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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. This action is in response to the amendment filed July 2, 2026.
Claim 16 was amended, rendering claims 1-28 pending, with claims 1-15 withdrawn as a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
2. 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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
3. Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy et al. (U.S. 6,503,321).
Levy discloses single-crystal films having second harmonic generation (column 11, lines 16-25), as in claim 16. In claim 16, the phrases, “for creating a macroscopic artificial lattice” and “configured for assembly into an artificial lattice based on one or more properties, wherein the one or more properties comprise nonlinear optical properties comprising second harmonic generation” is a intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). In claim 16, the phrase, “adapted from a bulk van der Waals crystal” introduces a process limitation to the product claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a structure having single crystal monolayers. The reference suggests such a product because Levy discloses single-crystal films having second harmonic generation (column 11, lines 16-25).
Concerning claim 20, Figure 3 of Levy shows the single-crystal films (32) create a heterobilayer.
Claim Objection
4. Claims 18-19, 21-22, 24-28 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 closest prior art does not teach or suggest the recited composition further including where a first of the two or more macroscopic single crystal monolayers has an orientation difference from a second of the two or more macroscopic single crystal monolayers, where the first and single crystal monolayers are adapted for reassembly into an artificial lattice.
The closest prior art does not teach or suggest the recited composition further including where the two or more macroscopic single crystal monolayers are transition metal dichalcogenide monolayers. The closest prior art does not teach or suggest the recited composition further including where a configuration of the monolayers includes an angular and/or lattice mismatch. The closest prior art does not teach or suggest the recited composition further including where the transition metal dichalcogenide is chosen from the group consisting of MoS2, WS2, MoSe2, WS2, WSe2, MoTe2, and MoS2.
The prior art does not teach motivation or suggestion for modification to make the invention as instantly claimed.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s argument of the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Velicky et al., "Mechanism of Gold-Assisted Exfoliation of Centimeter-Sized Transition-Metal Dichalcogenide Monolayers," ACS Nano 12: 10463-10472 (2018) is moot based on grounds of new rejection.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lawrence Ferguson whose telephone number is 571-272-1522. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 9:00 AM – 5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Frank Vineis, can be reached on 571-270-1547. The fax phone 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).
/LAWRENCE D FERGUSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights