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 final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/6/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 6-13 and 16-24 remain pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argued that “The boxes N611, N614, and N615 are not box nodes but are instead bounding volumes. Figure 6B of Babu shows the tree structure of the BVH, including the nodes. This tree structure does not indicate what bounding volumes are included in each node,” (Remarks, pages 8-9). The examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion because a person skilled in the art would recognize that Fig. 6A is a two-dimensional (2D) representation of a BVH while Fig. 6B is a corresponding tree representation of it. That is, each node (or box node) in Fig. 6B has a corresponding bounding volume in Fig. 6A. This fact is supported in par. 69 of Babu which refers to the BVH tree 900 in Fig. 9 as an example: “each of the nodes depicted in FIG. 9 (e.g., node 911, node 922, node 923, node 924, node 925, node 926, node 927, node 932, node 933, node 934, node 935, node 936, and node 937) may correspond to a bounding box”. Furthermore, the present application also describes this bounding volume-node correspondence in Fig. 4, which illustrates a 2D representation of a conventional BVH and its corresponding tree representation. Note the similarity between Fig. 4 of the present application and Figs. 6A-6B of Babu.
Applicant further argued “Figure 6A of Babu does not show a bounding volume hierarchy but instead illustrates the geometric relationships between the bounding volumes associated with the hierarchy of Figure 6B. Figure 6B illustrates a set of nodes, but does not specify what bounding volumes are specified within which nodes,” (Remarks, page 9). Again, the examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion because Fig. 6A of Babu indeed shows a 2D representation of a bounding volume hierarchy. Refer again to Fig. 4 of the present application which shows a similar drawing. Par. 35, in association with Fig. 4, discloses: “FIG. 4 is an illustration of a bounding volume hierarchy, according to an example. For simplicity, the hierarchy is shown in 2D. However, extension to 3D is simple, and it should be understood that the tests described herein would generally be performed in three dimensions”. Fig. 4 is understood to illustrate a conventional BVH.
Applicant also argued “it is true that the bounding volume N611 encloses various other bounding volumes. However, the box node for N611 (N661) is not described as having bounding volumes specified within it. Moreover, even if it were to be assumed that box node N611 (the "parent node") specifies both the bounding volume for N662 and the bounding volume for N663, these two bounding volumes do not "encloses different geometry of a first child box node of the parent box node." In particular, the bounding volume for node N662 encloses its own geometry, and the bounding volume for node N663 encloses its own geometry. These two geometries are separate. For example, see N612 and N613 (the bounding volumes for node N662 and N663). These two bounding volumes are separate and not overlapping. Thus the bounding volumes specified by the parent node N611 do not enclose different portions of geometry of the same child node of N611,” (Remarks, pages 9-10). However, in the previous rejection, the examiner indicated that box node N611 specifies both the bounding volumes for box nodes N664 and N665 (i.e. bounding volumes N614 and N615, respectively). As can be seen in Fig. 6A, each of these two bounding volumes encloses a different portion of bounding volume N612, which corresponds to box node N662. Box node N662 could be viewed as the first child box node of the parent box node N661.
Illustration of 'Prior Art' Figure
Figures 4-7 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated (Pars. 35-36, 41-42 and 45-49 suggest that the BVH of Figs. 4-7 are conventional BVH). See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 10-13, 16 and 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramesh Babu et al. (Pub. No. 2024/0070964; “Babu” hereinafter), in view of Rabbani Rankouhi et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0036639; “Rankouhi” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Babu discloses a method for performing ray tracing operations, the method comprising:
testing(Par. 55: “FIG. 6A depicts a ray-box intersection for internal nodes N611-N617”. For examining purposes, the two bounding boxes N614 and N615 are being interpreted as “a plurality of bounding boxes”), wherein each of the plurality of bounding boxes is specified within the same parent box node of a bounding volume hierarchy (As shown in the tree representation of Fig. 6B, the parent box node N661 (corresponding to bounding volume N611 in Fig. 6A) specifies the two bounding boxes N614 and N615 (corresponding to the two respective box nodes N664 and N665 in Fig. 6B). Note that Fig. 6A is a two-dimensional (2D) representation of a BVH, as is well known in the art), and wherein each bounding box of the plurality of bounding boxes encloses different geometry of a first child box node of the parent box node (As shown in Figs. 6A and 6B, bounding box N614 (represented by box node N664) encloses a first portion of the box node N662 (represented by bounding volume N612), and bounding box N615 (represented by box node N665) encloses a second portion of the box node N662. Box node N662 could be viewed as a first child box node of parent box node N661);
determining that at least one of the plurality of bounding boxes is intersected by the ray; and in response to the determining, traversing to the first child box node (Par. 56: “the stages of ray tracing may include: bounding volume hierarchy construction and refinement, ray generation, bounding volume hierarchy traversal”. In particular, traversing a BVH based on ray-box intersections is well known in the art. In the example of Figs. 6A and 6B, the first child box node N662 of the parent box node N661 is also the parent box node of the two box nodes N664 and N665. According to the conventional BVH traversal, when at least one of the two box nodes N664 and N665 is intersected by a ray, the parent box node N662 is traversed).
Babu, however, does not disclose testing the plurality of bounding boxes in parallel.
In the same field of ray tracing, Rankouhi teaches a ray intersection circuitry that traverses a spatially organized acceleration data structure and includes bounding region circuitry configured to test, in parallel, whether a ray intersects multiple different bounding regions indicated by a node of the data structure (See the abstract and step 370 in Fig. 3B).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Rankouhi into Babu by testing the plurality of bounding boxes for intersection in parallel. The motivation would have been to improve performance, reduce power consumption, or both, relative to traditional techniques (Rankouhi, abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Babu in view of Rankouhi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the parent box node has box data items that specify the bounding boxes (Babu, par. 72: “aspects presented herein may store the individual bounding boxes for nodes in bottom-level BVH structure 920 (e.g., data for node 922 and node 923, as well as data for node 924, node 925, node 926, and node 927) and nodes in bottom-level BVH structure 930 (e.g., data for node 932 and node 933, as well as data for node 934, node 935, node 936, and node 937) directly in the leaf nodes of top-level BVH structure 910 (e.g., node 911)… In some aspects, if a certain number of bounding boxes (e.g., 4 bounding boxes) in a node are intersected, these bounding boxes may be added directly to the leaf node of the top-level BVH structure 910”. Referring to Fig. 6A of Babu again, nodes N614 and N615 could be added directly to the leaf node of the top-level node N611. If this is the case, parent box node N611 would have two pointers referencing the two bounding boxes of nodes N614 and N615. These two pointers could be interpreted as box data items).
Regarding claim 3, Babu in view of Rankouhi teaches the method of claim 2, wherein geometry of a second child node of the first child box node is bounded by a first bounding box of the plurality of bounding boxes (Refer to Fig. 6A, geometry of node N615 (a second child node of the first child node N612 of the parent box node N611) is bounded by the bounding box encompassing O623 and O624) , and the geometry of the second child node is not bounded by a second bounding box of the plurality of bounding boxes (As can be seen in Fig. 6A, O623 and O624 are not bounded by the bounding box encompassing O621 and O622).
Regarding claim 6, Babu in view of Rankouhi teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising modifying an original version of the bounding volume hierarchy to generate the bounding volume hierarchy (Babu, pars. 72-73. In particular, the BVH in Fig. 6 could be modified to generate the BVH shown in Fig. 9, where bounding boxes in the lower levels could be added directly to the leaf node of the parent box node).
Regarding claim 10, Babu in view of Rankouhi teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising generating the bounding volume hierarchy without modifying an original version (Fig. 6B of Babu shows a BVH corresponding to Fig. 6A. This BVH is an original, unmodified version).
Claims 11-13 and 16 recite similar limitations as respective claims 1-3 and 6, but are directed to a corresponding system. Since Babu also discloses such a system (See Fig. 1), these claims could be rejected under the same rationales set forth in the rejections of their respective claims.
Claims 20-23 recite similar limitations as respective claims 1-3 and 6, but are directed to a computer-readable medium storing instructions programmed to implement the steps recited in the respective claims 1-3 and 6. Since Babu also discloses such a computer-readable medium (See Claim 30, for example), these claims could be rejected under the same rationales set forth in the rejections of their respective claims.
Claim(s) 7, 17 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babu in view of Rankouhi as applied to respective claims 6, 16 and 23 above, and further in view of Wald (Pub. No. US 2018/0190013).
Regarding claim 7, Babu in view of Rankouhi teaches the method of claim 6, .
In the same field of ray tracing, Wald teaches using a NULL pointer to indicate a leaf node (See par. 185). A NULL pointer could be viewed as an empty box data item.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Wald into Babu by using a NULL pointer in a parent node to indicate a leaf child node. The motivation would have been to save memory space.
Claim 17 recites similar limitation as claim 7, but is directed to a corresponding system. Since Babu also discloses such a system (See Fig. 1), claim 17 could be rejected under the same rationale set forth in the rejection of claim 7.
Claim 24 recites similar limitation as claim 7, but is directed to a computer-readable medium storing instructions programmed to implement the step recited in claim 7. Since Babu also discloses such a computer-readable medium (See Claim 30, for example), claim 24 could be rejected under the same rationale set forth in the rejection of claim 7.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babu in view of Rankouhi and Wald as applied to respective claims 7 and 17 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0189096).
Regarding claim 8, Babu in view of Rankouhi and Wald teaches the method of claim 7, .
In the same field of endeavor, Wu renders the above limitations obvious (See par. 52 of Wu. In particular, in the original BVH 807, parent box node 802(7) has a single pointer that points to child node 804(4). In view of Wald, this pointer could be a NULL pointer. As a result, the original BVH 807 modified into BVH 809 where parent box node 802(7) is modified to have two pointers, one pointing to child node 806(7) and one pointing to child node 806(8)).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Babu by splitting an original box data item of the original version of the parent box node in response to the original version of the parent box node include the one or more empty box data items, as suggested by Wu. The motivation would have been to support the subdivision of primitives.
Regarding claim 9, Babu in view of Rankouhi, Wald and Wu teaches the method of claim 8, wherein splitting the original box data item results in generating the two or more box data items, each of which includes a pointer that points to the first child box node (Wu, par. 52: “The BVH builder 801 sets the parent of leaf node 804(4) to be both of the added bounding boxes 806(7) and 806(8) rather than box node 802(7)”).
Claims 18-19 recite similar limitations as respective claims 8-9, but are directed to a corresponding system. Since Babu also discloses such a system (See Fig. 1), these claims could be rejected under the same rationales set forth in the rejections of their respective claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG X NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1591. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 5pm EST.
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, King Poon can be reached at (571)272-7440. 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.
/PHONG X NGUYEN/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2617