DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Examiner has misinterpreted the height profiles disclosed in Figure S1. Particularly, the arguments center on the disclosure of the PMMA residues on the MoS2 layer which together appears to create a thickness and therefore have materials such as PMMA which are later removed. Independent claim 1 merely requires a “material film” to have a thickness greater than 5nm. It does not recite any specific materials or compositions. Further, although the PMMA material may end up being removed, it is present at some portion of the manufacturing process and the structure is present. For these reasons, Examiner maintains the prior rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hsu (Applicant IDS NPL document 1). There appears to be no substantive amendments since the Written Opinion of PCT/CN2023/089869 was published and therefore, Examiner adopts those findings. Specifically, Hsu discloses in pages 1-12 and figures 1-5, a non-lnear optical crystal structure comprising:
a plurality of two-dimensional material films, wherein the plurality of two-dimensional material films are stacked in a direction perpendicular to a two-dimensional plane thereof, and two-dimensional material films adjacent to each other are bonded by van der Waals forces (S1; page 1),
each of the plurality of two-dimensional material films is a crystal with a center-inversion- asymmetric crystal structure, and has a predetermined lattice orientation parallel to the two- dimensional plane in a direction parallel to the two-dimensional plane (figure S4),
there is a non-zero twist angle between the two-dimensional material films adjacent to each other, and the twist angle is an included angle between predetermined lattice orientations of the two-dimensional material films adjacent to each other in the same two-dimensional plane (figure S4-S5), and
a thickness of each of the plurality of two-dimensional material films is greater than 5 nm (height profile in figure S1).
As to claim 11, the angles claimed are shown in figure S6.
As to claim 12, a crystal structure is disclosed that matches this claim (MoS2 bilayers).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu.
Hsu discloses the layers as claimed except for film count, specific optical coefficients or materials.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to add layers and materials to obtain an optimal optical coefficient.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 and 17-19 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 prior art fails to disclose the recited inequality.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric K Wong whose telephone number is (571)272-2363. The examiner can normally be reached M-Tu, Th-F 8A-6P.
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached at 571-270-1739. 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.
ERIC K. WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2874
/Eric Wong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights