DETAILED ACTION
Final Rejection
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 11/20/2025 to claims are accepted. In this amendment, claims 1 and 14 have been amended.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims1-18 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claims 1-13 fall within category of process; For example, Each of claim 14-18 falls within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348–49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)).
Regarding Claims 1-13
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of calculating global illumination.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
1. A method executed by a terminal for calculating and rendering global illumination of a three-dimensional space, wherein the three-dimensional space is a space for accommodating a three-dimensional virtual environment and comprises a first local space and a second local space as portions of the three-dimensional virtual environment, comprising:
obtaining a first local description operator of the first local space(mathematical relation: [0117]-[0120]of current application PgPub);
obtaining a second local description operator of the second local space (mathematical relation: [0117]-[0120]of current application PgPub);
determining a first reflected illumination of the first local space according to the first local description operator and a first incident illumination of the first local space(mathematical relation: [0165]-[0169]of current application PgPub);
determining a second reflected illumination of the second local space according to the second local description operator and a second incident illumination of the second local space(mathematical relation: [0165]-[0169]of current application PgPub);
determining a global reflected illumination of the first local space according to the first reflected illumination, the second reflected illumination, and the first local description operator(mathematical relation: [0181]-[0188]of current application PgPub), wherein
the first local description operator describes space information of the first local space, and the second local description operator describes space information of the second local space([0116]-[0120] of current application PgPub);
and rendering, by the terminal, an image representing the three-dimensional space based on the global reflected illumination to obtain a rendering image.
The italicized limitations above represent a mathematical concept (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “calculating global illumination [..];obtaining a first local description[..]; obtaining a second local[..]; determining a second reflected illumination [..]; determining a global reflected illumination [...]; the first local description operator [..], and the second local description operator [..] ” is mathematical concept (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea), see 2106.04(a)(2). Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
.
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, first additional first element is “a terminal”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic device with computer components, which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
For example,2nd additional element is “rendering, by the terminal, an image representing the three-dimensional space based on the global reflected illumination to obtain a rendering image” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
In view of the above, the “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional element” in amount to a computer component with software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea (The claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished).
.
Step 2B
Claims1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, the limitation of Claim 1 contains additional elements that are, i.e. a terminal”, generic devices, which are well understood, routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and MPEP 2106.05(d)). The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
.
Dependent Claims 2-13
Dependent claims 2-13 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2-13 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For examples, Claim 2-13 are directed to abstract idea of mathematical concepts.
Regarding Claims 14-18
Claims 14-18 contains language similar to claims 1-13 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 14-18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101(abstract idea). claims 14-18 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect 101 rejection, specially claim 1, the applicant did not agree with it, see pages 9-12.The Applicant argus that “the claim integrates such judicial exception into a practical application of such judicial exception, and thus, the claim is not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2; obtaining a first local description operator and a second local description operator, determining a first reflected illumination of the first local space according to the first local description operator and a first incident illumination of the first local space, determining a global reflected illumination of the first local space according to the first reflected illumination, the second reflected illumination, and the first local description operator, and rendering an image of the three-dimensional space based on the global reflected illumination) integrates the exception into a practical application. In particular, the combination of additional elements is used in a specific manner that sufficiently limits the use of the alleged mathematical concepts to the practical application of computing global illumination within a three-dimensional graphics rendering process, thereby improving the functioning of a computer-implemented rendering system”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree because the claim limitations above represent a mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
The italicized limitations below represent a mathematical concept (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitation” obtaining a first local description operator of the first local space(mathematical relation: [0117]-[0120]of current application PgPub);
obtaining a second local description operator of the second local space (mathematical relation: [0117]-[0120]of current application PgPub);
determining a first reflected illumination of the first local space according to the first local description operator and a first incident illumination of the first local space(mathematical relation: [0165]-[0169]of current application PgPub);
determining a second reflected illumination of the second local space according to the second local description operator and a second incident illumination of the second local space(mathematical relation: [0165]-[0169]of current application PgPub);
determining a global reflected illumination of the first local space according to the first reflected illumination, the second reflected illumination, and the first local description operator(mathematical relation: [0181]-[0188]of current application PgPub), wherein
the first local description operator describes space information of the first local space, and the second local description operator describes space information of the second local space([0116]-[0120] of current application PgPub)” is mathematical concept (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea), see 2106.04(a)(2). Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Furthermore, the amended additional element is “rendering, by the terminal, an image representing the three-dimensional space based on the global reflected illumination to obtain a rendering image” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
In view of the, the “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic devices with software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Step 2B: Claims 1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim invention only recite the idea of a solution or outcome “outputting a analysis result” and do not include any details about how the “outputting a analysis result” is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such 101 rejection is maintained.
As such 101 rejection is maintained.
Examiner Notes
Regarding claims 1-18, specifically claims 1 and 14, There is no prior art rejection over claims, however there is 101 rejections. Closes prior arts fail to teach the limitations of “calculating global illumination of a three-dimensional space, wherein the three-dimensional space comprises a first local space and a second local space, comprising: obtaining a first local description operator of the first local space; obtaining a second local description operator of the second local space; determining a first reflected illumination of the first local space according to the first local description operator and a first incident illumination of the first local space; determining a second reflected illumination of the second local space according to the second local description operator and a second incident illumination of the second local space; and determining a global reflected illumination of the first local space according to the first reflected illumination, the second reflected illumination, and the first local description operator, wherein the first local description operator describes space information of the first local space, and the second local description operator describes space information of the second local space”
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Mcguire et al. (US 11,295,515) disclose a cloud solution can amortize “expensive” global illumination operations across multiple users. There can also be differences in latency and bandwidth between some pipeline stages. For example, differences between single device hardware memory bus characteristics and network connections can contribute to differences in latency and bandwidth. It is appreciated that present approaches facilitate flexible implementation of tradeoffs in different partitions of the global illumination workload between cloud and local devices, with consideration or how available network and computational power/performance influence design decisions and image quality.
b) Grauzinis et al. (US 2021/0156678) disclose metrology systems used to provide precise measurements of three-dimensional (3D) surfaces of articles under inspection and more particularly, to an improved hybrid measurement system using calibrated active stereo 3D reconstruction and uncalibrated nonplanar deflected or back-projection reflectometry to acquire and accurately measure both global shape and local fine deformations, dents and surface imperfections of specular, glossy and metallic surfaces of industrial, automotive and aerospace components and parts.
c) Ha et al. (US 2015/0235401) disclose description relates to global illumination-based rendering with respect to a three-dimensional (3D) model, and more particularly, to an indirect illumination-based rendering with respect to a 3D model, such as a radiosity method. One 3D rendering method includes a radiosity method based on global illumination. The radiosity method enhances a rendering quality based on direct illumination by a direct light source present in a 3D model and indirect illumination by a reflective light obtained through the direct illumination being reflected off an object or by diffused reflection.
d) Ahn et al. (US 2015/0022524) disclose three-dimensional (3D) games, virtual reality (VR) animations, movies, and the like, there is an increased interest in real time rendering with respect to a 3D model. Among 3D rendering technologies, a radiosity method using global illumination considers not only direct illumination by a direct light source included in the 3D model but also indirect illumination by diffused reflection or a reflected light caused by reflection of the direct illumination by an object, thereby increasing rendering quality. In this case virtual point light (VPL) sampling is necessary, which is for properly arranging VPLs representing an indirect illumination effect in predetermined positions in the 3D model.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights