column 8, line 64 to column 9, line 5 ) such that a conversion region (INTERMIXED region fig 10) is generated from the defect region, and wherein a band gap in the conversion region is changed with respect to a laterally adjacent original region (“band gap raised by intermixing”). Regarding Claim 21. Beernink as applied to the method for producing the optoelectronic semiconductor component according to claim 20, further teaches, wherein (column 8, lines 27-33) the annealing is carried out at a temperature of at least 800°C and at most 950°C. Regarding Claim 22. Beernink as applied to the method for producing the optoelectronic semiconductor component according to claim 20, further teaches, wherein (column 8, lines 27-33) the annealing is carried out over a period of time of at least 30 seconds and at most 20 minutes. Regarding Claim 23. Beernink as applied to the method for producing the optoelectronic semiconductor component according to claim 20, further teaches, wherein (column 8, lines 27-33) the annealing is carried out at a temperature between 890°C and 910°C for a period of 1 to 10 minutes. Regarding Claim 24. Beernink as applied to the method for producing the optoelectronic semiconductor component according to claim 18, further teaches, wherein irradiating the semiconductor body with the electromagnetic radiation (60 in Fig 10; column 11, lines 34-37) in B) is performed parallel to the vertical direction. Regarding Claim 27. Beernink as applied to the method for producing the optoelectronic semiconductor component according to claim 18, further teaches, wherein the electromagnetic radiation has a main wavelength corresponding to a photon energy smaller than a bandgap of a semiconductor material in the first layer and/or in the second layer (implicitly known; ".. laser light be significantly absorbed in some layer of the structure, i.e., it must be of photon energy higher than the band gap of some layer in the structure."; column11, lines 29-37). Regarding Claim 28. Beernink as applied to the method for producing the optoelectronic semiconductor component according to claim 18, further teaches, wherein (implicitly known; ".. laser light be significantly absorbed in some layer of the structure, i.e., it must be of photon energy higher than the band gap of some layer in the structure."; column11, lines 29-37) the electromagnetic radiation has a main wavelength corresponding to a photon energy larger than a bandgap of a semiconductor material in the active layer. Regarding Claim 29. Beernink as applied to the method for producing the optoelectronic semiconductor component according to claim 18, further teaches, wherein the electromagnetic radiation is a coherent radiation (laser radiation; Fig 10). 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 of this title, 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. Claims 19 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beernink; Kevin J. et al. US 5708674 A) hereinafter Beernink . Regarding Claim 19. Beernink as applied to the method for producing the optoelectronic semiconductor component according to claim 18, does not expressly disclose, wherein, in B), the density of point defects in the defect region of at least 1*1013 cm-3 and of at most 1*1019 cm-3 is generated. However, the specific density of point defects i.e of at least 1*1013 cm-3 and of at most 1*1019 cm-3 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because absent evidence or disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d454, 105 USQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995). Furthermore the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the density of point defects in the defect region claimed or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the claimed dimensions or variable are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Regarding Claims 25-26. Beernink as applied to the method for producing the optoelectronic semiconductor component according to claim 18, does not expressly disclose, wherein a diameter of the focus region is set to a diameter For claim 25: between 50 nm and 10 μm, inclusive. For claim 26: between 100 nm to 200 nm, inclusive. However, the specific density of diameter of the focus region as claimed would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because absent evidence or disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d454, 105 USQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995). Furthermore the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the dimensions claimed or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the claimed dimensions or variable are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOAZZAM HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7960. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30AM - 6:00 PM. 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, Julio J. Maldonado can be reached on 571-272-1864. 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. /MOAZZAM HOSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898 February 18, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 15, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600619
EARLY-IMPACT OUT-OF-PLANE MOTION LIMITER FOR MEMS DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600620
LOW-IMPACT OUT-OF-PLANE MOTION LIMITER MEMS DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604503
PROFILE CONTROL OF ISOLATION STRUCTURES IN SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596948
METHOD FOR MAKING A QUANTUM DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589989
PROCESS FOR MANUFACTURING A MICRO-ELECTRO-MECHANICAL DEVICE FROM A SINGLE SEMICONDUCTOR WAFER AND RELATED MEMS 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
88%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+10.7%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 792 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