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 Election 1. Applicant's election of claims 16-28 on November 29 , 20 23 , is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.03(a)). Claims 1-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 29 , 20 23 . The requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL . Information Disclosure Statement 2. The references disclosed within the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 30 , 20 23 , has been considered and initialed by the Examiner . Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102(a)(1) 3 . 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. 4 . Claims 16-17 , 20-22, 25-26 are rejected 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). Velicky discloses large area molybdenum disulfide monolayers ( van der Waals layers (MoS 2 ) ) (Abstract and page 10472 ) . Velicky discloses macroscopic monolayers and indicates the layers have a strong van der Waals interaction (page 10472, fourth paragraph) , 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” 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). Concerning claim 17, Because Velicky discloses a t least two macroscopic monolayers with the same materials as claimed and preferentially disclosed, the article of Velicky will inherently possess the nonlinear optical properties claimed. Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties. Therefore, because Velicky has the same chemical structure, the properties, including nonlinear optical properties are necessarily present. MPEP 2112.01 II. Concerning claim 20, Velicky discloses large area molybdenum disulfide monolayers ( van der Waals layers (MoS 2 ) , heteromultilayer ) (Abstract and page 10472 ) . Concerning claims 21-22, Velicky discloses large area molybdenum disulfide monolayers ( van der Waals layers (MoS 2 ) , heteromultilayer) (Abstract and page 10472 ) where instant claim 22 discloses transition metal dichalcogenide monolayers can include MoS 2 layers. Concerning claims 25-26, Velicky discloses large area molybdenum disulfide monolayers ( van der Waals layers (MoS 2 ) , heteromultilayer) (Abstract and page 10472 ) where instant claim 22 discloses transition metal dichalcogenide monolayers can include MoS 2 layers. Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103 5 . 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. 6 . Claims 18 -19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velicky et al., "Mechanism of Gold-Assisted Exfoliation of Centimeter-Sized Transition-Metal Dichalcogenide Monolayers," ACS Nano 12: 10463-10472 (2018). Velicky discloses large area molybdenum disulfide monolayers ( van der Waals layers (MoS2) ) (Abstract and page 10472 ) . Velicky discloses macroscopic monolayers and indicates the layers have a strong van der Waals interaction (page 10472, fourth paragraph) . Velicky does not appear to explicitly teach the orientation difference of the monolayers , however substantially identical materials treated in a substantially identical manner are expected to have substantially identical properties. In the present case the macroscopic monolayers are carried out using material (MoS2) and process conditions which are substantially identical to those disclosed by applicants. Therefore the macroscopic monolayers discussed above would be expected to meet the claimed orientation difference, as in claim s 18 -19 . In claim 18, the phrase, “first and single crystal monolayers are adapted for reassembly into an artificial lattice” constitutes a “capable of” limitation and that such a recitation that an element is ‘capable of’ performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. C laim Objection 7 . Claims 23-24, 27 -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 the non-linear optical properties comprise second harmonic generation. 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 of the first of the two or more macroscopic single crystal monolayers and of the second of the two or more macroscopic single crystal monolayers are different. The prior art does not teach motivation or suggestion for modification to make the invention as instantly claimed. Conclusion 8 . 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