CTNF 18/126,401 CTNF 88528 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claims 1-24 are present for examination. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “sampling weight generator” and “sampler” in claim 1, “primitive sampler” and “importance sampler” in claim 3, and “importance sampler” in claims 5-7. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. Claims 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they recite “machine-readable medium”. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319(Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01 . The Specification only gives an example of “machine-readable medium” (see Specification, para. [0723], disclosing computer machine-readable media such as non-transitory computer machine-readable storage media and transitory computer machine-readable communication media (… such as carrier waves, infrared signals, digital signals, etc.)). Thus, the definition of Applicant’s machine-readable medium in the disclosure provides an open ended listing of machine-readable medium fails to limit the claim to only non-transitory tangible media, and therefore is non-statutory. See 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (February 23, 2010). Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) abstract idea. MPEP 2106 III provides a flowchart for the subject matter eligibility test for product and processes. The claim analysis following the flowchart is as follows: Regarding claim 9 , it recites: A method comprising: determining each sampling weight of a plurality of sampling weights associated with a corresponding plurality of input primitives based on a surface area or diagonal of a bounding box of a corresponding input primitive and a plurality of distance values corresponding to distances between the input primitive and a corresponding plurality of neighboring input primitives; sampling input primitives to identify a representative subset of the input primitives based, at least in part, on the plurality of sampling weights; constructing an approximate bounding volume hierarchy (BVH) based on the representative subset of input primitives; inserting input primitives not in the representative subset into leaves of the approximate BVH; and constructing a final BVH based on the primitives inserted into the leaves of the approximate BVH. Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes. It recites a method, which is a process. Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or nature phenomenon? Yes. The step of determining each sampling weigh based on surface area or diagonal of bounding box and distance values can be considered as mathematical concept because such determining involves mathematical calculations and/or relationship regarding surface area, diagonal of bounding box and distance values. The step of sampling input primitives to identify a representative subset based on sampling weights can be considered as mental process because a person can identify sampling subject of primitives mentally by looking at the corresponding sampling weights. It can also be considered mathematical concept because identifying the subject is based on sampling weight values involving mathematical comparison/relationship. The step of constructing an approximate BVH can be considered as mental process with simple tools such as pen and paper because a person can draw an approximate BVH using a pen on a piece of paper. The step of inserting input primitives into leaves of the approximate BVH can be considered as mental process with simple tools such as pen and paper because a person can insert the primitives into leaves of the approximate BVH using the pen on the paper. The step of constructing a final BVH based on the primitives inserted into the leaves of the approximate BVH can be considered as mental process because a person can construct the final BVH using pen and paper as well. Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. Claim 9 does not recite any additional elements. Therefore, Claim 9 does not recite any additional elements can integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. Claim 9 does not recite any additional elements. Therefore, Claim 9 does not recite any additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 9 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101. Regarding claim 10, it depends from claim 9 and further recites “ wherein the representative subset is selected from a portion of graphics data loaded into memory, the portion of graphics data comprising a smaller portion than desired to fully construct the BVH ”. Limiting the graphics data from which the representative subject is selected from is just limiting the data being worked on in the abstract idea and cannot be considered as additional element. The memory can be considered as additional element but it is generic computer component. Therefore it cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Therefore, claim 10 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101. Regarding claim 11, it depends from claim 9 and further recites “ wherein sampling input primitives further comprises performing stochastic importance sampling to identify the representative subset of input primitives and wherein constructing the final BVH further comprises operating in parallel on the leaves after the primitives are inserted ”. Performing stochastic importance sampling can be considered as mathematical concept because it involves a mathematical algorithm. Operating in parallel on the leaves can be considered as mental process because a person can mentally operate in parallel by multi-tasking. Therefore there are no additional elements recited in claim 11 to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Therefore, claim 11 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101. Regarding claim 12, it depends from claim 9 and further recites “ further comprising: performing compression and/or quantization on nodes of the final BVH to generate a compressed final BVH ”. Performing compression and/or quantization on nodes can be considered as mathematical concept because it involves a mathematical operation such as compression and/or quantization. Therefore there are no additional elements recited in claim 12 to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Therefore, claim 12 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101. Regarding claim 13, it depends from claim 10 and further recites “ selection of the subset of input primitives is biased to primitives that have a greater influence on the approximate BVH ”. This can be considered as mental process because biasing a selection can be done mentally in a person’s mind and/or mathematically as it involves comparing the influence of the primitives. Therefore there are no additional elements recited in claim 13 to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Therefore, claim 13 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101. Regarding claim 14, it depends from claim 13 and further recites “ wherein relatively larger primitives are biased to be selected over relatively smaller primitives ”. This can be considered as mental process because biasing a selection can be done mentally in a person’s mind and/or mathematically as it involves comparing the size of the primitives. Therefore there are no additional elements recited in claim 14 to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Therefore, claim 14 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101. Regarding claim 15, it depends from claim 14 and further recites “ wherein a Cumulative Density Function (CDF) is implemented to identify the subset of input primitives ”. This can be considered as mathematical concept because it involves a mathematical function/equation. Therefore there are no additional elements recited in claim 15 to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Therefore, claim 15 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101. Regarding claim 16, it depends from claim 9 and further recites “ further comprising: traversing a ray through the final BVH; and identifying intersections between the ray and one or more of the input primitives ”. Traversing a ray and identifying intersections can be considered as mental process with simple tool such as pen and paper because a person can using the pen to traverse the BVH on the paper and identify intersections. Therefore there are no additional elements recited in claim 16 to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Therefore, claim 16 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101. Claims 1-8 respectively recite similar limitations discussed above with respect to claims 9-16 but in an apparatus form. Claims 1-8 invoke 35 USC 112(f) and the corresponding structure/algorithm disclosed in the specification has been incorporated into claims 9-16 respectively. According to Specification, para. [00428], ray tracing is performed using a combination of fixed function acceleration circuitry and general purposed processing circuitry and para. [00430] discloses the units can be implemented in circuitry, software/commands executed by the GPU or CPU, or any combination thereof. Because these circuitries are described in such high level without details, they are considered as generic computer components. They can be considered as additional elements but generic computer components. Therefore they cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Therefore, claim 1-8 are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101. Claims 17-24 respectively recite similar limitations discussed above with respect to claims 9-16 but in a machine-readable medium form. The machine-readable medium can be considered as additional element but it is generic computer component. Therefore it cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Therefore, claim 17-24 are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites “a representative subset of the input primitives”. The term “representative subset” is a subjective term because different person will consider different subset as “representative subject”. Also claim 1 recites “bounding volume hierarchy (BVH) builder hardware logic” and “hardware logic”. It is not clear whether the “hardware logic” can be the same as or different than the “bounding volume hierarchy (BVH) builder hardware logic”. Claim 1 also recites the term “desired”, which is a subjective term. It is not clear what a “desired” amount is. Claims 2-8 depend from claim 1 but fail to cure the deficiencies of claim 1. In addition, claim 3 recites the limitation "the primitive sampler" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner noticed that claim 1, from which claim 3 depends, recites “a sampler”. If “the primitive sampler” is the same as the “sampler”, Applicant should amend the claim accordingly. Claim 4 recites “compression hardware logic”. It is not clear whether the “compression hardware logic” can be the same as or different than the “hardware logic” recited in claim 1, from which claim 4 depends. Claim 8 recites “traversal hardware logic” and “intersection hardware logic”. It is not clear whether the “traversal hardware logic” and/or “intersection hardware logic can be the same as or different than the “hardware logic” recited in claim 1, from which claim 8 depends. Claim 9 recites subjective terms “a representative subset of the input primitives” and “desired”. The corresponding rationale of claim 1 rejection is applied to reject claim 9. Claims 10-16 depend from claim 9 but fail to cure the deficiencies of claim 9. Claim 17 recites subjective terms “a representative subset of the input primitives” and “desired”. The corresponding rationale of claim 1 rejection is applied to reject claim 17. Claims 18-24 depend from claim 9 but fail to cure the deficiencies of claim 17. Allowable Subject Matter 07-43-01 Claims 1-24 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 1 , the closest prior art references the examiner have found are Hu (Hu et al., Parallel BVH Construction Using Locally Density Clustering), US Patent Publication No. 20230267650 A1 to Swift et al., and US Patent Publication No. 20110316855 A1 to Mejdrich et al., which disclose An apparatus comprising: a sampling weight generator to determine a plurality of sampling weights associated with a corresponding plurality of input primitives (Hu, p. 105829, col. 2, Sec. III, Subsection A., 1 st para., disclosing calculating density of the primitive based on the Euclidean distance between two primitive centers) , the sampling weight generator to determine each sampling weight based on a plurality of distance values corresponding to distances between the input primitive and a corresponding plurality of neighboring input primitives (Hu, p. 105829, col. 2, Sec. III, Subsection A., 1 st para., disclosing calculating density of the primitive based on the Euclidean distance between two primitive centers, Equation (1)) ; a sampler to identify a representative subset of the input primitives based, at least in part, on the plurality of sampling weights (Hu, p. 105831, col. 1, Subsection IV, last para., disclosing selecting k primitives with the greatest local density as the initial clustering center to be entered into the next phase) ; bounding volume hierarchy (BVH) builder hardware logic to construct an approximate BVH based on the representative subset of input primitives (Hu, p. 105834, col. 2, 3 rd para., disclosing the K primitives were selected as the clustering centers upon initial clustering and the K clusters can obtain the first level of K-ary tree, i.e., K intermediate nodes of the BVH) ; hardware logic to insert input primitives into leaves of the approximate BVH (Swift, para. [0095], disclosing for each leaf node in the compressed BVH structure, the retained data in the leaf node may be unpacked and corresponding triangle data in the model may be added to the leaf data of the uncompressed BVH structure, Mejdrich, para. [0025], disclosing primitive data structures represent primitives may be inserted into leaf nodes of the kd-tree) ; and the BVH builder or a different BVH builder to construct a final BVH (Hu, p. 105835,, col. 2, last para., disclosing continue to build the tree to construct intermediate nodes). However, none of the prior art references on the record, alone or in combination, discloses the sampling weight generator to determine each sampling weight based on a surface area or diagonal of a bounding box of the corresponding input primitive; hardware logic to insert input primitives not in the representative subset into leaves of the approximate BVH; and the BVH builder or a different BVH builder to construct a final BVH based on the primitives inserted into the leaves of the approximate BVH. Claims 2-8 depend from claim 1 with respective additional limitations. Claims 9 and 17 respectively recite similar limitations discussed above with respect to claim 1. Claims 10-16 depend from claim 9 with respective additional limitations. Claims 18-24 depend from claim 17 with respective additional limitations . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIXIA DU whose telephone number is (571)270-5646. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am-4:00 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, Kee Tung can be reached at 571-272-7794. 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. /HAIXIA DU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/126,401 Page 2 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/126,401 Page 3 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/126,401 Page 4 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/126,401 Page 5 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/126,401 Page 6 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/126,401 Page 7 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/126,401 Page 8 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/126,401 Page 9 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/126,401 Page 10 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/126,401 Page 11 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/126,401 Page 12 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/126,401 Page 13 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/126,401 Page 14 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/126,401 Page 15 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/126,401 Page 16 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/126,401 Page 17 Art Unit: 2611
Prosecution Insights