DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the filing of the RCE (with IDS) dated on February 20, 2026. Claims 1-20 have been reconsidered in view of these IDS documents (notably Wilmart WO ‘763 prior art document and JP Reasons for Refusal).
Claims 1-20 remain pending, with claims 1 and 12 in independent form.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 20, 2026 has been entered, and in particular noting the IDS as filed concurrently.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on February 20, 2026, have been considered and made of record (note attached copy of forms PTO-1449).
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.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilmart et al. WO 2019/002763 A1 (see also the English translation found in the IDS dated on 2/20/26). Method of manufacturing claims 1-6, and 8 are also anticipated by the overall device of Wilmart WO ‘763. Note that for the methods claim(s), Wilmart WO ‘763 fully incorporates FR Application 1650171 (see para “[0122][0071]” of Wilmart).
Wilmart et al. WO 2019/002763 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 4, 7A, 7B, 8, 12, 14, 16; corresponding text in English translation, noting in particular paragraphs “[0074][0040] – [0075][0041]”, “[0123][0072]”, description of Fig. 8; Claims) a photonic device (Fig. 8), comprising: a final substrate 60 having a main face; a coupling layer 64/66/70 (combined layer with optical component(s)) having a coupling face (upper face near 70, slightly above 66 in Fig. 8) and an assembly face (lower face of 64 in direction of the lower substrate, Fig. 8) opposite the coupling face, the assembly face of the coupling layer disposed on the main face of the final substrate, the coupling layer comprising at least one first waveguide 25 and at least one second waveguide 36 (and/or 15 in other Figs.), an end of the at least one second waveguide terminated by a first grating coupler 12, the first waveguide comprising a semiconductor monocrystalline material (layer 66 is single crystal), the first waveguide being remote from the coupling face by a first distance D1 (waveguide 25 is slightly set back from 70, Fig. 8) the second waveguide being remote from the coupling face by a second distance D2 (waveguide 36 / 15 is set back from 70 by a greater distance into the “coupling layer”), the second distance D2 being greater than the first distance D1 (see Fig. 8, WG 36 / 15 is deeper in the coupling layer than WG 25); and a first photonic component 30 formed of a first photonic stack (stack of opto-electronic materials shown in Fig. 8), and a second photonic component 40 formed of a second photonic stack (note in particular paragraphs “[0074][0040] – [0075][0041]”, “[0123][0072]” of the English translation regarding this “second photonic component”, element 40 is not shown in the Figs. but the paragraphs explain it would be located thereon, notably as a stack because a photo-detector in the art), the first photonic component being evanescently or adiabatically optically coupled with the at least one first waveguide (element 30 is optical coupled to the WG 25), the second photonic component being optically coupled with the at least one second waveguide via the first grating coupler (element 40 is coupled to the grating / reflector 12 and/or 14), which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural limitations for independent device claim 12.
Regarding dependent claim 14, the second end of the waveguide 36 / 15 of Wilmart WO ‘763 is terminated on another end thereof by a second coupling network of features (grating(s) at the top near the end of sub-layer 66, Fig. 8), and this area allows light to be injected into the waveguide from the (upper) coupling face region.
Regarding the independent method of manufacturing (in claim 1) the photonic device (of claim 12, above), the prior art of Wilmart WO ‘763 teaches that such same structure (all structure resultant by the method of claim 1 is found above in the rejection of claim 12), and in such this structure can be manufactured at least by the methods as outlined by Figure 9 of the France document 1650771 (January 2016). See the Wilmart WO ‘763 English translation on paragraphs “[0122][0071]” in the IDS dated February 20, 2026. Therefore, the same method steps (a) – (c) incorporated as reference (in FR 1650171) and are implied by the device, as is a silicon-on-insulator formation (Figs. 9-11 and paras [0063] – [0064] of FR ‘771). The provided “support structure” of step (a), the “transferring” step (b) of the first and second block of photonic elements 30 / 40, and the forming step (c) for optically coupling sub-element together are all found in the device of Wilmart WO ‘763 in consideration of the method of FR ‘171 (Fig. 9, etc.). Therefore, and based on the device being anticipated in Wilmart WO ‘763, independent claim 1 is anticipated as for the method steps.
Regarding dependent claims 2, 3, and 5, see Figs. 9-11 and paragraphs [0063] – [0064], which are incorporated by reference for the method steps (in FR ‘171), thus all method steps outlined are anticipated.
Regarding claims 4 and 6, see the silicon oxide layer 114 and the layer 64 of WO ‘763, which meets the terms for first sheath layer and second sheath layer, respectively.
Regarding claim 8, the first photonic component of WO ‘763 can meet a laser structural configuration, with laser optics used.
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.
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.
Claims 7, 9-11, 13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilmart et al. WO 2019/002763 A1 (see also the English translation found in the IDS dated on 2/20/26), based on independent claims 1 and 12 being anticipated (see the full 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections above), standing alone. Note that for the methods claim(s), Wilmart WO ‘763 fully incorporates FR Application 1650171 (see para “[0122][0071]” of Wilmart).
Regarding base independent claim 1, Wilmart et al. WO 2019/002763 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 4, 7A, 7B, 8, 12, 14, 16; corresponding text in English translation, noting in particular paragraphs “[0074][0040] – [0075][0041]”, “[0123][0072]”, description of Fig. 8; Claims) a photonic device (Fig. 8), comprising: a final substrate 60 having a main face; a coupling layer 64/66/70 (combined layer with optical component(s)) having a coupling face (upper face near 70, slightly above 66 in Fig. 8) and an assembly face (lower face of 64 in direction of the lower substrate, Fig. 8) opposite the coupling face, the assembly face of the coupling layer disposed on the main face of the final substrate, the coupling layer comprising at least one first waveguide 25 and at least one second waveguide 36 (and/or 15 in other Figs.), an end of the at least one second waveguide terminated by a first grating coupler 12, the first waveguide comprising a semiconductor monocrystalline material (layer 66 is single crystal), the first waveguide being remote from the coupling face by a first distance D1 (waveguide 25 is slightly set back from 70, Fig. 8) the second waveguide being remote from the coupling face by a second distance D2 (waveguide 36 / 15 is set back from 70 by a greater distance into the “coupling layer”), the second distance D2 being greater than the first distance D1 (see Fig. 8, WG 36 / 15 is deeper in the coupling layer than WG 25); and a first photonic component 30 formed of a first photonic stack (stack of opto-electronic materials shown in Fig. 8), and a second photonic component 40 formed of a second photonic stack (note in particular paragraphs “[0074][0040] – [0075][0041]”, “[0123][0072]” of the English translation regarding this “second photonic component”, element 40 is not shown in the Figs. but the paragraphs explain it would be located thereon, notably as a stack because a photo-detector in the art), the first photonic component being evanescently or adiabatically optically coupled with the at least one first waveguide (element 30 is optical coupled to the WG 25), the second photonic component being optically coupled with the at least one second waveguide via the first grating coupler (element 40 is coupled to the grating / reflector 12 and/or 14). Regarding the independent method of manufacturing (in claim 1) the photonic device (of claim 12, above), the prior art of Wilmart WO ‘763 teaches that such same structure (all structure resultant by the method of claim 1 is found above in the rejection of claim 12), and in such this structure can be manufactured at least by the methods as outlined by Figure 9 of the France document 1650771 (January 2016). See the Wilmart WO ‘763 English translation on paragraphs “[0122][0071]” in the IDS dated February 20, 2026. Therefore, the same method steps (a) – (c) incorporated as reference (in FR 1650171) and are implied by the device, as is a silicon-on-insulator formation (Figs. 9-11 and paras [0063] – [0064] of FR ‘771). The provided “support structure” of step (a), the “transferring” step (b) of the first and second block of photonic elements 30 / 40, and the forming step (c) for optically coupling sub-element together are all found in the device of Wilmart WO ‘763 in consideration of the method of FR ‘171 (Fig. 9, etc.).
Regarding further dependent claims 7, 9-11, 13, and 15-20, the prior art of Wilmart WO ‘763 does not expressly and exactly teach each further feature in dependent form, for the overall “photonic device” of claim 12 or the method of manufacturing same in claim 1. However, at a time before the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use features such as those found in the photonic device (optical waveguides, couplers, reflectors, avalanche photodiode, etc.), and the method of manufacturing itself, but also notably the selectable design choices for distances D1 and D2 (less than 150 nm; more than 200 nm) for the 1st and 2nd waveguide depths into the device, because Applicant has not disclosed that using such features provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Wilmart WO ‘763 to perform equally well with such features as the optical dependencies (optical waveguides, couplers, reflectors, avalanche photodiode, etc., and selected distances D1 and D2) because these claim terms would have been easily integrated and would have also been recognized by one with common skill in the art to improve optical signal propagation and the function with a laser, amplifier, photodetector in the integrated opto-electronic design. It would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at those features with a laser / photonic device such as in in Wilmart WO ‘763. Further, the base structure of the sole independent claims 12 (and 1) are clearly anticipated by Willmart WO ‘763, as discussed prior to this section. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to modify (and/or update) Wilmart WO ‘763 to obtain the invention as specified in claims 7, 9-11, 13, and 15-20. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Conclusion
Applicant’s cooperation is respectfully requested to amend substantial structure (for claim 12) and method step features (for claim 1) based on the very close prior art of Wilmart WO ‘763.
Because a timely RCE was filed on February 20, 2026, this office action is made NON-FINAL. The normal statutory periods for reply to a non-final rejection will apply.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Petkovsek whose telephone number is (571) 272-4174. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 6 PM.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. 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.
/DANIEL PETKOVSEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 March 4, 2026