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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set
forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this
application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set
forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action
has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 22, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 20 have been amended. Claims 5, 13, and 16 have been canceled. Claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-15, and 17-20 are pending and rejected in the application.
Arguments
Applicant Argues:
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner objects to claim 20 because of an informality. See Final Office Action at p. 2. In this response, Applicant has amended claim 20 to address the informality. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the objection to claim 20 be withdrawn.
Examiner Responds:
Applicant has made the corrections to claim 20 in the amendment dated 6/30/2026. Therefore, claim 20 objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant Argues:
Applicant submits that the amended claims are not directed towards mental
processes because the amended claims recite limitations that cannot be practically
performed in the human mind or using pen and paper. See Memorandum: Reminders
on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 at 2 ("[a] claim
does not recite a mental process when it contains limitation(s) that cannot practically be
performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to
perform the claim limitation(s)"); see also MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example,
amended claim 1 recites traversing, by a plurality of parallel processing units in a
parallel tree structure, the tree structure, each parallel processing unit included in the
plurality of parallel processing units performing the traversal by executing one or more
user-defined search routines on a corresponding portion of the tree structure to identify
a subset of nodes that match one or more query primitives. Amended claim 1 further
recites that each parallel processing unit filters, based on the one or more user-defined
filter parameters, the subset of nodes and geometric objects included in the subset of
nodes to generate a subset of geometric objects. In addition, amended claim 1 recites
modifying a photolithography mask pattern based on the subsets of geometric objects.
Examiner Responds:
First, claim 20 arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the 35 USC § 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
Next, Applicant’s 35 USC § 101 arguments have been fully considered and are not persuasive in respect to claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 19. 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, excluding claim 20, that the claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter for the following reasons:
The claims are directed to an abstract idea under the Alice/Mayo framework because, when considered as a whole, the claim recites the collection, organization, searching, and filtering of information based on specified criteria, namely, determining a hierarchical tree structure, retrieving query and filter parameters, traversing the tree, identifying nodes and geometric objects that satisfy the query primitives, and filtering the identified objects according to user-defined parameters.
The recitation of “a plurality of parallel processing units” does not transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application because the claim merely instructs the processing units to perform the same conventional searching and filtering operations in parallel and does not recite a particular technological improvement to the processing units or to parallel processing itself.
Likewise, identifying the information as spatial regions and geometric objects of a photolithography mask pattern merely limits the abstract information-processing operation to a particular technological field, while the final step of modifying the mask pattern “based on” the resulting geometric objects merely applies the result of the abstract analysis without specifying a particular technical mechanism or improvement for performing the modification. Thus, the claim, viewed as a whole, amounts to implementing an abstract information-processing concept using computer processing and applying the resulting information to a photolithography mask pattern, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the exception; therefore, claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 19 are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Applicant Argues:
Claim 1, as amended, recites the limitations of traversing, by a plurality of parallel
processing units in parallel, a tree structure. Amended claim 1 also recites that the
traversal includes executing the one or more user-defined search routines on a
corresponding portion of the tree structure to identify a subset of nodes included in the
hierarchy of nodes that match the one or more query primitives, and filtering, based on
the one or more user-defined filter parameters, the subset of nodes and geometric
objects included in the subset of nodes to generate a subset of geometric objects. 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.
Examiner Responds:
Applicant's 35 USC § 103 arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-15, and 17-20 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 1-4, 6-12, 14-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 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 photolithography mask pattern into a hierarchy of nodes;
traversing, by a plurality of parallel processing units in parallel, the tree structure, wherein each parallel processing unit included in the plurality of parallel processing units;
executes the one or more user-defined search routines on a corresponding portion of the tree structure to identify a subset of nodes included in the hierarchy of nodes that match the one or more query primitives, and
filters, based on the one or more user-defined filter parameters, the subset of nodes and geometric objects included in the subset of nodes to generate a subset of geometric objects; and
modifying the photolithography mask pattern based on the subsets 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 photolithography 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 photolithography mask pattern into a hierarchy of nodes.
Next, but for the plurality of parallel processing unit in parallel, “traversing, by a plurality of parallel processing units in parallel, the tree structure, wherein each parallel processing unit included in the plurality of parallel processing units;” encompasses mentally a person traversing the tree structure.
Next, “executes the one or more user-defined search routines on a corresponding portion of the tree structure to identify a subset of nodes included in the hierarchy of nodes that match the one or more query primitives” encompasses mentally a person executes the one or more user-defined search routines on a corresponding portion of the tree structure to identify a subset of nodes included in the hierarchy of nodes that match the one or more query primitives.
Next, “filters, based on the one or more user-defined filter parameters, the subset of nodes and geometric objects included in the subset of nodes to generate a subset of geometric objects;” encompasses mentally a person filtering, based on the one or more user-defined filter parameters, the subset of nodes and geometric objects included in the subset of nodes to generate a subset of geometric objects.
Next, “modifying the photolithography mask pattern based on the subsets of geometric objects.” encompasses mentally a person modifying the photolithography mask pattern based on the subsets 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, from the geometric query, a set of configurable parameters that includes (i) one or more query primitives, (ii) one or more user-defined filter parameters, and (iii) one or more user-defined search routines;
Here, “retrieving, from the geometric query, a set of configurable parameters that includes (i) one or more query primitives, (ii) one or more user-defined filter parameters, and (iii) one or more user-defined 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. 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, from the geometric query, a set of configurable parameters that includes (i) one or more query primitives, (ii) one or more user-defined filter parameters, and (iii) one or more user-defined search routines;” 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.
Next, “retrieving, from the geometric query, a set of configurable parameters that includes (i) one or more query primitives, (ii) one or more user-defined filter parameters, and (iii) one or more user-defined 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).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “retrieving, from the geometric query, a set of configurable parameters that includes (i) one or more query primitives, (ii) one or more user-defined filter parameters, and (iii) one or more user-defined search routines;” step is 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 geometric objects included in the subset of nodes by:
inputting a first query primitive included in the one or more query primitives and a first node included in the corresponding portion of the tree structure into a first search routine included in the one or more user-defined 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 satisfies one or more search criteria specified by the first search routine” of dependent claim 2 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person executing the first search routine to determine that the first node satisfies one or more search criteria specified by the first search routine. Further, the limitation “retrieving a group of geometric objects from a group of 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 group of geometric objects from the group of nodes comprises:
traversing, within the corresponding portion of the tree structure, one or more paths from the first node to the one or more nodes included in the group of nodes” of dependent claim 3 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person traversing, within the corresponding portion of the tree structure, one or more paths from the first node to the one or more nodes included in the group of nodes. Next, the limitation “for each node included in the one or more paths, executing the first search routine to determine that the first node satisfies the one or more search criteria specified by the first search routine” 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 first node satisfies the one or more search criteria specified by the first search routine. 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 user-defined 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 traversing the tree structure further comprises: determining, based on one or more user-defined sort parameters, an ordering of a set of nodes included in the tree structure, wherein the one or more user-defined sort parameters are included in the set of configurable parameters;” of dependent claim 7 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining, based on one or more user-defined sort parameters, an ordering of a set of nodes included in the tree structure, wherein the one or more user-defined sort parameters are 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 traversing the tree structure further comprises filtering one or more nodes from the ordering based on the one or more user-defined 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 user-defined 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 user-defined 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 user-defined 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, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 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 photolithography mask pattern into a hierarchy of nodes;
traversing, by a plurality of parallel processing units in parallel the tree structure, wherein each parallel processing unit included in the plurality of parallel processing units;
executes the one or more user-defined search routines on a corresponding portion of the tree structure to identify a subset of nodes included in the hierarchy of nodes that match the one or more query primitives,
and filters, based on the one or more user-defined filter parameters, the subset of nodes and geometric objects included in the subset of nodes to generate a subset of geometric objects; and
modifying the photolithography mask pattern based on the subsets 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 specified in a geometric query, wherein the tree structure organizes spatial regions of a photolithography mask pattern into a hierarchy of nodes;” encompasses mentally a person determining a tree structure specified in a geometric query, wherein the tree structure organizes spatial regions of a photolithography mask pattern into a hierarchy of nodes.
Next, “traversing, by a plurality of parallel processing units in parallel the tree structure, wherein each parallel processing unit included in the plurality of parallel processing units;” encompasses mentally a person traversing, by a plurality of parallel processing units in parallel the tree structure, wherein each parallel processing unit included in the plurality of parallel processing units.
Next, “executes the one or more user-defined search routines on a corresponding portion of the tree structure to identify a subset of nodes included in the hierarchy of nodes that match the one or more query primitives, and filters, based on the one or more user-defined filter parameters, the subset of nodes and geometric objects included in the subset of nodes to generate a subset of geometric objects;” encompasses mentally a person executing the one or more user-defined search routines on a corresponding portion of the tree structure to identify a subset of nodes included in the hierarchy of nodes that match the one or more query primitives, and filters, based on the one or more user-defined filter parameters, the subset of nodes and geometric objects included in the subset of nodes to generate a subset of geometric objects.
Next, “modifying the photolithography mask pattern based on the subsets of geometric objects.” encompasses mentally a person modifying the photolithography mask pattern based on the subsets 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, from the geometric query, a set of configurable parameters that includes (i) one or more query primitives, (ii) one or more user-defined filter parameters, and (iii) one or more user-defined search routines;
Here, “retrieving, from the geometric query, a set of configurable parameters that includes (i) one or more query primitives, (ii) one or more user-defined filter parameters, and (iii) one or more user-defined 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.
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, from the geometric query, a set of configurable parameters that includes (i) one or more query primitives, (ii) one or more user-defined filter parameters, and (iii) one or more user-defined search routines;” 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.
Next, “retrieving, from the geometric query, a set of configurable parameters that includes (i) one or more query primitives, (ii) one or more user-defined filter parameters, and (iii) one or more user-defined 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).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “retrieving, from the geometric query, a set of configurable parameters that includes (i) one or more query primitives, (ii) one or more user-defined filter parameters, and (iii) one or more user-defined search routines;” step is 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 geometric objects included in the subset of nodes by:
inputting a first query primitive included in the one or more query primitives and a first node included in the corresponding portion of the tree structure into a first search routine included in the one or more user-defined 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 corresponding portion of the tree structure into a first search routine included in the one or more user-defined search routines. Next, the limitation “executing the first search routine to determine that the first node satisfies one or more search criteria specified by the first search routine” of dependent claim 12 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person executing the first search routine to determine that the first node satisfies one or more search criteria specified by the first search routine. Further, the limitation “adding a group 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 adding the set of nodes to the node stack comprises determining, based on one or more user-defined sort parameters, an ordering of the set of nodes within the node stack, wherein the one or more user-defined sort parameters are included in the set of configurable parameters” of dependent claim 14 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining, based on one or more user-defined sort parameters, an ordering of the set of nodes within the node stack, wherein the one or more user-defined sort parameters are 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 node stack 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.
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, to the subset of geometric objects, one or more geometric objects that are included in the second node and that match the one or more query primitives” of dependent claim 15 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person adding, to the subset of geometric objects, one or more geometric objects that are included in the second node and that match the one or more query primitives. 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 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.
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejection
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-15, and 17-20 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.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 20, the claim recites “wherein each parallel processing unit included in the plurality of parallel processing units” It is unclear and indefinite as to the scope is unclear of the wherein limitation. Specifically, one skilled in the art would not know what it is meant by stating wherein each parallel processing unit included in the plurality of parallel processing units. Thus, claims 1, 11, and 20 are unclear and indefinite.
Claims 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 depends upon independent 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, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 19 depends upon independent claim 12 respectively, comprise the same deficiencies as claim 12 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, 6, 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 Baidya et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2019/0325103; hereinafter: Baidya)
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 photolithography 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, from the geometric query, a set of configurable parameters that includes (i) one or more query primitives, (ii) one or more user-defined filter parameters, and (iii) one or more user-defined search routines;
traversing, by a plurality of parallel processing units in parallel, the tree structure, wherein each parallel processing unit included in the plurality of parallel processing units;
executes the one or more user-defined search routines on a corresponding portion of the tree structure to identify a subset of nodes included in the hierarchy of nodes that match the one or more query primitives,
filters, based on the one or more user-defined filter parameters, the subset of nodes and geometric objects included in the subset of nodes to generate a subset of geometric objects, and
stores the subset of geometric objects in a pre-allocated memory pool associated with the plurality parallel of processing units; and
generating a response to the geometric query, wherein the response includes the first subsets of geometric objects from the pre-allocated memory pool; and
modifying the photolithography mask pattern based on the subsets of geometric objects.
However, Neubeck discloses retrieving, from the geometric query, a set of configurable parameters that includes (i) one or more query primitives, (ii) one or more user-defined filter parameters, and (iii) one or more user-defined search routines; (paragraph[0024] and paragraph[0184], the reference describes geometric filters used on a tree based on operations of a query.). 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 traversing, by a plurality of parallel processing units in parallel, the tree structure, wherein each parallel processing unit included in the plurality of parallel processing units;
executes the one or more user-defined search routines on a corresponding portion of the tree structure to identify a subset of nodes included in the hierarchy of nodes that match the one or more query primitives,
filters, based on the one or more user-defined filter parameters, the subset of nodes and geometric objects included in the subset of nodes to generate a subset of geometric objects, and
stores the subset of geometric objects in a pre-allocated memory pool associated with the plurality parallel of processing units; and
generating a response to the geometric query, wherein the response includes the first subsets of geometric objects from the pre-allocated memory pool; and
modifying the photolithography mask pattern based on the subsets of geometric objects.
However, Baidya discloses traversing, by a plurality of parallel processing units in parallel, the tree structure, wherein each parallel processing unit included in the plurality of parallel processing units (paragraph[0046, the reference describes using parallel processing to search a graph based hash structure (i.e., tree structure, as claimed).);
executes the one or more user-defined search routines on a corresponding portion of the tree structure to identify a subset of nodes included in the hierarchy of nodes that match the one or more query primitives (paragraph[0044], the reference describes using a query to search for geometric data in a graph structure.),
filters, based on the one or more user-defined filter parameters, the subset of nodes and geometric objects included in the subset of nodes to generate a subset of geometric objects, and
stores the subset of geometric objects in a pre-allocated memory pool associated with the plurality parallel of processing units (paragraph[0044]-paragraph[0045], the reference describes using a bloom filter to store different geometric layouts to compare to each other.); and
generating a response to the geometric query, wherein the response includes the first subsets of geometric objects from the pre-allocated memory pool (paragraph[0046], the reference describes generating a response after filtering and comparing geometric data.); and
modifying the photolithography mask pattern based on the subsets of geometric objects (paragraph[0032], the reference describes the modification of the pattern being changes for production of a wafer.). 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 Baidya 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 Baidya to efficiently maintain uniformity of each instance of an identical structure imaged or printed onto the substrate (Baidya: paragraph[0004]).
Claims 2 and 12
As to claims 2 and 12, the combination of Muthler, Neubeck, and Baidya 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 objects included in the subset of nodes by:
inputting a first query primitive included in the one or more query primitives and a first node included in the corresponding portion of the tree structure into a first search routine included in the one or more user-defined search routines (paragraph[0095], the reference describes traversing nodes in the BVH.);
executing the first search routine to determine that the first node satisfies one or more search criteria specified by the first search routine (paragraph[0096], the reference describes determining the nodes matching the search request.); and
retrieving a group of geometric objects from a group of 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 Baidya discloses all the elements in claim 2, as noted above, and Muthler further discloses wherein retrieving the group of geometric objects from the group of nodes comprises:
traversing, within the corresponding portion of the tree structure, one or more paths from the first node to one or more nodes included in the group of 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 first node satisfies the one or more search criteria specified by the first search routine (paragraph[0165], the reference describes executing queries to traverse the paths.).
Claim 4
As to claim 4, the combination of Muthler, Neubeck, and Baidya 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 6
As to claim 6, the combination of Muthler, Neubeck, and Baidya discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Baidya 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 (paragraph[0038], the reference describes geometric shapes (i.e., geometric object, as claimed).).
Claim 10
As to claim 10, the combination of Muthler, Neubeck, and Baidya 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 Baidya 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 Baidya 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 Baidya 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 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 Baidya et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2019/0325103; hereinafter: Baidya) 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 Baidya discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the traversing the tree structure further comprises:
determining, based on one or more user defined sort parameters, an ordering of a set of nodes included in the tree structure, wherein the one or more user-defined sort parameters are included in the set of configurable parameters; and
evaluating the set of nodes based on the ordering.
However, Waechter discloses wherein the traversing the tree structure further comprises:
determining, based on one or more user defined sort parameters, an ordering of a set of nodes included in the tree structure, wherein the one or more user-defined sort parameters are 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, Baidya, 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, Baidya, 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, Baidya, and Waechter discloses all the elements in claim 7, as noted above, and Muthler further disclose wherein traversing the tree structure further comprises filtering one or more nodes from the ordering based on the one or more user-defined 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, Baidya, and Waechter discloses all the elements in claim 7, as noted above, and Waechter further disclose wherein the one or more user-defined 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 14 and 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 Baidya et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2019/0325103; hereinafter: Baidya) and further in view of Liktor U.S. Patent Publication (2024/0233238; Liktor)
Claim 14
As to claim 14, the combination of Muthler, Neubeck, and Baidya discloses all the elements in claim 12, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein adding the set of nodes to the node stack comprises determining, based on one or more user-defined sort parameters, an ordering of the set of nodes within the node stack, wherein the one or more user-defined sort parameters are included in the set of configurable parameters.
However, Liktor discloses determining, based on one or more user-defined sort parameters, an ordering of the set of nodes within the node stack, wherein the one or more user-defined sort parameters are included in the set of configurable parameters. (paragraph[0569], the reference describes using sort operations on nodes.). 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, Baidya, 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, Baidya, and Liktor to efficiently provide an accelerator to perform ray -tracing operations in concert with the graphic processors (Liktor: paragraph[0120]).
Claim 15
As to claim 15, the combination of Muthler, Neubeck, and Baidya discloses all the elements in claim 12, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more query primitives are further matched to the geometric objects included in the subset of nodes by:
determining that a second node included in the node stack corresponds to a leaf node within the tree structure;
retrieving a second set of geometric objects from the second node; and
adding, to the subset of geometric objects, one or more geometric objects that are included in the second node and that match the one or more query primitives.
However, 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 geometric objects included in the subset of nodes by:
determining that a second node included in the node stack 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, to the subset of geometric objects, one or more geometric objects that are included in the second node and that match the one or more query primitives(paragraph[0573], the reference describes adding the nodes to the stack). 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, Baidya, 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, Baidya, and Liktor to efficiently provide an accelerator to perform ray -tracing operations in concert with the graphic processors (Liktor: paragraph[0120]).
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
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 February 24, 2024
Prosecution Insights