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 .
Application Status
This office action is responsive to the amendments filed on 01/27/2026.
This action has been made NON-FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant alleges the following: “In particular, Applicants submit that the combination of Snyder, Jiang, Lentz, and Vaibhav do not teach or suggest "combining the anisotropic gradient between the pixels in the screen space and the one or more material textures with gradients between material texture coordinates and shade space coordinates to obtain combined gradients" and "shading the shade space tile by filtering the one or more material textures using the combined gradients." The cited references do not teach "anisotropic gradient between the pixels in the screen space and the one or more material textures" as well as "gradients between material texture coordinates and shade space coordinates," and that these two types of gradients are combined and used to shade a shade space tile by filtering material textures, as recited in claims 1, 10, and 19.” The examiner is not persuaded. The combination of Snyder, Jiang, Lentz, and Vaibhav discloses the Applicant’s claim language of “an anisotropic gradient”. As highlighted below, the Jiang reference indeed discloses the Applicant’s claim language (See Jiang Technical Field).
PNG
media_image1.png
86
893
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Moreover, the combination of Snyder, Jiang, Lentz, Vaibhav and AKENINE-MOLLER discloses the newly amended claim limitations. More specifically, Paragraph 0075 of AKENINE-MOLLER recites “performs anisotropic texture filtering based on the gradients and the texture. Any technically feasible anisotropic texture filtering may be performed in embodiments. For example, in the case of HLSL, which is the High Level Shading Language for DirectX, the SampleGrad function can be called to sample a texture, with the gradients being used to influence the sampling,” in which, discloses the Applicant’s amended claim language. MPEP § 2106 states Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the examiner maintains 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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4-10, 13-19 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder, US Patent No.: 20040001069 in view of Jiang, WO214094257 in view of Lentz, US20210295586, in further view of Vaibhav, US 20240412442 and in further view of AKENINE-MOLLER, US 20210350608.
Claim 1:
Snyder discloses a method for rendering (See Snyder Abstract; Figures 8A-10D). Snyder failed to explicitly disclose an anisotropic gradient, however, Jiang discloses this feature in the detailed description. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Snyder by Jiang’s teaching of an anisotropic gradient, to thereby enable improved image processing, more effectively (See Jiang Technical Field). Moreover, both of the references teach features that are directed analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as image processing. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Additionally, Snyder and Jiang failed to disclose shade space texture to produce a final image. However, Lentz discloses this feature in paragraphs 0014; 0018-0019 and 0036. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Snyder and Jiang’s by incorporating Lentz’s teaching of texted spaces to produce a final image, to thereby enable improved graphics processing, more effectively (See Lentz Abstract). Moreover, both of the references teach features that are directed analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as image/graphics processing. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Additionally, Snyder, Jiang, and Lentz failed to disclose “visibility pass”. However, Vaibhav discloses this feature in paragraphs 0007; 0016; 0023; 0027-0028. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Snyder, Jiang, and Lentz by incorporating Vaibhav’s teaching of a visibility pass, to thereby enable improved efficiency of graphics processing systems, more effectively (See Vaibhav Background/Summary). Moreover, the references teach features that are directed analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as image/graphics processing. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Additionally, the combination of Snyder, Jiang, Lentz, and Vaibhav failed to disclose filtering the one or more material textures using the combined gradients. However, AKENINE-MOLLER discloses this feature in paragraph 0075. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Snyder, Jiang, and Lentz and Vaibhav by incorporating AKENINE-MOLLER’s teaching of filtering to thereby enable improved and effective techniques for rendering graphics, more effectively (See AKENINE-MOLLER Description of the Related Art). Moreover, the references teach features that are directed analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as image/graphics processing. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As modified:
The combination of Snyder, Jiang, Lentz, Vaibhav and AKENINE-MOLLER discloses the following:
performing a visibility pass (See Vaibhav Paragraphs 0007; 0016; 0023; 0027-0028) to determine portions of a plurality of shade space textures in a shade space that are visible in a screen space (See Snyder Paragraph 0014; 0116);
in the visibility pass (See Vaibhav Paragraphs 0007; 0016; 0023; 0027-0028), determining a first correspondence between the screen space and the shade space (See Snyder Paragraph 0014; 0116), wherein the first correspondence indicates an anisotropic gradient between pixels in the screen space and one or more material textures (See Jiang Detailed Description section);
selecting a size for a shade space tile based on the correspondence between the screen space and the shade space (“increasing the size of the tiles” See Snyder Paragraphs 0097; 0102);
combining the anisotropic gradient between the pixels in the screen space and the one or more material textures with gradients between material texture coordinates and shade space coordinates to obtain combined gradients (See AKENINE-MOLLER Paragraph 00751; 0079; 0088-0091);
shading the shade space tile (“Shading can be applied to the textured surface” See Snyder Paragraphs 0109; 0128) by filtering the one or more material textures using the combined gradients (See AKENINE-MOLLER Paragraphs 00752; 0079; 0088-0091), to produce a shaded shade space tile that is part of a shade space texture (See Lentz Paragraphs 0014; 0018-0019);
and texturing objects of a scene using the shade space texture to produce a final image (See Lentz Paragraphs 0014; 0018-0019).
Claim 4:
The combination of Snyder, Jiang, Lentz, Vaibhav and AKENINE-MOLLER discloses wherein the size for the shade space tile (“increasing the size of the tiles” See Snyder Paragraphs 0097; 0102) comprises a footprint of the shade space tile within the shade space (See Snyder Paragraphs 0013; 0122).
Claim 5:
The combination of Snyder, Jiang, Lentz, Vaibhav and AKENINE-MOLLER discloses wherein shading the shade space tile based on the shade space tile size (“increasing the size of the tiles” See Snyder Paragraphs 0097; 0102) comprises shading an area comprising a footprint of the shade space tile within the shade space (See Snyder Paragraphs 0013; 0122).
Claim 6:
The combination of Snyder, Jiang, Lentz, Vaibhav and AKENINE-MOLLER discloses wherein determining the tile size includes selecting a tile size (“increasing the size of the tiles” See Snyder Paragraphs 0097; 0102) having differing horizontal and vertical dimensions (See Snyder Paragraphs 0106; 0123; 0126).
Claim 7:
The combination of Snyder, Jiang, Lentz, Vaibhav and AKENINE-MOLLER discloses wherein determining the tile size (“increasing the size of the tiles” See Snyder Paragraphs 0097; 0102) comprises determining the tile size (See Snyder Paragraph 0097; 0102) such that samples of the shade space in the shade space tile have the same spatial frequency as samples in the screen space in at least one location (See Snyder Paragraph 0044).
Claim 8:
The combination of Snyder, Jiang, Lentz, Vaibhav and AKENINE-MOLLER discloses shading samples of the shade space tile using an anisotropic filter applied to a material texture (See Snyder Paragraphs 0009; 0020; 0022; 0025; 0048; 0049).
Claim 9:
The combination of Snyder, Jiang, Lentz, Vaibhav and AKENINE-MOLLER discloses wherein the texturing is performed as part of a reconstruction operation (See Snyder Paragraph 0010; 0019).
Claim 10 and 13-18:
Claims 10 and 13-18 are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, and 4-9.
Claim 19:
Claim 19 are rejected on the same basis as claim 1.
Claim 21:
The combination of Snyder, Jiang, Lentz, Vaibhav and AKENINE-MOLLER discloses wherein the size for the shade space tile (“increasing the size of the tiles” See Snyder Paragraphs 0097; 0102) comprises a footprint of the shade space tile within the shade space (See Snyder Paragraphs 0013; 0122).
Claim 22:
The combination of Snyder, Jiang, Lentz, Vaibhav and AKENINE-MOLLER discloses wherein shading the shade space tile based on the shade space tile size (“increasing the size of the tiles” See Snyder Paragraphs 0097; 0102) comprises shading an area comprising a footprint of the shade space tile within the shade space (See Snyder Paragraphs 0013; 0122).
Claim 23:
The combination of Snyder, Jiang, Lentz, Vaibhav and AKENINE-MOLLER discloses wherein determining the tile size includes selecting a tile size (“increasing the size of the tiles” See Snyder Paragraphs 0097; 0102) having differing horizontal and vertical dimensions (See Snyder Paragraph 0106; 0123; 0126).
Claim 24:
The combination of Snyder, Jiang, Lentz, Vaibhav and AKENINE-MOLLER discloses wherein determining the tile size comprises determining the tile size (“increasing the size of the tiles” See Snyder Paragraphs 0097; 0102) such that samples of the shade space in the shade space tile have the same spatial frequency (See Snyder Paragraph 0044) as samples in the screen space in at least one location (See Snyder Paragraph 0102).
Claim 25:
The combination of Snyder, Jiang, Lentz, Vaibhav and AKENINE-MOLLER discloses wherein the operations further comprise shading samples of the shade space tile using an anisotropic filter applied to a material texture (See Snyder Paragraph 0007).
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Application Publication No.: 20150206340
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEREE N BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-4229. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SAID BROOME can be reached on (571) 272-2931. 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.
/SHEREE N BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612 March 16, 2026
1 Paragraph 0075 of AKENINE-MOLLER recites “performs anisotropic texture filtering based on the gradients and the texture. Any technically feasible anisotropic texture filtering may be performed in embodiments. For example, in the case of HLSL, which is the High Level Shading Language for DirectX, the SampleGrad function can be called to sample a texture, with the gradients being used to influence the sampling.”
2 Paragraph 0075 of AKENINE-MOLLER recites “performs anisotropic texture filtering based on the gradients and the texture. Any technically feasible anisotropic texture filtering may be performed in embodiments. For example, in the case of HLSL, which is the High Level Shading Language for DirectX, the SampleGrad function can be called to sample a texture, with the gradients being used to influence the sampling.”