Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/611,007

METHOD FOR PRODUCING OPTICAL ELEMENT

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 20, 2024
Examiner
CHIEN, LUCY P
Art Unit
2871
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
745 granted / 898 resolved
+15.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +5% lift
Without
With
+5.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
932
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
55.9%
+15.9% vs TC avg
§102
38.7%
-1.3% vs TC avg
§112
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 898 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . 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. Claim(s) 1-5,8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a as being anticipated by Masahiro Shiozawa et al (JPH10319825A) Regarding Claim 1, Masahiro Shiozawa et al discloses [0013-0019] a method for producing an optical element, comprising :performing recording exposure on a medium having a recording layer containing a polymerizable compound (monomers) and a photopolymerization initiator; performing post exposure (second exposure) on the medium in a state where a temperature of the medium is lower than during the recording exposure (hologram exposure). Regarding Claim 2, Masahiro Shiozawa et al [0013-0019] discloses wherein a difference between the temperature of the medium during the recording exposure and the temperature of the medium during the post exposure is 5 ℃ or higher. Regarding Claim 3, Masahiro Shiozawa et al [0013-0019] discloses wherein the temperature of the medium during the post exposure (second exposure) is 5 degrees Celsius or higher. Regarding Claim 4, Masahiro Shiozawa et al [0013-0019] does not explicitly indicate that the dry plate temperature at the time of the hologram exposure is in the range of 10-40 degrees Celsius, but indicates that the lower limit of the dry plate cooling temperature at the time of the second exposure is 30 degrees celsius (Fig. 9). Therefore, setting the dry plate cooling temperature to 30 degrees Celsius in accordance with Fig. 9 and setting the dry plate temperature at the time of hologram exposure to approximately 30-40 degrees Celsius in conjunction with this set cooling temperature are merely design matters for a person skilled in the art. Regarding Claim 5, Masahiro Shiozawa et al discloses [0013-0019] wherein the post exposure (second exposure) is performed at a light intensity 0.3 times or more higher than that of the recording exposure. Regarding Claim 8, Masahiro Shiozawa et al discloses [0013-0019] wherein the recording exposure is a holographic recording exposure. Claim(s) 6,7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masahiro Shiozawa et al (JPH10319825A) in view of Sato Ken et al (JP 2017147012 A) Regarding Claim 6, Masahiro Shiozawa et al disclose everything as disclosed above. Masahiro Shiozawa et al do not disclose wherein a light source for post exposure during the post exposure is incoherent light. Stao Ken et al discloses wherein a light source for post exposure during the post exposure is incoherent light (“… In the present invention, either one of the pre-exposure light from each surface is preferably incoherent light, and more preferably both are incoherent light. By using such incoherent light, a uniform pre-exposure process can be performed in the film thickness direction of the recording layer. There are LEDs and lamps as light sources for incoherent pre-exposure light, but pre-exposure light is incoherent light, even if the light source is coherent light such as a laser, The case where it is incoherent light at the time of irradiation by a typical process is also included. Examples of the optical treatment include a method using a multiple reflection element and a diffraction element…”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Masahiro Shiozawa et al to include Stao Ken et al’s light source for post exposure during the post exposure is incoherent light motivated by the desire to perform an uniform pre exposure process. Regarding Claim 7, Masahiro Shiozawa et al disclose everything as disclosed above. Masahiro Shiozawa et al do not disclose wherein the medium comprises an upper side and a lower side, and wherein the post exposure is performed from both sides of the medium. Sato Ken et al discloses wherein the medium comprises an upper side and a lower side, and wherein the post exposure is performed from both sides of the medium (ABSTRACT). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Masahiro Shiozawa et al to include Sato Ken et al medium comprises an upper side and a lower side, and wherein the post exposure is performed from both sides of the medium motivated by the desire to attain high diffraction efficiency and high multiplicity (ABSTRACT). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCY P CHIEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8579. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM PST Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. 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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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. /LUCY P CHIEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 20, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 29, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601944
DISPLAY MODULE, DRIVING METHOD, AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12592204
STACKED-SCREEN DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12591159
TRANSPARENT DISPLAY APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585049
ACHROMATIC OPTICAL RELAY ARRANGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585113
LAMINATED GLASS AND HEAD-UP DISPLAY SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
83%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+5.2%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 898 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