Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/517,915

POLYCHROMATIC LIGHT OUT-COUPLING APPARATUS, NEAR-EYE DISPLAYS COMPRISING THE SAME, AND METHOD OF OUT-COUPLING POLYCHROMATIC LIGHT

Final Rejection §102§103§DP
Filed
Nov 22, 2023
Examiner
ALEXANDER, WILLIAM R
Art Unit
2872
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Magic Leap Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
765 granted / 867 resolved
+20.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
898
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
46.7%
+6.7% vs TC avg
§102
34.4%
-5.6% vs TC avg
§112
12.9%
-27.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 867 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §DP
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 . Terminal Disclaimer The terminal disclaimer filed on 2/13/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US 11,874,468 and US 10,527,853 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded. Response to Amendments/Arguments Applicant’s arguments/remarks (filed 2/13/2026, pages 12-16) have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. Examiner withdraws the 103 rejection of claim 1 and also withdraws the double patenting rejection of claims 1, 2, and 16. Examiner further withdraws the claim objection to claims 2, 3, 7, and 12. Examiner maintains the 103 rejection of claims 16 and 17 due to lack of amendments and/or arguments regarding claim 16. 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. 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 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vallius et al. (US 2017/0363871) in view of Greiner et al. (US 2015/0132003). Regarding Claim 16, Vallius discloses a method comprising: transmitting light through at least one in-coupling diffractive element (Fig. 3, in-coupling grating 340, Paragraph 0036), the light having a first pattern (Fig. 3, imager 105, Paragraph 0035, producing an image 0033, the image having a first pattern); transmitting the light from the at least one in-coupling diffractive optical element through at least one intermediate optical element (Fig. 3, waveguide 130, Paragraph 0036); and emitting and outcoupling the first pattern of light from a first out-coupling diffractive optical element (Fig. 3, out-coupling grating 310L, Paragraph 0036). Vallius does not specifically disclose wherein the first out-coupling diffractive optical elements comprises: a first region having a first repeated diffraction spacing, d1, and a second region adjacent to the first region having a second repeated diffraction spacing, d2, different from the first spacing, d1. However, Greiner, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the first out-coupling diffractive optical elements comprises: a first region (Fig. 1, output grating 103, Paragraph 0018, lines 1-5) having a first repeated diffraction spacing, d1, and a second region (Fig. 1, output grating 104, Paragraph 0018, lines 1-5) adjacent to the first region (Fig. 1, as shown) having a second repeated diffraction spacing, d2, different from the first spacing, d1 (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0018, lines 2-5), for the purpose of selectively diffracting different wavelengths of light. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Vallius with wherein the first out-coupling diffractive optical elements comprises: a first region having a first repeated diffraction spacing, d1, and a second region adjacent to the first region having a second repeated diffraction spacing, d2, different from the first spacing, d1, of Greiner, for the purpose of selectively diffracting different wavelengths of light. Regarding Claim 17, Vallius in view of Greiner discloses as is set forth above and Greiner further discloses wherein the light having the first pattern has a first wavelength and the light having the second pattern has a second wavelength (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0018, lines 2-5, different optical signals have different wavelengths), for the purpose of selectively diffracting different wavelengths of light. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 18-19 are 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103. Specifically, with respect to claim 18, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of a method including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein further comprising: emitting first pattern of light of the first wavelength from a first region of the first out-coupling diffractive optical element and the second pattern of light of the second wavelength from a second region of the first out-coupling diffractive optical element adjacent to the first region; emitting light of the first wavelength in the second pattern from a first region of a second out-coupling diffractive optical element and light of the second wavelength in the first pattern from a second region of the second out-coupling diffractive optical element adjacent to the first region; superposing and aligning the first patterns of light emitted from the first region of the first out-coupling diffractive optical element and from the second region of the second out-coupling diffractive optical element; and superposing and aligning the second patterns of light emitted from the second region of the first out-coupling diffractive optical element and from the first region of the second out-coupling diffractive optical element. Claims 1-15 are allowed. Reasons for Allowance/Examiner’s Comments The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103. Specifically, regarding the allowability of amended independent claim 1: The prior art of record does not disclose or suggest an apparatus comprising “… a first region having a first repeated diffraction spacing, d1, positioned to diffract a first light beam, and a second region adjacent to the first region having a second repeated diffraction spacing, d2, different from the first spacing, d1 positioned to diffract the first lightbeam.”, along with other claim limitations. Claims 2-15 are allowable due to pendency on amended independent claim 1. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM R ALEXANDER whose telephone number is (571)270-7656. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM- 4:00 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, Pinping Sun can be reached on (571) 270-1284. 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. /WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 22, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §DP
Feb 13, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 26, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599301
SYSTEM FOR CONDUCTING EYE EXAMINATIONS FOR VISUAL ACUITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12591116
OPTICAL LENS, OPTICAL MODULE, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585142
SPECTACLE LENS DESIGN, METHOD OF MANUFACTURING A SPECTACLE LENS AND METHOD OF PROVIDING A SPECTACLE LENS FOR AT LEAST RETARDING MYOPIA PROGRESSION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578536
BRAGG GRATINGS FOR AN AUGMENTED REALITY DISPLAY SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571991
LENS MODULE AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+6.5%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 867 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