DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/08/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments (see Remarks dated 01/08/2026) with respect to claims 18-27 have been considered, but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection.
In the Advisory Action dated 12/29/2025, the examiner explained that the applicant’s proposed amendment of “nanorods having an orientation that is uniform and non-random” (claim 18) would introduce 112(a) new matter issues. The examiner provided citations from applicant’s disclosure to demonstrate how the proposed amendment would not be supported.
In their new arguments, applicant has provided explicit definitions for “uniform” and “non-random.” These terms are discussed in the 112(a) new matter rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 USC 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 USC 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
5. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 18, the applicant claims “nanorods having an orientation that is uniform and non-random.” In their arguments (Remarks dated 01/08/2026), applicant explicitly defines “uniform” as “presenting an unvaried appearance of pattern,” and “non-random” as “having a pattern that is definite.” In other words, applicant argues that the nanorods of claim 1 have an orientation “that presents an unvaried appearance of a pattern that is definite.”
However, applicant’s Figure 24E (provided below, with black arrows added by the examiner) is at odds with the above description. Figure 24E illustrates nanorods whose orientation(s) vary greatly and do not appear definite. Certain portions of nanorods are oriented nearly 90° differently from each other.
PNG
media_image1.png
443
551
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, applicant’s newly provided definitions for “uniform” and “non-random” are not supported by the disclosure. While uniformity of the nanorods’ orientation is discussed in the specification, it is not supported (at least) by Figure 24E. Further, the applicant’s specification makes no mention of “non-randomness” (as stated in the Advisory Action dated 12/29/2025), and non-randomness is not supported by the applicant’s drawings.
The applicant should amend the disclosure such that this new matter is omitted, or argue how the newly claimed subject matter is supported.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
7. Claims 18-20 and 22-27 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivas et al. (US 20130000952 A1, of record) in view of Buretea et al. (US 20040095658 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Srinivas discloses an optical device ([0197], 900) polarizing light ([0197], 904 and 930), comprising:
a sintered solid film of nanorods ([0212]) having an orientation that is uniform ([0058]-[0059]);
wherein said sintered solid film is optically anisotropic (Fig. 1A, as a result of having differently oriented nanorods) and is free-standing (Fig. 1A); and
wherein said sintered solid film is transparent to light (Abstract, transparent conductor) and has a selected birefringence range over a selected wavelength range of the light (Fig. 1, the film inherently has a birefringence range, as a result of being optically anisotropic).
Srinivas fails to explicitly disclose nanorods having an orientation that is non-random.
However, Buretea teaches an optical waveguide comprising nanostructures (Abstract), and discloses nanowires having an orientation that is non-random ([0010])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Srinivas and Buretea such that the nanorods had an orientation that was non-random, motivated by “increas[ing] the efficiency of the waveguide” ([0010]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Srinivas discloses wherein said sintered solid film has a thickness in the range of 1-10 micrometers (Srinivas - [0057]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Srinivas discloses wherein said sintered solid film has an area on the order of a square cm or greater (Srinivas - [0196], windows and windshields).
Regarding claim 22, modified Srinivas discloses wherein said nanorods have anisotropic shapes (Srinivas - Fig. 1A, 130) that include at least one of cylinder-shaped rods and ellipsoid-shaped rods (Srinivas - Fig. 1A, rods 130), with widths in the range of 10-40 nanometers (Srinivas - [0030]-[0041]) and aspect ratios of 4 or more (Srinivas - [0058]).
Regarding claim 23, modified Srinivas discloses wherein said sintered solid film has an optical transparency exceeding 90 percent (Srinivas - [0068], 98% transmittance).
Regarding claim 24, modified Srinivas discloses wherein said nanorods are ZnO (Srinivas - [0060]).
Regarding claim 25, modified Srinivas discloses wherein said sintered solid film exhibits total birefringence that exceeds the native birefringence of said nanorods (Srinivas - Fig. 1A, the cumulative birefringence of the rods is inherently greater than that of a single rod).
Regarding claim 26, Srinivas discloses wherein the nanorods comprise one or more of titanium dioxide, lanthanum phosphate, zinc oxide (Srinivas - [0060]), and calcite.
Regarding claim 27, modified Srinivas discloses wherein the nanorods are oriented in essentially the same direction along a surface (Srinivas - Fig. 1A, 130).
Regarding claim 28, modified Srinivas discloses wherein an orientation that is uniform and non-random includes one of the following:
an orientation that is parallel to a surface of the film;
an orientation that is orthogonal to a surface of the film (Buretea - [0010]);
an orientation that is obliquely angled relative to a surface of the film; and
an orientation that is helical about an axis normal to a surface of the film;
8. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivas in view of Buretea, and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 20170035687 A, of record).
Regarding claim 21, modified Srinivas fails to disclose wherein said selected birefringence range is 0.015-0.40 over visible and near infrared light.
However, Kim teaches an optically anisotropic film of nanorods, wherein a selected birefringence range is 0.015-0.40 ([0185]) over visible and near infrared light ([0185]-[0186]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Srinivas and Kim such a birefringence range was 0.015-0.40 over visible and near infrared light, motivated by maintaining versatility for different optical applications (Kim - [0185]).
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Jeffery Jordan whose telephone number is 571-270-7641. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30a-6:00p.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/D. J. J./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872