https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/optical-image-encryption-apparatus-using-diffractive-phase-elements-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-27 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Optical Image Encryption

Optical Image Encryption Patents Using Diffractive Phase Elements

41 patent families and 51 records cover diffractive phase element and holographic optical encryption, with one filer naming 12 families.

51
Published Records
41
Simple Patent Families
22%
In Force at Cut-off
CN
Leading Jurisdiction

51 published records collapse into 41 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 11 of 51 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 41 simple patent families and 51 published records sit in this search, with no date limit applied to the query.
  • TIANJIN UNIV is named on 12 of the 41 families (29.3%), the highest share of any single row, while 21 of the 22 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each.
  • G06T image data processing appears on 14 of the 41 families (34.1%), ahead of H04L digital transmission at 12 families (29.3%).
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this dataset covers

This search pulls records matching optical encryption or optical image encryption together with diffractive phase element, phase mask, or holographic encryption in the title, abstract or claims. It returns 51 published records that de-duplicate to 41 simple patent families. No date range was set on the query, so the result spans whatever filing years the matching terms happen to appear in, not a chosen window.

41 families is a small pool. The counts below describe what this particular search returned, not a map of the broader field of optical encryption, gaps here are as likely to reflect search terms that missed relevant filings as an absence of filing activity. Treat this page as a starting point for a closer search in Patsnap Eureka, not a finished picture.

Records vs. families in scope
  1. TIANJIN UNIV12
  2. SHANGHAI NORMAL UNIVERSITY2
  3. TIANJIN NORMAL UNIVERSITY2
  4. NANJING UNIV2
  5. XIAN UNIV OF TECH2
  6. CHANGCHUN UNIV OF SCI & TECH2
  7. ZHEJIANG NORMAL UNIV2
  8. SICHUAN UNIV2
  9. FORSKNINGSCENT RIS1
  10. MANIPAL UNIVERSITY JAIPUR1

Counted over all 51 published records, including filings from before 2011; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 44 records from 2011 onward, so the two charts are not the same set of documents. Ordered by volume only, not by importance or claim strength. Counted in simple (DOCDB) patent families, so one invention filed in several countries counts once. Names come from Patsnap's standardised assignee field as recorded on each document; subsidiaries and group companies are not merged. The icon before each name is read from the name itself (words such as University, Institute or Ltd); the data carries no organisation-type field, so treat it as a reading aid rather than a classification. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified (2 here); that identification is not exhaustive, so an individually held filing can still appear below. Either way those filings stay inside the totals above. This table shows the top 22 of the 22 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 22 is not the complete set of filers. A single family can name more than one filer, so these counts overlap and do not add up to the total.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from one Patsnap search for Optical Image Encryption Apparatus Using Diffractive Phase Elements Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology

Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.

10,000 free credits to start
Data

Filing trend and technology composition

Two views of the same 41 families: when the matching records were first filed, and which IPC subclasses they carry.

Filing trend (published records by earliest filing year) (44 of 51 published records)

The trend counts published records by earliest filing year, running from 2011 (3 records) to a peak of 12 in 2016. Records from 2022 onward are still filling in as later filings publish, so the recent years understate eventual totals, this is a publication-lag effect, not a drop in filing.

Filing trend (published records by earliest filing year) (44 of 51 published records)0369123201120132015122017201920212023202512022 onwards are shaded as still filling in: a filing is only visible once it publishes, up to 30 months after filing.

Counted in published records by earliest filing year, not de-duplicated into families. A filing is counted in the year it was filed, but it only becomes visible after it publishes: roughly 18 months for most routes, and up to 30 months where a PCT application enters national phase. 2022 onwards are therefore still filling in and are shaded; no growth figure on this page uses them. Because this series counts documents rather than inventions, a rise can mean more inventions or the same inventions filed in more countries; this dataset cannot separate the two. This chart covers 2011-2026 (44 records); the 51 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.

IPC subclass composition

G06T (image data processing) appears on 14 of the 41 families (34.1%), H04L (digital transmission) on 12 (29.3%), and G03H (holography) and H04N (pictorial communication) each on 11 (26.8%). G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 9 (22.0%). Because one family can carry several IPC classes, these shares add up to more than 100%.

IPC subclass compositionG06T · Image data processing & genera…1434.1%H04L · Digital information transmissi…1229.3%G03H · Holography1126.8%H04N · Pictorial communication (video…1126.8%G06F · Electric digital data processi…922.0%G02B · Optical elements & systems49.8%G02F · Optical control & modulation37.3%H04B · Transmission (general)37.3%Other922.0%

Shares are the percentage of the 41 patent families in scope. One patent family can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from one Patsnap search for Optical Image Encryption Apparatus Using Diffractive Phase Elements Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Optical Image Encryption Apparatus Using Diffractive Phase Elements Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about optical image encryption apparatus using diffractive phase elements patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Record in focus

One record from the result set

From the result set
US20190182407A12019-06-13

Fluid-optical encryption system and method thereof

NATIONAL TSINGHUA UNIVERSITY

The abstract describes a fluid-optical encryption system that uses a fluid surface changing topology over time to modulate the wave front of an electromagnetic signal for encryption, decryption or authentication. The signal can be pulsed or continuous, coherent or non-coherent, and optical or at another wavelength such as infrared, and is either transmitted through or reflected off the fluid surface. The time-dependent change in the fluid can be induced by mechanical vibration.This is the first record returned under the database's default order, not the most cited or most representative filing in this set.

US20190182407A1, patent drawing 1US20190182407A1, patent drawing 2
View record in Eureka

Selected as the first record the search returns under the database default order, then shown in full. It is not ranked by citations, claim breadth or commercial importance, and it is not a judgement about which filing in this space matters most.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. The first record the search returned, shown in full. Derived from one Patsnap search for Optical Image Encryption Apparatus Using Diffractive Phase Elements Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself

Put your own technology through the same analysis


  
Where to run it
Fastest

Eureka on the web

When you want the answer in the next five minutes.

The agent works the prompt against patents and technical literature, citing every source.

Run your analysis now →
For builders

MCP server & REST API

When it has to run inside your own pipeline.

Patent search, landscape analysis and assignee resolution as MCP tools. Drop them into any agent framework, or call REST directly.

Browse MCP servers →
Patterns in the data

What the counts show

Three figures worth reading closely before drawing any conclusions from this set.

Filer concentration
12 of 41
families named to the top filer

TIANJIN UNIV holds the largest single-row share

TIANJIN UNIV is named on 12 of the 41 simple patent families in scope, 29.3% of the total. This is a single-row figure from the filer table; filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group and cannot be added together, since one family can name more than one filer.

Share of 41 simple patent families
Long tail
21 of 22
listed filers at 2 families or fewer

Most listed filers hold one or two families

Of the 22 organisations in the filer list, 21 hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The list covers organisations; individual-inventor filings are excluded from it where they can be identified but remain inside the 41-family total.

Count of listed filers, not a share
Technology mix
34.1%
families carrying G06T

G06T appears on the largest share of families

G06T (image data processing & generation) is attached to 14 of the 41 families (34.1%), the highest of the subclasses shown. H04L (29.3%), G03H and H04N (26.8% each) and G06F (22.0%) follow. Because a family can carry multiple IPC classes, these percentages sum to more than 100% and should not be added together.

Share of 41 simple patent families, multi-counted by class
Legal status
11 of 51
records granted and in force

22% of records were in force at retrieval

11 of the 51 published records (22%) were granted and still in force at the 2026-10-27 retrieval date. The remainder are not broken out in this dataset, so no split between pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed can be stated.

Share of 51 published records, status at retrieval date only
Eureka AI Agent
Looking for what nobody has claimed yet?

Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to optical image encryption apparatus using diffractive phase elements patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.

Find the white space →
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Derived observations on the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Optical Image Encryption Apparatus Using Diffractive Phase Elements Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next steps

Where to take this next

This page surfaces counts from one search string. Confirming any of these figures against the underlying documents is the next step.

Pull the granted claims

A family count or an abstract cannot establish what a granted claim covers. Read the claim set of any record before drawing conclusions about scope.

Open in Patsnap Eureka

Re-run with wider or narrower terms

This is a 41-family pool built from one search string with no date limit. Adjusting the terms will change which records are captured and may surface filings this search missed.

Refine the search in Eureka

Check legal status directly

22% of records were in force at retrieval, a figure that changes continuously. Verify current status on any specific record before relying on it.

Check status in Eureka
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Suggested next steps. No new data: every figure named here is one of those above. Derived from one Patsnap search for Optical Image Encryption Apparatus Using Diffractive Phase Elements Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Questions about this dataset

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Optical Image Encryption Apparatus Using Diffractive Phase Elements Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Optical Image Encryption Apparatus Using Diffractive Phase Elements Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole optical image encryption apparatus using diffractive phase elements patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.

Try Eureka
How this page was built, and what the numbers do and do not mean

Search. Every figure on this page comes from one Patsnap search, run once and not edited afterwards. This is the exact search string:

TAC:(("optical encryption" OR "optical image encryption") AND ("diffractive phase element" OR "phase mask" OR "holographic encryption"))

Reading the field codes: TAC searches the title, abstract and claims of each record, not the full description. The search string sets no date limit, so the scope is every matching record in the database regardless of when it was filed. It is not restricted to recent years. How this string was built matters for how far the counts can be pushed. It was generated in batch from a topic list rather than hand-crafted for this page, and the result set is not manually screened. A keyword search over title, abstract and claims both over-captures (unrelated filings that happen to use the same words) and under-captures (the same invention written in different words). This page cannot measure either effect, so read every figure here as what this particular string returned, not as what exists in the field.

What is being counted. Two different units appear on this page and they are not interchangeable. The filer list and the technology split are counted in simple (DOCDB) patent families: one invention counts once however many countries it was filed in. The total, the jurisdiction split and the filing-year chart are counted in published records: the same invention counts once per publication. For this search that is 51 records and 41 families. Record counts reward filing in many jurisdictions; family counts do not. Shares are only ever taken against a denominator in the same unit, and each one names it.

Who the filers are. Names come from Patsnap's standardised assignee field, as recorded on the documents themselves. They are not rolled up to corporate group: a parent and its subsidiaries appear as separate entries, and a portfolio acquired from another company stays under the name on the document unless the assignment is reflected there. This list is meant to carry organisations, not people. Filings held by a named individual are identified by matching the assignee against the inventors on the same search, and, for names written in Chinese, Japanese or Korean characters, by the name carrying no organisational suffix; those are removed from the list (2 of them here). Neither test is exhaustive: the inventor list it matches against is itself capped, and a personal name written in Latin script with no organisational wording in it cannot be told apart from a short company name by rule. So an individually held filing can still appear in the list. Those filings stay inside every total and share on this page either way, so the listed entries can add up to less than the total. A record shown in full further down still names its assignee exactly as the patent office records it, including where that is a person: that name is how the record is identified and checked. What is left out of the ranking is people as ranked entries, not people as cited sources. The table shows the top 22 of the 22 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 22 is not every filer. One patent family can name several filers and each is counted separately, so these rows are not slices of a divided whole: adding them together over-counts, and this page deliberately publishes no combined "top five" share for that reason. See every filer, individuals included

Dates. The year chart counts by earliest filing year, not publication year. A filing only becomes visible once it publishes: roughly 18 months for most routes, and up to 30 months where a PCT application enters national phase. Measured across these pages, the year four back from today still holds only about 89% of its eventual count. 2022 onwards are therefore shaded on the chart as still filling in. The data behind this page was retrieved on 2026-10-27.

Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (11 of 51). Everything else is pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and those states are not broken out here because the underlying codes do not separate them cleanly. Legal status changes continuously and is reported per document, not per family. Get the status breakdown in Eureka

Classification. The technology split uses IPC subclasses (four characters, for example H01M). A single record usually carries several, so the shares add up to more than 100% and a record can appear in more than one bar. Subclass is a coarse grouping; it describes the field a record was classified into, not what the claims cover. Break the classes down to subgroup level

Who wrote the words. The tables, charts, counts, shares and patent numbers on this page are produced directly from the search result by a program; none of them are written or estimated by a language model. The surrounding prose, headings, FAQ answers and the answers in the question panel are drafted by a language model that is given those same figures and is not permitted to introduce others. Prose can still mis-describe a correct figure, so where the two disagree, the tables and charts are the record.

Disclaimer. This page is generated from Patsnap Eureka data drawn from a limited snapshot of global patent and scientific-literature records, and is provided for general information and reference only.

Patent data carries limitations that apply to every figure above. Recent filings are under-counted, because an application is not public until roughly 18 months after filing and database loading adds further delay. The search string defines and constrains everything shown: records that use different terminology, or that sit outside the fields searched, are absent and cannot be counted. Applicant names, classification codes, legal-status codes and citation records are taken as recorded and may contain errors, duplicates, omissions or stale entries. Ordering by volume is not a measure of quality, scope, enforceability or commercial value, and a larger portfolio is not a stronger one. As a result, the analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate and may not reflect the full technology landscape.

Nothing on this page constitutes an exhaustive prior-art, novelty, freedom-to-operate, validity or infringement search, nor does it constitute legal, financial, investment, or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. No attorney-client relationship is created by it. Any patent, commercial, or strategic decision should be verified independently against the primary records and reviewed with qualified patent, legal, and domain professionals. Patsnap makes no warranties, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, or fitness for any particular purpose of the information presented.

The question panel. The answers behind the suggested questions on this page were written when the page was generated, not in response to your click. The progress steps that play before an answer appears are an animation of how that analysis was done; nothing is being searched or computed at that moment. Typing your own question instead opens Patsnap Eureka, which does run it live.

Machine translation. Assignee and organisation names originally recorded in Chinese, Japanese or Korean have been rendered into English by an AI translation step so that the tables stay readable. These renderings are best-effort and may not match a company's registered English name; the original name is what the underlying patent record carries, and it is what any Eureka query launched from this page uses.

Help us improve

Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.