- DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This action is in response to amendment filed on 8/22/2025, in which claims 1, 4 - 5, 7 – 10, 12 – 13, 15 – 17, and 20 was amended, and claims 1 – 20 was presented for further examination.
3. Claims 1 – 20 are now pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/22/2025 has been reviewed and entered into the record. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed 2/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. (see Remarks below).
Remarks
6. As per rejection of claims 1 – 20 under 35 USC 101, applicant argues in substance in pages 7 – 10 that the claim is not an abstract idea and is directed to improvement of GPU-based ray tracing.
In response to applicant’s argument, the claims are directed to configured circuitry or CPU not GPU and the claimed element can be interpreted as restructuring a node within hierarchical data structure, where a node can be moved from one position to another within the hierarchy. Using a computer to perform this function amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Thus, the claims are not statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Duplicate Claims
7. Claims 17 – 19 and 20 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 1 – 3 and 7 respectively . When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
8. Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 1,
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a system, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the limitation of
access data corresponding to a bounding volume hierarchy (BVH) comprising a plurality of nodes, the BVH having a first surface area (Mental Process performed in the mind using pen and paper).
modify the data by repositioning a first node from a first location to a second location based at least in part on a randomly generated value (Mental Process performed in the mind using a pen and a paper).
wherein the repositioning results in a second surface area greater than the first surface area (Mental Process performed in the mind (i.e. judgement)).
and perform a ray tracing operation using the BVH (Mental Process performed in the mind (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of
access data corresponding to a bounding volume hierarchy (BVH) comprising a plurality of nodes, the BVH having a first surface area (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
modify the data by repositioning a first node from a first location to a second location based at least in part on a randomly generated value (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
wherein the repositioning results in a second surface area greater than the first surface area (the step is directed to judging information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Although the additional element limits the identified judicial exceptions. The limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (machine learning) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional element
wherein the repositioning results in a second surface area greater than the first surface area (the step is directed to processing information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
and perform a ray tracing operation using the BVH (the step is directed to receiving information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
As explained above, the additional element are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to evaluating information are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The recitation of a computer to perform these limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to modify the data responsive to a calculated probability being greater than the randomly generated value (Mathematical Concept: Mathematical computation of organizing information with the aid of pen and paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of “processing circuitry is configured to modify the data responsive to a calculated probability being greater than the randomly generated value” are no more than using a generic computer to evaluate the information. The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
wherein the probability is calculated at least in part based on a difference between the first surface area and the second surface area (Mathematical Concept: Mathematical computation of organizing information with the aid of pen and paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of “wherein the probability is calculated at least in part based on a difference between the first surface area and the second surface area” are no more than using a generic computer to evaluate the information. The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
a decision as to whether to reposition the first node is influenced by a perturbation derived from a randomly generated value (Mathematical Concept: Mathematical computation of organizing information with the aid of pen and paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of “a decision as to whether to reposition the first node is influenced by a perturbation derived from a randomly generated value” are no more than using a generic computer to evaluate the information. The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
iteratively process a plurality of locations within the BVH to select the second location; generate, during each iteration, the randomly generated value; and reject a given location of the plurality of locations as a candidate location for repositioning the first node, responsive to the randomly generated value being lower than a threshold (Mathematical Concept: Mathematical computation of organizing information with the aid of pen and paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of “iteratively process a plurality of locations within the BVH to select the second location; generate, during each iteration, the randomly generated value; and reject a given location of the plurality of locations as a candidate location for repositioning the first node, responsive to the randomly generated value being lower than a threshold” are no more than using a generic computer to evaluate the information. The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to generate the value as a clamped sine function (Mathematical Concept: Mathematical computation of organizing information with the aid of pen and paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of “wherein the processing circuitry is configured to generate the value as a clamped sine function” are no more than using a generic computer to evaluate the information. The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
calculate a third surface area corresponding to repositioning the first node to a third location, wherein the third surface area is less than the first surface area, generate a probability value based at least in part on a difference between the first surface area and the third surface area, and modify the data to reposition the first node to the third location, responsive to the probability value exceeding a randomly generated value. (Mathematical Concept: Mathematical computation of organizing information with the aid of pen and paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of “calculate a third surface area corresponding to repositioning the first node to a third location, wherein the third surface area is less than the first surface area, generate a probability value based at least in part on a difference between the first surface area and the third surface area, and modify the data to reposition the first node to the third location, responsive to the probability value exceeding a randomly generated value” are no more than using a generic computer to evaluate the information. The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 9 – 16 recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. As per other analysis, claim 9 - 16 are method claim correspond to system claims 1 – 8 respectively, thus the rationale discussed above regarding claims 1 – 8 are applied to claims 9 – 16.
Claims 17 – 19 and 20 recites a system (central processing unit) is a system claim corresponding to system (circuitry configure) claims 1 – 3 and 7 respectively, and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection to the rejection of claims 1 – 3 and 7 respectively above.
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.
9. Claims 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davison (US 2023/0334777 A1), in view of Tessari et al (US 20230377267 A1), and further in view of Xiao et al (US 2020/0211260 A1).
As per claim 1, Davison (US 2023/0334777 A1) discloses,
A system comprising: processing circuitry configured to: access data corresponding to a bounding volume hierarchy (BVH)comprising a plurality of nodes (para.[0008]; “BVH is used in the ray traversal mechanism to search for geometric primitives with which a modelled ray intersects” and para.[0016]; “searching for at least one respective candidate reinsertion which would move the respective input node from an old parent to a new parent in the tree”).
BVH having a first surface area (para.[0012]; “scoring each candidate reinsertion according to the SAH metric to determine which would be beneficial (i.e. would reduce the expected computational cost), and then selecting to execute at least some of these reinsertions (i.e. updating the BVH with the selected reinsertions)” and para.[0092]; “Only if the move (in isolation*) reduces the overall SAH will it be executed by actually updating tree. (*There could be a situation where when two particular reinsertions are executed, with one making the other actually increase the SAH”).
modify the data by repositioning a first node from a first location to a second location (para.[0099]; “reinserting the node may increase the bounds of nodes above, increasing SAH”).
based at least in part on a randomly generated value (NOTE: para.[0109]; “selecting all the reinsertions from the list, or taking a random selection”).
wherein the repositioning results in a second surface area greater than the first surface area (NOTE: para.[0092]; “candidate reinsertions—moving a node from one parent to another in the tree. ………. (*There could be a situation where when two particular reinsertions are executed, with one making the other actually increase the SAH”)”.
and perform a ray tracing operation using the BVH (para.[0130]; “triggers the ray traversal unit 106 to go ahead with performing ray traversal based on the latest version of the BVH now stored in the BVH storage”).
Davidson does not specifically discloses based at least in part on a randomly generated value.
However, Tessari et al (US 20230377267 A1) in an analogous art discloses,
based at least in part on a randomly generated value (para.[0646]; “uniformly distributed random number is generated in the range [0 . . . 127] as a ray comparison mask”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate BVH construction method of the system of Tessari into candidate reinsertion of the system of Davison to insert node into tree through minimal cost of searching.
Neither Davidson nor Tessari specifically disclose Davidson does not specifically disclose wherein the repositioning results in a second surface area greater than the first surface area.
However, Xiao et al (US 2020/0211260 A1) in an analogous art discloses,
wherein the repositioning results in a second surface area greater than the first surface area (para.[0348]; “BVH refit operations with bottom-up bounding box updating:
(a) a node needs to be enlarged, due to the expanding of its child nodes or changing of positions of its child nodes”, where enlarging BVH is analogous to “surface area greater than the first surface area” as claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate node refitting of the system of Xiao into BVH construction method of the system of Tessari for changing the position of node within bounding volume hierarchy, thereby improving ray tracing operations.
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further Tessari et al (US 20230377267 A1) discloses,
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to modify the data responsive to a calculated probability being greater than the randomly generated value (para.[0642]; “For any given ray, one random bit is selected in the ray-mask to achieve a random selection of either LOD0 (with a probability of 0.25) and LOD1 (with a probability of 0.75)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate BVH construction method of the system of Tessari into candidate reinsertion of the system of Davison to insert node into tree through minimal cost of searching.
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated and further Tessari et al (US 20230377267 A1) discloses,
wherein the probability is calculated at least in part based on a difference between the first surface area and the second surface area (para.[0157]; “the selection probabilities of each primitive are proportional to a measure, such as their bounding box diagonals over the area” and para.[1115]; “absolute change can be computed by subtracting the previous bounding box surface areas from the updated ones”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate BVH construction method of the system of Tessari into candidate reinsertion of the system of Davison to insert node into tree through minimal cost of searching.
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Davison (US 2023/0334777 A1) and Tessari et al (US 20230377267 A1) discloses,
wherein a decision as to whether to reposition the first node is influenced by a perturbation derived from a randomly generated value (Tessari: para.[0642]; “given ray, one random bit is selected in the ray-mask to achieve a random selection of either LOD0 (with a probability of 0.25) and LODl (with a probability of 0.75)” and Davison: para.[0011]; “reinsertion comprises taking an “input node” (one of the child nodes in the existing BVH) and considering moving it to a different part of the tree. The bounds of the affected nodes will be shrunk or grown to accommodate the moving of the input node).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate BVH construction method of the system of Tessari into candidate reinsertion of the system of Davison to insert node into tree through minimal cost of searching.
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated and further Davison (US 2023/0334777 A1) discloses,
the processing circuitry is further configured to: iteratively process a plurality of locations within the BVH to select the second location (para.[0011]; “iteratively
considers different possible "reinsertions". Each possible reinsertion comprises taking an "input node" ( one of the child nodes in the existing BVH) and considering moving it
to a different part of the tree”).
generate, during each iteration, the randomly generated value and reject a given location of the plurality of locations as a candidate location for repositioning the first node, responsive to the randomly generated value being lower than a threshold (para.[0135]; “determination is made based on whether a convergence threshold has been reached. There are diminishing returns with each iteration, so once the SAH reductions converge to below some predetermined threshold level”).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated and further Tessari et al (US 20230377267 A1) discloses,
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to generate the value as a clamped sine function (para.[0792]; “then clamps to the specified minimum and maximum values (e.g., setting to the maximum for any values above the maximum and setting to the minimum for any values below min)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate BVH construction method of the system of Tessari into candidate reinsertion of the system of Davison to insert node into tree through minimal cost of searching.
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Davison (US 2023/0334777 A1) and Tessari et al (US 20230377267 A1) discloses,
calculate a third surface area corresponding to repositioning the first node to a third location (para.[0012]; “Once the selected reinsertions of the current iteration
have been executed, the method loops around to another iteration where it considers further possible reinsertions from the new starting point of the newly updated BVH”).
wherein the third surface area is less than the first surface area (para.[0092]; “moving a node from one parent to another in the tree. Only if the move (in isolation*) reduces the overall SAH will it be executed by actually updating tree”).
generate a probability value based at least in part on a difference between the first surface area and the third surface area and modify the data to reposition the first node to the third location, responsive to the probability value exceeding a randomly generated value. (para.[0099]; “reinserting the node may increase the bounds of nodes above, increasing SAH” and (Tessari: para.[0157]; “the selection probabilities of each primitive are proportional to a measure, such as their bounding box diagonals over the area” and para.[1115]; “absolute change can be computed by subtracting the previous bounding box surface areas from the updated ones”).
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated and further Davison (US 2023/0334777 A1) discloses,
wherein the repositioning of the first node may be performed for a move resulting in a higher or lower surface area, based on a calculated probability exceeding a random threshold (claim 5; “the candidate reinsertion increases a number of child nodes at the new parent or adds a new node to the data structure as the new parent”).
Claims 9 – 16 are method claim corresponding to method claims 1 – 8 respectively, and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection to the rejection of claims 1 – 8 respectively above.
Claims 17 – 19 and 20 are system claim corresponding to system claims 1 – 3 and 7 respectively and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection to the rejection of claims 1 – 3 and 7 respectfully above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 AUGUSTINE K. OBISESAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2020. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at (571) 272-3906. 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.
/AUGUSTINE K. OBISESAN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2156
12/9/2025