Detailed Action
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 5, 11, and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and rejected in the application. This action is Final.
Claim Objection
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
For claim 20, the limitation “performing, by the plurality of parallel processing units in parallel, a plurality of operations one or more operations” needs to be corrected.
Arguments
Applicant Argues:
Claim Objections In the Final Office Action, the Examiner objects to claim 5 for an informality. See Final Office Action at pp. 2-3. In this response, Applicant has amended claim 5. Accordingly, Applicant submits that the objection to claim 5 be withdrawn.
Examiner Responds:
Applicant has made the corrections to claim 5 in the amendment dated 1/12/2026. Therefore, claim 5 objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant Argues:
Applicant submits that the amended claims are not directed towards non-statutory subject matter for at least two reasons based on the framework established by the Supreme Court ("the Alice/Mayo test") and followed by the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("2019 Guidance"). See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014); see also Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2106(I) (9th Ed., Rev. 10.2019, Last Revised Jun. 2020).
Examiner Responds:
Applicant’s 35 USC § 101 arguments have been fully considered and are not persuasive. First, MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) provides:
“The courts have not provided an explicit test for this consideration, but have instead illustrated how it is evaluated in numerous decisions. These decisions, and a detailed explanation of how examiners should evaluate this consideration are provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a). In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel").”
After carefully reviewing the applicant’s arguments and the claim language, the Office maintains that the claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter for the following reasons:
The claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claimed limitations recite organizing, filtering, and searching data (e.g., determining a tree structure, retrieving parameters, traversing nodes, and generating a result set), which constitute mental processes and methods of organizing information. The additional elements, including a plurality of processing units, memory, parallel execution, and a pre-allocated memory pool, are recited at a high level of generality and perform only well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions. The step of modifying a mask pattern merely applies the abstract results and amounts to insignificant post-solution activity. As a whole, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept sufficient to render the subject matter patent-eligible. Accordingly, the claim is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more and is, therefore, non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Applicant Argues:
Amended claim 1 further recites the limitations of performing one or more operations that filter one or more portions of the tree structure based on the one or more filter parameters and execute the one or more search routines to generate a first set of graphics objects included in the tree structure that match the one or more query primitives. None of the cited references teaches or suggests these particular limitations. Therefore, no logical combination of the cited references can teach or suggest each and every limitation of amended claim 1.
In the Office Action, the Examiner acknowledges that Muthler fails to teach or
suggest the limitations of filtering the first set of geometric objects based on the one or
more filter parameters included in the set of configurable parameters. See Office Action
at p. 29. The Examiner instead relies on the disclosure of Wei. See id. at p. 30.
Applicant traverses with respect to the amended claims.
Examiner Responds:
Applicant's 35 USC § 103 arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1-10 are ineligible:
As to step one, claim 1 recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 1 recites a computer-implemented method for processing a geometric query, the method comprising:
determining a tree structure specified in the geometric query, wherein the tree structure organizes spatial regions of a mask pattern into a hierarchy of nodes;
performing, by a plurality of parallel processing units in parallel, a plurality of operations that: traverse the tree structure, filter one or more portions of the tree structure based on the one or more filter parameters, and execute the one or more search routines to generate a first set of graphics objects included in the tree structure that match the one or more query primitives;
and
modifying the mask pattern with the first set of geometric objects.
The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. That is other than reciting “a computer” and “a plurality of parallel processing units in parallel” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 1 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, but for a computer, “determining a tree structure specified in the geometric query, wherein the tree structure organizes spatial regions of a mask pattern into a hierarchy of nodes;” encompasses mentally a person determining a tree structure specified in the geometric query, wherein the tree structure organizes spatial regions of a mask pattern into a hierarchy of nodes.
Next, but for the plurality of parallel processing unit in parallel, “performing, by a plurality of parallel processing units in parallel, a plurality of operations that: traverse the tree structure, filter one or more portions of the tree structure based on the one or more filter parameters, and execute the one or more search routines to generate a first set of graphics objects included in the tree structure that match the one or more query primitives;” encompasses mentally a person performing a plurality of operations that: traverse the tree structure, filter one or more portions of the tree structure based on the one or more filter parameters, and execute the one or more search routines to generate a first set of graphics objects included in the tree structure that match the one or more query primitives.
Next, “modifying the mask pattern with the first set of geometric objects” encompasses mentally a person modifying the mask pattern with the first set of geometric objects.
The mere nominal recitation of “a computer” and “a plurality of parallel processing units in parallel” do not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of processing a geometric query, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional limitation:
retrieving a set of configurable parameters included in the geometric query, wherein the set of configurable parameters comprises one or more query primitives, one or more filter parameters, and one or more search routines;
generating a response to the geometric query, wherein the response includes the first set of geometric objects;
Here, “retrieving a set of configurable parameters included in the geometric query, wherein the set of configurable parameters comprises one or more query primitives, one or more filter parameters, and one or more search routines;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “generating a response to the geometric query, wherein the response includes the first set of geometric objects” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 1 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere processing a geometric query cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 1 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “retrieving a set of configurable parameters included in the geometric query, wherein the set of configurable parameters comprises one or more query primitives, one or more filter parameters, and one or more search routines;” and
“generating a response to the geometric query, wherein the response includes the first set of geometric objects;” steps are considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Next, “retrieving a set of configurable parameters included in the geometric query, wherein the set of configurable parameters comprises one or more query primitives, one or more filter parameters, and one or more search routines;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
In addition, “generating a response to the geometric query, wherein the response includes the first set of geometric objects;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “retrieving a set of configurable parameters included in the geometric query, wherein the set of configurable parameters comprises one or more query primitives, one or more filter parameters, and one or more search routines;” and
“generating a response to the geometric query, wherein the response includes the first set of geometric objects;” steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
The limitation “wherein the one or more query primitives are matched to the first set of geometric objects by: inputting a first query primitive included in the one or more query primitives and a first node included in the tree structure into a first search routine included in the one or more search routines” of dependent claim 2 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person inputting a first query primitive included in the one or more query primitives and a first node included in the tree structure into a first search routine included in the one or more search routines. Next, the limitation “executing the first search routine to determine that the first node meets one or more search criteria associated with the geometric query” of dependent claim 2 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining that the first node meets one or more search criteria associated with the geometric query. Further, the limitation “retrieving the first set of geometric objects from one or more nodes that are descendants of the first node within the tree structure” of dependent claim 2 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(g). The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Next, the claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision Symantec court states receiving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 2 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein retrieving the first set of geometric objects from the one or more nodes comprises: traversing, within the tree structure, one or more paths from the first node to the one or more nodes” of dependent claim 3 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person traversing, within the tree structure, one or more paths from the first node to the one or more nodes. Next, the limitation “for each node included in the one or more paths, executing the first search routine to determine that the node meets the one or more search criteria associated with the geometric query” of dependent claim 3 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person for each node included in the one or more paths, executing the first search routine to determine that the node meets the one or more search criteria associated with the geometric query. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 3 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein the one or more search criteria comprise at least one of an intersection test, a distance test, or an overlap test” of dependent claim 4 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining one or more search criteria comprise at least one of an intersection test, a distance test, or an overlap test. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 4 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein the one or more query primitives are matched to the first set of geometric objects by: retrieving a second set of geometric objects from one or more leaf nodes that are included in the tree structure and that match the one or more query primitives” of dependent claim 5 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(g). The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Next, the claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision Symantec court states receiving data is extra solution activity. Next, the limitation “filtering the second set of geometric objects based on the one or more filter parameters to determine the first set of geometric objects” of dependent claim 5 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person filtering the second set of geometric objects based on one or more filter parameters included in the set of configurable parameters to determine the first set of geometric objects. Thus, claim 5 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein the one or more filter parameters comprise at least one of: an orientation of a geometric object, an orientation of the one or more query primitives, or a type of the geometric object” of dependent claim 6 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining the one or more filter parameters comprise at least one of an orientation of a geometric object, an orientation of the one or more query primitives, or a type of the geometric object. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 6 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein the tree structure is traversed by: determining an ordering of a set of nodes included in the tree structure based on one or more sort parameters included in the set of configurable parameters;” of dependent claim 7 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining an ordering of a set of nodes included in the tree structure based on one or more sort parameters included in the set of configurable parameters. Next, the limitation “and evaluating the set of nodes based on the ordering” of dependent claim 7 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person evaluating the set of nodes based on the ordering. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 7 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein the tree structure is traversed by further filtering one or more nodes from the ordering based on the one or more filter parameters” of dependent claim 8 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person filtering one or more nodes from the ordering based on the one or more filter parameters. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 8 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein the one or more sort parameters comprise at least one of a sort origin or a distance measure” of dependent claim 9 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining the one or more sort parameters comprise at least one of a sort origin or a distance measure. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 9 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein the geometric query comprises at least one of a ray tracing query, an intersection query, a nearest neighbor query, or a range query” of dependent claim 10 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining the geometric query comprises at least one of a ray tracing query, an intersection query, a nearest neighbor query, or a range query. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 10 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 11-19 are ineligible:
As to step one, claim 11 recites a non-transitory computer-readable media performing steps and, therefore, is a machine which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 11 recites one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the steps of:
determining a tree structure specified in a geometric query, wherein the tree structure organizes spatial regions of a mask pattern into a hierarchy of nodes;
performing, by a plurality of parallel processing units in parallel, a plurality of operations that:
traverse the tree structure,
filter one or more portions of the tree structure based on the one or more filter parameters, and
execute the one or more search routines to generate a first set of graphics objects included in the tree structure that match the one or more query primitives;
and
modifying the mask pattern with the first set of geometric objects. The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. That is other than reciting “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media” and “plurality of parallel processing units in parallel” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 11 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, but for a computer, “determining a tree structure and a set of configurable parameters specified in a geometric query, wherein the set of configurable parameters comprises one or more query primitives, one or more filter parameters, and one or more search routines” encompasses mentally a person determining a tree structure and a set of configurable parameters specified in a geometric query, wherein the set of configurable parameters comprises one or more query primitives, one or more filter parameters, and one or more search routines.
Next, “performing one or more operations that: traverse the tree structure,
filter one or more portions of the tree structure based on the one or more filter parameters, and execute the one or more search routines to generate a first set of graphics objects included in the tree structure that match the one or more query primitives” encompasses mentally a person performing one or more operations that: traverse the tree structure, filter one or more portions of the tree structure based on the one or more filter parameters, and execute the one or more search routines to generate a first set of graphics objects included in the tree structure that match the one or more query primitives.
Next, “modifying the mask pattern with the first set of geometric objects” encompasses mentally a person modifying the mask pattern with the first set of geometric objects.
The mere nominal recitation of a computer does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of processing a geometric query, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 11 recites the additional limitation:
retrieving a set of configurable parameters included in the geometric query wherein the set of configurable parameters one or more query primitives, one or more filter parameters, and one or more search routines;
generating a response to the geometric query, wherein the response includes the first set of geometric objects.
Here, “retrieving a set of configurable parameters included in the geometric query wherein the set of configurable parameters one or more query primitives, one or more filter parameters, and one or more search routines;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “generating a response to the geometric query, wherein the response includes the first set of geometric objects.” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 11 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere processing a geometric query cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 11 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “retrieving a set of configurable parameters included in the geometric query wherein the set of configurable parameters one or more query primitives, one or more filter parameters, and one or more search routines;” and “generating a response to the geometric query, wherein the response includes the first set of geometric objects” steps are considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Next, “retrieving a set of configurable parameters included in the geometric query wherein the set of configurable parameters one or more query primitives, one or more filter parameters, and one or more search routines;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Next, “generating a response to the geometric query, wherein the response includes the first set of geometric objects” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “retrieving a set of configurable parameters included in the geometric query wherein the set of configurable parameters one or more query primitives, one or more filter parameters, and one or more search routines;” and “generating a response to the geometric query, wherein the response includes the first set of geometric objects” steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
The limitation “wherein the one or more query primitives are matched to the first set of geometric objects by: inputting a first query primitive included in the one or more query primitives and a first node included in the tree structure into a first search routine included in the one or more search routines” of dependent claim 12 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person inputting a first query primitive included in the one or more query primitives and a first node included in the tree structure into a first search routine included in the one or more search routines. Next, the limitation “executing the first search routine to determine that the first node meets one or more search criteria associated with the geometric query” of dependent claim 12 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining that the first node meets one or more search criteria associated with the geometric query. Further, the limitation “adding a set of nodes that are children of the first node to a node stack” of dependent claim 12 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(g). The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Next, the claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision Symantec court states receiving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 12 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein the one or more query primitives are matched to the first set of geometric objects by filtering the set of nodes based on the one or more filter parameters prior to adding the set of nodes to the node stack” of dependent claim 13 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining wherein the one or more query primitives are matched to the first set of geometric objects by filtering the set of nodes based on the one or more filter parameters prior to adding the set of nodes to the node stack. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 13 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein adding the set of nodes to the node stack comprises determining an ordering of the set of nodes within the node stack based on one or more sort parameters included in the set of configurable parameters” of dependent claim 14 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining an ordering of the set of nodes within the node stack based on one or more sort parameters included in the set of configurable parameters. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 14 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “determining that a second node included in the set of nodes corresponds to a leaf node within the tree structure;” of dependent claim 15 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining that a second node included in the set of nodes corresponds to a leaf node within the tree structure. Next, the limitation “executing the first search routine to determine that the first node meets one or more search criteria associated with the geometric query” of dependent claim 15 Further, the limitation “retrieving a second set of geometric objects from the second node” of dependent claim 15 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity which does not amount to an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision Symantec court states receiving data is extra solution activity. Further, the limitation “adding one or more geometric objects that are included in the second set of geometric objects and that match the one or more query primitives to the first set of geometric objects” of dependent claim 15 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person adding one or more geometric objects that are included in the second set of geometric objects and that match the one or more query primitives to the first set of geometric objects. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 15 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to perform the step of filtering the first set of geometric objects based on the one or more filter parameters prior to generating the response to the geometric query.” of dependent claim 16 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person performing the instructions further cause the one or more processors to perform the step of filtering the first set of geometric objects based on the one or more filter parameters prior to generating the response to the geometric query. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 16 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein determining the set of configurable parameters comprises receiving the set of configurable parameters with the geometric query over an interface” of dependent claim 17 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining the set of configurable parameters comprises receiving the set of configurable parameters with the geometric query over an interface. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 17 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein the tree structure comprises at least one of a bounding volume hierarchy, a quad tree, a k-d tree, an R-tree, a ball tree, or a rectilinear tree” of dependent claim 18 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining the tree structure comprises at least one of a bounding volume hierarchy, a quad tree, a k-d tree, an R-tree, a ball tree, or a rectilinear tree. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 18 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The limitation “wherein the one or more query primitives comprise at least one of a point, a line segment, a ray, a box, or a polygon” of dependent claim 19 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person wherein the one or more query primitives comprise at least one of a point, a line segment, a ray, a box, or a polygon. The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 19 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 20 is ineligible:
As to step one, claim 20 recites a system performing steps and, therefore, is a machine which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 20 recites a system, comprising:
determining a tree structure specified in a geometric query, wherein the tree structure organizes spatial regions of a mask pattern into a hierarchy of nodes;
performing, by the plurality of parallel processing units in parallel, a plurality of operations one or more operations that:
traverse the tree structure,
filter one or more portions of the tree structure based on the one or more filter parameters, and
execute the one or more search routines to generate a first set of graphics objects included in the tree structure that match the one or more query primitives; and
modifying the mask pattern with the first set of geometric objects.
The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. That is other than reciting “a plurality of processing units”, “by the plurality of parallel processing units in parallel”, and “one or more memories” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 20 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, but for a computer, “determining a tree structure specified in a geometric query, wherein the tree structure organizes spatial regions of a mask pattern into a hierarchy of nodes;” encompasses mentally a determining a tree structure specified in a geometric query, wherein the tree structure organizes spatial regions of a mask pattern into a hierarchy of nodes.
Next, but for the plurality of parallel processing units in parallel, “performing, by the plurality of parallel processing units in parallel, a plurality of operations one or more operations that:
traverse the tree structure,
filter one or more portions of the tree structure based on the one or more filter parameters, and
execute the one or more search routines to generate a first set of graphics objects included in the tree structure that match the one or more query primitives;” encompasses mentally a person performing, by the plurality of parallel processing units in parallel, a plurality of operations one or more operations that traverse the tree structure, filter one or more portions of the tree structure based on the one or more filter parameters, and execute the one or more search routines to generate a first set of graphics objects included in the tree structure that match the one or more query primitives.
Next, “modifying the mask pattern with the first set of geometric objects” encompasses mentally a person modifying the mask pattern with the first set of geometric objects.
The mere nominal recitation of a computer and a plurality of parallel processing units in parallel does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of processing a geometric query, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 20 recites the additional limitation:
one or more memories that store instructions, and a plurality of processing units that are coupled to the one or more memories and, when executing the instructions, are configured to perform the steps of:
retrieving a set of configurable parameters included in the geometric query, wherein the set of configurable parameters comprises one or more query primitives, one or more filter parameters, and one or more search routines;
storing the first set of geometric objects in a pre-allocated memory pool associated with the plurality of processing units; and
generating a response to the geometric query, wherein the response includes the first set of geometric objects.
Here, “one or more memories that store instructions, and a plurality of processing units that are coupled to the one or more memories and, when executing the instructions, are configured to perform the steps of:” amounts to mere generic computer components and insignificant instructions (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) that do not provide an inventive concept.
Next, “retrieving a set of configurable parameters included in the geometric query, wherein the set of configurable parameters comprises one or more query primitives, one or more filter parameters, and one or more search routines;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “storing the first set of geometric objects in a pre-allocated memory pool associated with the plurality of processing units” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In addition, “generating a response to the geometric query, wherein the response includes the first set of geometric objects” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 20 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere processing a geometric query cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 20 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “retrieving a set of configurable parameters included in the geometric query, wherein the set of configurable parameters comprises one or more query primitives, one or more filter parameters, and one or more search routines;”, “storing the first set of geometric objects in a pre-allocated memory pool associated with the plurality of processing units” and “generating a response to the geometric query, wherein the response includes the first set of geometric objects” step is considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “retrieving a set of configurable parameters included in the geometric query, wherein the set of configurable parameters comprises one or more query primitives, one or more filter parameters, and one or more search routines;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Here, “storing the first set of geometric objects in a pre-allocated memory pool associated with the plurality of processing units” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Next, “generating a response to the geometric query, wherein the response includes the first set of geometric objects” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “retrieving a set of configurable parameters included in the geometric query, wherein the set of configurable parameters comprises one or more query primitives, one or more filter parameters, and one or more search routines;”, “storing the first set of geometric objects in a pre-allocated memory pool associated with the plurality of processing units” and “generating a response to the geometric query, wherein the response includes the first set of geometric objects” steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 20 the claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation "determining a tree structure specified in a geometric query, wherein the tree structure organizes spatial regions of a mask pattern into a hierarchy of nodes” is not found in the specification. Thus, claims 1, 11, and 20 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2-10 depends from rejected claim 1 respectively, comprise the same deficiencies as claim 1 directly or indirectly by dependence, and are therefore rejected on the same basis because none of the dependents add anything to otherwise overcome the rejection.
Claims 12-19 depends from rejected claim 11 respectively, comprise the same deficiencies as claim 11 directly or indirectly by dependence, and are therefore rejected on the same basis because none of the dependents add anything to otherwise overcome the rejection.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 20 the claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The limitation "determining a tree structure specified in a geometric query, wherein the tree structure organizes spatial regions of a mask pattern into a hierarchy of nodes” is not found in the specification. Specifically, “wherein the tree structure organizes spatial regions of a mask pattern into a hierarchy of nodes” is not found in the specification. Thus, claims 1, 11, and 20 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2-10 depends from rejected claim 1 respectively, comprise the same deficiencies as claim 1 directly or indirectly by dependence, and are therefore rejected on the same basis because none of the dependents add anything to otherwise overcome the rejection.
Claims 12-19 depends from rejected claim 11 respectively, comprise the same deficiencies as claim 11 directly or indirectly by dependence, and are therefore rejected on the same basis because none of the dependents add anything to otherwise overcome the rejection.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muthler et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2020/0050550; hereinafter: Muthler) in view of NEUBECK U.S. Patent Publication (2024/0054120; hereinafter: Neubeck) and further in view of WEI et al. Non-Patent Publication (“Geometric Object Screening Method, Device, Equipment and Storage Medium”, 2022; hereinafter: WEI)
Claims 1, 11, and 20
As to claims 1, 11, and 20, Muthler discloses a system, comprising:
one or more memories that store instructions, and a plurality of processing units that are coupled to the one or more memories and, when executing the instructions, are configured to perform the steps of (paragraph[0068], the reference describes using a processors and memory to run instructions.):
determining a tree structure specified in a geometric query, wherein the tree structure organizes spatial regions of a mask pattern into a hierarchy of nodes (paragraph[0125], the reference describes detecting a tree data structure (i.e., a tree structure, as claimed) and primitives (i.e., query primitives, as claimed) used in queries (i.e., one or more search routines, as claimed).);
Muthler do not appear to explicitly disclose
retrieving a set of configurable parameters included in the geometric retrieving a set of configurable parameters included in the geometric query, wherein the set of configurable parameters comprises one or more query primitives, one or more filter parameters, and one or more search routines;
performing, by the plurality of parallel processing units in parallel, a plurality of operations that: traverse the tree structure, filter one or more portions of the tree structure based on the one or more filter parameters, and
execute the one or more search routines to generate a first set of graphics objects included in the tree structure that match the one or more query primitives;
storing the first set of geometric objects in a pre-allocated memory pool associated with the plurality of processing units; and
generating a response to the geometric query, wherein the response includes the first set of geometric objects; and
modifying the mask pattern with the first set of geometric objects.
However, Neubeck discloses retrieving a set of configurable parameters included in the geometric retrieving a set of configurable parameters included in the geometric query, wherein the set of configurable parameters comprises one or more query primitives, one or more filter parameters, and one or more search routines (paragraph[0024] and paragraph[0184], the reference describes geometric filters used on a tree based on operations of a query.);
performing, by the plurality of parallel processing units in parallel, a plurality of operations that (paragraph[0065], the reference describes the filtering being operated in parallel.):
traverse the tree structure, filter one or more portions of the tree structure based on the one or more filter parameters (paragraph[0176], the reference describes filtering and traversing the tree.), and
execute the one or more search routines to generate a first set of graphics objects included in the tree structure that match the one or more query primitives (paragraph[0184], the reference describes traversing and find matches.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Muthler with the teachings of Neubeck to use a geometer filter within tree structures which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Muthler with the teachings of Neubeck to efficiently compress a data set for indexing purposes and that provide an efficient searching technique to search for related data sets (Neubeck: paragraph[0007]).
The combination of Muthler and Neubeck do not appear to explicitly disclose storing the first set of geometric objects in a pre-allocated memory pool associated with the plurality of processing units; and generating a response to the geometric query, wherein the response includes the first set of geometric objects; and
modifying the mask pattern with the first set of geometric objects.
However, WEI discloses storing the first set of geometric objects in a pre-allocated memory pool associated with the plurality of processing units (page 6 of PDF, the reference describes storing the object data.); and
generating a response to the geometric query, wherein the response includes the first set of geometric objects (page 7 of PDF, the reference describes the end results in response to the query.); and
modifying the mask pattern with the first set of geometric objects (page 11 and 12 of PDF, the reference describes changing the geometric objects.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Muthler with the teachings of Neubeck and WEI to search geometric objects within tree structures which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Muthler with the teachings of Neubeck and WEI to efficiently provide an object screening method to improve the accuracy of the screening of the geometric objects (WEI: Abstract).
Claims 2 and 12
As to claims 2 and 12, the combination of Muthler, Neubeck, and WEI discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Muthler further disclose wherein the one or more query primitives are matched to the first set of geometric objects by:
inputting a first query primitive included in the one or more query primitives and a first node included in the tree structure into a first search routine included in the one or more search routines (paragraph[0095], the reference describes traversing nodes in the BVH.);
executing the first search routine to determine that the first node meets one or more search criteria associated with the geometric query (paragraph[0096], the reference describes determining the nodes matching the search request.); and
retrieving the first set of geometric objects from one or more nodes that are descendants of the first node within the tree structure (paragraph[0096], the reference describes the results produced by the identified node.).
Claim 3
As to claim 3, the combination of Muthler, Neubeck, and WEI discloses all the elements in claim 2, as noted above, and Muthler further discloses wherein retrieving the first set of geometric objects from the one or more nodes comprises:
traversing, within the tree structure, one or more paths from the first node to the one or more nodes (paragraph[0124], the reference describes traversing paths.); and
for each node included in the one or more paths, executing the first search routine to determine that the node meets the one or more search criteria associated with the geometric query (paragraph[0165], the reference describes executing queries to traverse the paths.).
Claim 4
As to claim 4, the combination of Muthler, Neubeck, and WEI discloses all the elements in claim 2, as noted above, and Muthler further disclose wherein the one or more search criteria comprise at least one of an intersection test, a distance test, or an overlap test (paragraph[0063], the reference describes test for intersection (i.e., intersection test, as claimed).).
Claim 10
As to claim 10, the combination of Muthler, Neubeck, and WEI discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Muthler further disclose wherein the geometric query comprises at least one of a ray tracing query, an intersection query, a nearest neighbor query, or a range query (paragraph[0125], the reference describes using a query to search for ray intersections (i.e., intersection query, as claimed).).
Claim 17
As to claim 17, the combination of Muthler, Neubeck, and WEI discloses all the elements in claim 11, as noted above, and Muthler further disclose wherein determining the set of configurable parameters comprises receiving the set of configurable parameters with the geometric query over an interface (paragraph[0145], the reference describes presenting and sending parameters over a processor interface.).
Claim 18
As to claim 18, the combination of Muthler, Neubeck, and WEI discloses all the elements in claim 11, as noted above, and Muthler further disclose wherein the tree structure comprises at least one of a bounding volume hierarchy, a quad tree, a k-d tree, an R-tree, a ball tree, or a rectilinear tree (paragraph[0093], the reference describes bound volume hierarchy structure.).
Claim 19
As to claim 19, the combination of Muthler, Neubeck, and WEI discloses all the elements in claim 11, as noted above, and Muthler further disclose wherein the one or more query primitives comprise at least one of a point, a line segment, a ray, a box, or a polygon (paragraph[0341], the reference describes using intersections of a ray.).
Claims 5-6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muthler et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2020/0050550; hereinafter: Muthler) in view of NEUBECK U.S. Patent Publication (2024/0054120; hereinafter: Neubeck) and further in view of WEI et al. Non-Patent Publication (“Geometric Object Screening Method, Device, Equipment and Storage Medium”, 2022; hereinafter: WEI) and further in view of Neubeck et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2024/0056569; hereinafter: Neubeck2)
Claim 5
As to claim 5, the combination of Muthler, Neubeck, WEI, and Salowe discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Vaidyanathan further disclose wherein the one or more query primitives are matched to the first set of geometric objects by:
retrieving a second set of geometric objects from one or more leaf nodes that are included in the tree structure and that match the one or more query primitives (page 7 of PDF, the reference describes retrieving geometric objects from a hierarchy.);
The combination of Muthler and WEI do not appear to explicitly disclose
filtering the second set of geometric objects based on the one or more filter parameters determine the first set of geometric objects.
However, Neubeck2 discloses filtering the second set of geometric objects based on the one or more filter parameters determine the first set of geometric objects (paragraph[0026], the reference describes using a geometric filter.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Muthler with the teachings of Neubeck, WEI, and Neubeck to filter geometric objects which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Muthler with the teachings of Neubeck, WEI, and Neubeck to efficiently provide similarities between data sets (Neubeck: paragraph[0009]).
Claim 6
As to claim 6, the combination of Muthler, Neubeck, WEI, and Neubeck2 discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and WEI further disclose wherein the one or more filter parameters comprise at least one of:
an orientation of a geometric object,
an orientation of the one or more query primitives, or
a type of the geometric object (page 7 of PDF, the reference describes determining the where the object is in the tree.).
Claim 16
As to claim 16, the combination of Muthler, Neubeck, and WEI discloses all the elements in claim 11, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to perform the step of filtering the first set of geometric objects based on the one or more filter parameters prior to generating the response to the geometric query.
However, Neubeck2 discloses wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to perform the step of filtering the first set of geometric objects based on the one or more filter parameters prior to generating the response to the geometric query (paragraph[0026], the reference describes using a geometric filter.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Muthler with the teachings of Neubeck, WEI, and Neubeck2 to filter geometric objects which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Muthler with the teachings of Neubeck, WEI, and Neubeck2 to efficiently provide similarities between data sets (Neubeck: paragraph[0009]).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muthler et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2020/0050550; hereinafter: Muthler) in view of NEUBECK U.S. Patent Publication (2024/0054120; hereinafter: Neubeck) and further in view of WEI et al. Non-Patent Publication (“Geometric Object Screening Method, Device, Equipment and Storage Medium”, 2022; hereinafter: WEI) and further in view of Waechter et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2009/0167763; hereinafter: Waechter)
Claim 7
As to claim 7, the combination of Muthler, Neubeck, and WEI discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the tree structure is traversed by:
determining an ordering of a set of nodes included in the tree structure based on one or more sort parameters included in the set of configurable parameters; and
evaluating the set of nodes based on the ordering.
However, Waechter discloses wherein the tree structure is traversed by:
determining an ordering of a set of nodes included in the tree structure based on one or more sort parameters included in the set of configurable parameters(paragraph[0388], the reference describes sorting objects in a tree.); and
evaluating the set of nodes based on the ordering (paragraph[0597]-paragraph[0598], the reference describes sorting and ordering nodes in a tree.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Muthler with the teachings of Neubeck, WEI, and Waechter to sort geometric objects which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Muthler with the teachings of Neubeck, WEI, and Waechter to efficiently provide determine visibility and traces ray from the light sources in order to determine illumination (Waechter: paragraph[0004]).
Claim 8
As to claim 8, the combination of Muthler, Neubeck, WEI, and Waechter discloses all the elements in claim 7, as noted above, and Muthler further disclose wherein the tree structure is traversed by further filtering one or more nodes from the ordering based on the one or more filter parameters (paragraph[0327], the reference describes filtering the object data from the tree.).
Claim 9
As to claim 9, the combination of Muthler, Neubeck, WEI, and Waechter discloses all the elements in claim 7, as noted above, and Waechter further disclose wherein the one or more sort parameters comprise at least one of a sort origin or a distance measure (paragraph[0738], the response describes a quicksort function (i.e., sort origin, as claimed).).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muthler et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2020/0050550; hereinafter: Muthler) in view of NEUBECK U.S. Patent Publication (2024/0054120; hereinafter: Neubeck) and further in view of WEI et al. Non-Patent Publication (“Geometric Object Screening Method, Device, Equipment and Storage Medium”, 2022; hereinafter: WEI) and further in view of Liktor U.S. Patent Publication (2024/0233238; Liktor)
Claim 13
As to claim 13, the combination of Muthler, Neubeck, and WEI discloses all the elements in claim 11, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more query primitives are matched to the first set of geometric objects by further filtering the set of nodes based on one or more filter parameters included in the set of configurable parameters prior to adding the set of nodes to the node stack.
However, Liktor discloses wherein the one or more query primitives are matched to the first set of geometric objects by further filtering the set of nodes based on one or more filter parameters included in the set of configurable parameters prior to adding the set of nodes to the node stack (paragraph[0594], the reference describes storing nodes in stacks.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Muthler with the teachings of Neubeck, WEI, and Liktor to store nodes in stacks which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Muthler with the teachings of Neubeck, WEI, and Liktor to efficiently provide an accelerator to perform ray -tracing operations in concert with the graphic processors (Liktor: paragraph[0120]).
Claim 14
As to claim 14, the combination of Muthler, Neubeck, WEI, and Liktor discloses all the elements in claim 12, as noted above, and Liktor further disclose wherein adding the set of nodes to the node stack comprises determining an ordering of the set of nodes within the node stack based on one or more sort parameters included in the set of configurable parameters (paragraph[0569], the reference describes using sort operations on nodes.).
Claim 15
As to claim 15, the combination of Muthler, Neubeck, WEI, and Liktor discloses all the elements in claim 12, as noted above, and Liktor further disclose wherein the one or more query primitives are further matched to the first set of geometric objects by:
determining that a second node included in the set of nodes corresponds to a leaf node within the tree structure (Liktor: paragraph[0568], the reference describes determining N nodes in a stack.);
retrieving a second set of geometric objects from the second node (paragraph[0573], the reference describes retrieving the node objects from the tree.); and
adding one or more geometric objects that are included in the second set of geometric objects and that match the one or more query primitives to the first set of geometric objects (paragraph[0573], the reference describes adding the nodes to the stack.).
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAWAUNE A CONYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3552. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00am-4:30pm EST. EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ann J. Lo can be reached on (571) 272-9767. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 April 28, 2026
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 February 24, 2024
Prosecution Insights