DETAILED ACTION Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-10, and the species of E-beam evaporation, Ag and transition metal chalcogenide in the reply filed on 10/22/2025 is acknowledged. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.— The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 1 -10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 1 requires that the number of layers to be “exploited” is determined by controlling an internal stress of the metal film. Initially, it is not clear what is intended by “exploited” or if this is intended to be “exfoliated”. Claim Interpretation Claim 1 will produce a metal film and the metal will have some internal stress – but the method will produce be one single film, but the claim is comparing the claimed metal film to apparently metal films that are not produced by the method and would apparently include a different number of layers if produced . This feature is not indefinite but will be interpreted broadly. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 4-10 a re rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (2022/0033265) . Lee teaches forming 2D material with a number of layers, comprising: - depositing a metal thin film on the surface of a bulk material, see [0009], and Fig. 1, - exfoliating a 2D material from the surface of the bulk material with the metal thin film – see the “step of exfoliating” per Fig. 1, and - transferring the 2D material onto a substrate, see “step of transferring” of Fig. 1 . In regard to the stress , the film is deposited with a certain stress. A certain number of layers are exfoliated, and therefore the limitation is met. Regarding claims 4 and 5 , the teachings include removing the metal film (Fig. 1) by employing an etchant (claim 8). Regarding claim s 6 -9 , the gold metal layer is formed by e-beam evaporation and the bulk material is graphite or otherwise exemplified as MoSe2 [0032-35, 49]. Regarding claim 10 , thermal release tape is used as per Fig. 1 and related text. Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le e in view of Kim (2021/0351033). The teachings of Lee are described above, they include depositing a metal film, but not reducing the internal stress of the film. Kim teaches a similar process wherein layers are deposited on a material in order t o exfoliate material from a substrate (Figs. 2 for example) and teaches that it is useful to control a deposited film thickness in order to control the stress in the layers and the exfoliation [0035-39]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to control the thickness of the metal layer of Lee in order to control the exfoliation as Kim teaches that in such a process of applying a layer to effect exfoliation, it is useful to control the exfoliation. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art, while teaching a stress relation to the exfoliation of layers, does not teach controlling the stress of the deposited film to a particular point to effect exfoliation as defined by claim 3 . It is noted that the species would be withdrawn upon acceptance of allowable material, however, the product claims are not subject to rejoinder. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5825 and fax is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-6825 . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Gordon Baldwin , can be reached on 571-272- 5166 . The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715