Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/696,773

HOLOGRAPHIC DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 28, 2024
Examiner
ALEXANDER, WILLIAM R
Art Unit
2872
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Trulife Optics Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
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
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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/28/2024 was considered by the examiner. 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. Claims 1, 2, 11, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (US 2022/0365482) in view of Liu et al. (US 2024/0094531). Regarding Claim 1, Yu discloses a holographic device for a virtual retinal display (Fig. 5, Paragraphs 0107 and 0109, image source 512, input coupler 530 and output couple 540 are volume holographic gratings, Paragraph 0109, virtual objects projected by projector 510, lines 30-31), the holographic device comprising: a substrate (Fig. 5, substrate 520, Paragraph 0109, lines 1-4); and a holographic element (Fig. 5, Paragraph 0109, lines 1-15, input coupler 530 and output couple 540 are volume holographic gratings) arranged on said substrate (Fig. 5, as shown, Paragraph 0007, lines 1-3). Yu does not specifically disclose wherein the holographic element comprises a phase pattern and said phase pattern contains a predefined optical coma configured and arranged to diffract light from a light source to generate an eye box at an eye plane of the holographic element. However, Liu, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the holographic element (Fig. 4, phase compensation apparatus 101, can be a holographic optical element, Paragraph 0074, lines 1-2) comprises a phase pattern and said phase pattern contains a predefined optical coma configured and arranged to diffract light from a light source to generate an eye box at an eye plane of the holographic element (Paragraph 0079, lines 6-10, phase compensation apparatus 101 is configured to compensate for coma aberration of the light ray of an image and lines 16-21, at the user’s eye, Fig. 4, as shown, the phase compensation apparatus 101 inherently having a phase pattern having a predefined coma because it compensates for coma aberration), for the purpose of improving imaging quality of a holographic display system (Paragraph 0079, lines 20-21). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the holographic device of Yu with the wherein the holographic element comprises a phase pattern and said phase pattern contains a predefined optical coma configured and arranged to diffract light from a light source to generate an eye box at an eye plane of the holographic element, of Liu, for the purpose of improving imaging quality of a holographic display system (Paragraph 0079, lines 20-21). Regarding Claim 2, Yu in view of Liu discloses as is set forth above and Liu further discloses wherein said eye box is a coma aberrated image of said light source (Paragraph 0079, lines 6-10, phase compensation apparatus 101 is configured to compensate for coma aberration and lines 16-21, at the user’s eye, Fig. 4, as shown), for the purpose of improving imaging quality of a holographic display system (Paragraph 0079, lines 20-21). Regarding Claim 11, Yu discloses a method of forming a holographic device for a virtual retinal display system (Fig. 5, Paragraphs 0107 and 0109, image source 512, input coupler 530 and output couple 540 are volume holographic gratings, Paragraph 0109, virtual objects projected by projector 510, lines 30-31), the method comprising: forming (Fig. 5, as shown, Paragraph 0007, lines 1-3) a holographic element (Fig. 5, Paragraph 0109, lines 1-15, input coupler 530 and output couple 540 are volume holographic gratings) on a substrate (Fig. 5, substrate 520, Paragraph 0109, lines 1-4). Yu does not specifically disclose wherein the holographic element comprises a phase pattern and a phase pattern that contains a predefined optical coma configured and arranged to diffract light from a light source to generate an eye box at an eye plane of the holographic element, and said eye box is a coma aberrated image of said light source. However, Liu, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the holographic element (Fig. 4, phase compensation apparatus 101, can be a holographic optical element, Paragraph 0074, lines 1-2) comprises a phase pattern and a phase pattern that contains a predefined optical coma configured and arranged to diffract light from a light source to generate an eye box at an eye plane of the holographic element, and said eye box is a coma aberrated image of said light source (Paragraph 0079, lines 6-10, phase compensation apparatus 101 is configured to compensate for coma aberration of the light ray of an image and lines 16-21, at the user’s eye, Fig. 4, as shown, the phase compensation apparatus 101 inherently having a phase pattern having a predefined coma because it compensates for coma aberration), for the purpose of improving imaging quality of a holographic display system (Paragraph 0079, lines 20-21). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the method of Yu with the wherein the holographic element comprises a phase pattern and a phase pattern that contains a predefined optical coma configured and arranged to diffract light from a light source to generate an eye box at an eye plane of the holographic element, and said eye box is a coma aberrated image of said light source of Liu, for the purpose of improving imaging quality of a holographic display system (Paragraph 0079, lines 20-21). Regarding Claim 16, Yu in view of Liu discloses as is set forth above and Yu further discloses wherein said substrate is formed of a transparent material selected from the group consisting of: glass (Paragraph 0108, line 16, substrate 520 can be glass), polycarbonate plastic, and acrylic plastic. Regarding Claim 17, Yu in view of Liu discloses as is set forth above and Yu further discloses wherein said substrate is curved or planar (Paragraph 0108, line 15, substrate 520 can be flat or curved). Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (US 2022/0365482) in view of Liu et al. (US 2024/0094531), further in view of Shimizu et al. (US 2011/0194163). Regarding Claim 18, Yu in view of Liu discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose wherein the holographic element is formed of a photopolymer or silver halide. However, Shimizu, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the holographic element is formed of a photopolymer (Paragraph 0076, lines 3-6, photopolymer) or silver halide, for the purpose of easy production by a dry process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the method of Yu in view of Liu with the wherein the holographic element is formed of a photopolymer or silver halide of Shimizu, for the purpose of easy production by a dry process. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3-4, 5-9, 10, 12-13, 14, and 15 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 3, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a holographic device including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein the optical coma of the holographic element is configured and arranged to form an array of eye boxes at said eye plane. Specifically, with respect to claim 5, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a holographic device including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein the optical coma is represented as a cubic function in a phase profile across a transverse axis of the holographic element. Specifically, with respect to claim 10, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a holographic device including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein the eye plane is orientated normally with respect to a central ray of said light source diffracted from the central portion of the holographic element. Specifically, with respect to claim 12, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a holographic device including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein the optical coma of the holographic element is configured and arranged to form an array of discrete eye boxes at said eye plane. Specifically, with respect to claim 14, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a holographic device including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein the holographic element is formed by the interference of an object beam and a reference beam to define the optical coma. Specifically, with respect to claim 15, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a holographic device including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein the optical coma is represented as a cubic function in the phase profile across a transverse axis of the holographic element. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Graf (US 2021/0356745) and Waldern et al. (US 2004/0108971) are cited to show similar devices and methods. 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

Mar 28, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+6.5%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
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