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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/15/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This is in response to applicant’s amendment/response filed on 11/05/2025, which has been entered and made of record. Claims 1, 5, 8, and 15 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant submitted new amended claims. Accordingly, new grounds of rejection are set forth above. The new grounds of rejection conclusion have been necessitated by Applicant's amendments to the claims.
Applicants state that “Burns, in contrast, describes interval-arithmetic intersection testing on quantized coordinates. The "inconclusive" or "potential hit" conditions in Burns arise from arithmetic intervals, not from spatial boundaries of a primitive. His system operates on numeric coordinate ranges, not on geometric shells around a primitive, and therefore lacks the claimed relationship between a ray and an inner/outer-bounded region”.
PNG
media_image1.png
432
356
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner disagrees. Burns teaches relationship between a ray and an inner/outer-bounded region (Fig 10, par 0092-0094, “ FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating example regions enclosed by a quantized representation of a two-dimensional triangular primitive (e.g., post-shear). In the illustrated example, edges 1010 show the precise edges, e.g., if represented according to the original precision. Outer bounds 1020 and inner bounds 1030 show the bounds of the quantized representation, e.g., using an interval representation. As shown, a ray falling in the region outside bounds 1020 is a conclusive miss, e.g., as detectable by the circuitry of FIG. 7. A ray falling in the region between bounds 1020 and 1030 is inconclusive (e.g., because it is unknown precisely where the triangle edges fall within this region). Rays falling in this region may require a higher-precision test. As shown, a ray falling in the region within bounds 1030 is a conclusive hit for a line corresponding to the ray.”).
Applicants state that “Even if one were to combine Clark and Burns, there would be no motivation to convert Clark's confidence-based hit testing or Burns' interval arithmetic into the expressly recited geometric uncertainty region”.
The examiner disagrees. Applicant did not raise any specific argument or evidence to support his conclusion and both prior art are related to primitive intersection testing for ray tracing in graphics processors. The Examiner directs Applicant to claim rejections for detailed analyses.
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) 1-5, 7-12, and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PGPubs 2021/0192829 to Clark et al. in view of U.S, PGPubs 2023/0102071 to Burns.
Regarding claim 1, Clark et al. teach a method comprising (par 0036):
performing, in parallel, a first ray intersection test for a ray against each of a plurality of primitives, wherein the first ray intersection test is performed at a first level of precision (par 0036-39, “receiving a packet of one or more rays to test for intersection with a volume; performing intersection testing on a ray from the received packet at a first level of precision to attempt to determine whether or not the ray intersects the volume; based on a type of the intersection testing result from said performing intersection testing on the ray at the first level of precision”, par 0058, “Aspects of the present disclosure are directed to ray tracing techniques where rays are tested for intersection with volumes within a scene (e.g. with bounding volumes corresponding to respective nodes of an acceleration structure) at differing levels of bit-precision. In more detail, rays are first tested for intersection with a volume at a first level of precision (e.g. bit-precision). A level of bit-precision may refer to the number of bits of the operands used in the intersection testing”); and
performing a second ray intersection test for the ray against one or more primitives of the plurality of primitives at a second level of precision higher than the first level of precision, responsive to the first ray intersection test generating a hit result for the one or more primitives (par 0039-0041, “determining whether intersection testing is to be reperformed for the ray at a second level of precision, wherein the second level of precision is greater than the first level of precision; and [0040] if it is determined that intersection testing is to be reperformed for the ray at the second level of precision, performing further testing of the ray at the second level of precision. The determining whether intersection testing is to be reperformed for the ray at a second level of precision may comprise determining whether an intersection test is to be reperformed for a hit result based on how close to being a miss result the hit result was”, par 0058, “One or more of those tested rays may then be retested for intersection with the same volume at a second level of precision greater than the first level (e.g. using operands with a greater number of bits compared to the first level of bit precision). Whether a ray is retested at the higher level of precision depends on the outcome of the first intersection test at the lower level of precision. For example, if a ray is found not to intersect the volume in the first test (i.e. the result of the first test is a “miss”), then the ray is not retested. In some examples, if a ray is found to intersect with the volume in the first (low precision) test (i.e. the result of the first test is a “hit”) then the ray is retested at the higher level of precision”, par 0095, “The first set of testers 411 are configured to perform intersection testing at a first level of precision and the second set of testers 415 are configured to perform intersection testing at a second level of precision greater than the first level of precision. For example, the second set of testers 415 are configured to perform intersection testing at a higher level of bit precision than the first set of testers 411”).
But Clark et al. keep silent for teaching performing a second ray intersection test for the ray against one or more primitives of the plurality of primitives at a second level of precision higher than the first level of precision, responsive to the first ray intersection test generating an inconclusive hit result for the one or more primitives, the inconclusive hit result indicating that the ray intersects the one or more primitives within an uncertainty region bounded by an inner boundary and an outer boundary of the one or more primitives.
PNG
media_image1.png
432
356
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In related endeavor, Burns teaches performing a second ray intersection test for the ray against one or more primitives of the plurality of primitives at a second level of precision higher than the first level of precision, responsive to the first ray intersection test generating an inconclusive hit result for the one or more primitives (par 0046-0047, “Interval-arithmetic-based low-precision test circuitry 220, in the illustrated embodiment, is configured to generate a conservative intersection result by performing interval arithmetic on the interval representations. The conservative intersection result may guarantee that a miss signaled by circuitry 220 will not result in a hit for a higher-precision intersection test (e.g., operating on values at the input precision prior to quantization). A positive output from circuitry 220 indicates a potential hit, in these embodiments“, par 0085-0086, “The illustrated AND and OR logic of FIG. 7 provides a result that indicates whether the reduced-precision test provides a conclusive miss …. the processor may perform a higher-precision intersection test (e.g., using the original floating-point representation) if there is an inconclusive result (a potential hit)”, par 0091-0096, “intersection test circuitry that operates on quantized inputs may still provide definitive information regarding whether a line corresponding to the ray intersects a primitive, which may be useful for certain types of rays. Therefore, referring back to the example of FIG. 7, modified comparison circuitry may be implemented (in addition to or in place of the circuitry of FIG. 7) to provide a result that indicates either a conclusive hit or that it is inconclusive whether a hit occurred …. a ray falling in the region outside bounds 1020 is a conclusive miss, e.g., as detectable by the circuitry of FIG. 7. A ray falling in the region between bounds 1020 and 1030 is inconclusive (e.g., because it is unknown precisely where the triangle edges fall within this region). Rays falling in this region may require a higher-precision test”, par 0147-0150, “the intersection tests generate a first result for a first ray and a first primitive wherein the first result indicates that first ray intersects the first primitive, according to their initial representations. In some embodiments, the intersection tests may also generate a second result for a second ray and the first primitive wherein the second result indicates that it is inconclusive whether the second ray intersects the first primitive. The graphics processor may perform an intersection test for the second ray using the initial representation of the second ray and the first primitive. The intersection tests may be performed based on traversal of an acceleration data structure that includes hierarchically-arranged bounding volumes for a at least a portion of a graphics scene …. test circuitry is further configured to output a result for the first ray and the first primitive that indicates either: the first ray missed the first primitive, according to their initial representations or it is inconclusive whether the first ray misses the first primitive. For example, the processor may include the comparator and logic circuitry of both FIGS. 7 and 12. For the first ray and first primitive, in the example discussed above, this output will indicate that it is inconclusive whether the first ray misses the first primitive, because the other output indicated a definitive hit”), the inconclusive hit result indicating that the ray intersects the one or more primitives within an uncertainty region bounded by an inner boundary and an outer boundary of the one or more primitives (Fig 10, par 0092-0094, “ FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating example regions enclosed by a quantized representation of a two-dimensional triangular primitive (e.g., post-shear). In the illustrated example, edges 1010 show the precise edges, e.g., if represented according to the original precision. Outer bounds 1020 and inner bounds 1030 show the bounds of the quantized representation, e.g., using an interval representation. As shown, a ray falling in the region outside bounds 1020 is a conclusive miss, e.g., as detectable by the circuitry of FIG. 7. A ray falling in the region between bounds 1020 and 1030 is inconclusive (e.g., because it is unknown precisely where the triangle edges fall within this region). Rays falling in this region may require a higher-precision test. As shown, a ray falling in the region within bounds 1030 is a conclusive hit for a line corresponding to the ray.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modified Clark et al. to include performing a second ray intersection test for the ray against one or more primitives of the plurality of primitives at a second level of precision higher than the first level of precision, responsive to the first ray intersection test generating an inconclusive hit result for the one or more primitives, the inconclusive hit result indicating that the ray intersects the one or more primitives within an uncertainty region bounded by an inner boundary and an outer boundary of the one or more primitives as taught by Burns to use reduced circuit area to perform primitive tests at a particular precision to improve realism in graphics scenes, improve performance (e.g., allow tracing of more rays per frame, tracing in more complex scenes, or both), reduce power consumption (which may be particularly important in battery-powered devices), etc..
Regarding claim 2, Clark et al. as modified by Burns teach all the limitation of claim 1, and further teach wherein each of the one or more primitives are tested by the second ray intersection test individually (Clark et al.: par 0029, “The first set of one or more testers and the second set of one or more testers may be configured to perform intersection testing by performing a plurality of edge tests that each determine which side of a respective edge defining part of a silhouette of the volume the ray passes on “, par 0036-0041, “determining whether intersection testing is to be reperformed for the ray at a second level of precision, wherein the second level of precision is greater than the first level of precision; and [0040] if it is determined that intersection testing is to be reperformed for the ray at the second level of precision, performing further testing of the ray at the second level of precision “, par 0058, “One or more of those tested rays may then be retested for intersection with the same volume at a second level of precision greater than the first level (e.g. using operands with a greater number of bits compared to the first level of bit precision) “, Burns: par 0093, “a ray falling in the region outside bounds 1020 is a conclusive miss, e.g., as detectable by the circuitry of FIG. 7. A ray falling in the region between bounds 1020 and 1030 is inconclusive (e.g., because it is unknown precisely where the triangle edges fall within this region). Rays falling in this region may require a higher-precision test”).
Regarding claim 3, Clark et al. as modified by Burns teach all the limitation of claim 1, and further teach wherein the first ray intersection test is performed by first intersection test circuitry using fixed-point arithmetic and the second ray intersection test is performed by second intersection test circuitry using floating-point arithmetic (Clark et al.: par 0031, “Floating point numbers at the first level of precision may have an equal number of exponent bits to floating point numbers at the second level of precision and floating point numbers at the first level of precision may have fewer mantissa bits than the floating point numbers at the second level of precision “, also par 0096, par 0101, par 0136, Burns: par 0048, “Element 242 generates a fixed-point interval representation for the ray origin, also based on the quantization frame transform. Element 246 generates a fixed-point interval representation of the ray time. For motion blur processing, element 250 temporally interpolates quantized triangle vertices based on the ray time (this element may be omitted or may directly pass the quantized triangle vertices when not performing motion blur operations). Element 260 transforms the vertices according to the shear factors and ray origin and element 270 evaluates edge equations to determine whether there is a miss or a potential hit”, par 0079-par 0082, par 0085-0086, “The illustrated AND and OR logic of FIG. 7 provides a result that indicates whether the reduced-precision test provides a conclusive miss. As shown, the six two-sided edge tests may use 12 multipliers and 6 comparators, all fixed-point …. the processor may perform a higher-precision intersection test (e.g., using the original floating-point representation) if there is an inconclusive result (a potential hit)”, par 0140, “a graphics processor quantizes a first representation of a primitive to generate a reduced-precision interval representation of the primitive, wherein the interval representation includes interval values that are guaranteed to cover corresponding values specified by the first representation of the primitive. In some embodiments, the quantization of the first representation of the primitive uses a fixed-point quantized representation rounded toward zero for a lower bound of the interval and the lower bound plus one unit of least precision (ULP) for an upper bound of the interval”).
PNG
media_image1.png
432
356
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Clark et al. as modified by Burns teach all the limitation of claim 1, and Burns further teaches further comprising: responsive to performing the first ray intersection test for a quantized primitive: associating a conclusive miss result with the quantized primitive responsive to the ray intersecting a two-dimensional plane outside of a boundary of the quantized primitive; and associating a conclusive hit result with the quantized primitive responsive to the ray intersecting the two-dimensional plane inside the boundary of the quantized primitive (par 0092-0094, “ FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating example regions enclosed by a quantized representation of a two-dimensional triangular primitive (e.g., post-shear). In the illustrated example, edges 1010 show the precise edges, e.g., if represented according to the original precision. Outer bounds 1020 and inner bounds 1030 show the bounds of the quantized representation, e.g., using an interval representation. As shown, a ray falling in the region outside bounds 1020 is a conclusive miss, e.g., as detectable by the circuitry of FIG. 7. A ray falling in the region between bounds 1020 and 1030 is inconclusive (e.g., because it is unknown precisely where the triangle edges fall within this region). Rays falling in this region may require a higher-precision test. As shown, a ray falling in the region within bounds 1030 is a conclusive hit for a line corresponding to the ray.”).
This would be obvious for the same reason given in the rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Clark et al. as modified by Burns teach all the limitation of claim 1, and Burns further teaches wherein performing the second ray intersection test comprises selecting, from a plurality of precision levels greater than the first level of precision, a precision level for the second ray intersection test based on a size of the uncertainty region associated with the one or more primitives (par 0054, ” quantized triangle coordinates are stored as unsigned integer values of limited fixed-point precision and rounded toward zero. These coordinates may correspond to a local coordinate system recorded in an acceleration data structure ADS, e.g., as discussed in the '542 application. Quantized values may be N-bit values. In some embodiment, each coordinate value uses a number of bits that facilitates packing within a field of a certain size. As one example, 7-bit values per quantized coordinate interval value for a single triangle may be packed into two 64-bit fields (x upper/lower, y upper/lower, and z upper lower 7-bit values for each vertex for three vertices=126 bits)”, par 0086, “the processor may perform a higher-precision intersection test (e.g., using the original floating-point representation) if there is an inconclusive result (a potential hit) “, par 0093, “a ray falling in the region outside bounds 1020 is a conclusive miss, e.g., as detectable by the circuitry of FIG. 7. A ray falling in the region between bounds 1020 and 1030 is inconclusive (e.g., because it is unknown precisely where the triangle edges fall within this region). Rays falling in this region may require a higher-precision test.”). This would be obvious for the same reason given in the rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Clark et al. as modified by Burns teach all the limitation of claim 1, and Burns further teaches further comprising generating the plurality of primitives by quantizing an initial representation of each primitive of the plurality of primitives to create reduced-precision compressed representations for each primitive (abstract, “quantize a first representation of the primitive to generate a reduced-precision interval representation of the primitive, quantize a first representation of the ray to generate a reduced-precision interval representation of the ray, and determine, using interval arithmetic, an initial intersection result based on coordinates of the interval representation of the primitive and coordinates of the interval representation of the ray”, par 0140, “a graphics processor quantizes a first representation of a primitive to generate a reduced-precision interval representation of the primitive, wherein the interval representation includes interval values that are guaranteed to cover corresponding values specified by the first representation of the primitive”, par 0147, “ a graphics processor performs intersection tests, where the intersection tests operate on reduced-precision representations of rays that were generated by quantizing initial representations of the rays and reduced-representatives of primitives that were generated by quantizing initial representations of the primitives”). This would be obvious for the same reason given in the rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Clark et al. teach a processor comprising (par 0085): ray tracing circuitry configured to (abstract, par 0035). The remaining limitations of the claim are similar in scope to claim 1 and rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 9-11, Clark et al. as modified by Burns teach all the limitation of claim 8, the claims 9-11 and 14 are similar in scope to claims 2-4 and are rejected under the same rational.
PNG
media_image1.png
432
356
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Clark et al. as modified by Burns teach all the limitation of claim 8, and Burns further teaches wherein the inconclusive hit result is generated for a given primitive responsive to the first ray intersection test intersecting a plane, on which the given primitive is projected, at a location between a first boundary smaller than the given primitive and a second boundary larger than the given primitive (par 0092-0094, “ FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating example regions enclosed by a quantized representation of a two-dimensional triangular primitive (e.g., post-shear). In the illustrated example, edges 1010 show the precise edges, e.g., if represented according to the original precision. Outer bounds 1020 and inner bounds 1030 show the bounds of the quantized representation, e.g., using an interval representation. As shown, a ray falling in the region outside bounds 1020 is a conclusive miss, e.g., as detectable by the circuitry of FIG. 7. A ray falling in the region between bounds 1020 and 1030 is inconclusive (e.g., because it is unknown precisely where the triangle edges fall within this region). Rays falling in this region may require a higher-precision test. As shown, a ray falling in the region within bounds 1030 is a conclusive hit for a line corresponding to the ray.”). This would be obvious for the same reason given in the rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Clark et al. as modified by Burns teach a system comprising: ray tracing circuitry comprising (Clark et al.: abstract, par 0035) and a graphics processing circuit configured to render an image based on primitives of the plurality of primitives identified by either the first testing circuitry and the second testing circuitry as being intersected by the first ray(Clark et al.: par 0003, par 0098, “Ray tracing is a computational rendering technique for generating an image of a scene (e.g. a 3D scene) by tracing paths of light (‘rays’) from the viewpoint of a camera through the scene. Each ray is modelled as originating from the camera and passing through a pixel into the scene. As a ray traverses the scene it may intersect objects within the scene. The interaction between a ray and an object it intersects can be modelled to create realistic visual effects “, Burns: par 0042, par 0158, “Graphics unit 1675 may generally be configured to process large blocks of data in parallel and may build images in a frame buffer for output to a display, which may be included in the device or may be a separate device. Graphics unit 1675 may include transform, lighting, triangle, and rendering engines in one or more graphics processing pipelines”). The remaining limitations of the claim are similar in scope to claim 1 and rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 16, Clark et al. as modified by Burns teach all the limitation of claim 15, and Burns further teaches wherein the inconclusive hit result corresponds to primitives which fail to generate either a conclusive miss result or a conclusive hit result (par 0085-0086, “The illustrated AND and OR logic of FIG. 7 provides a result that indicates whether the reduced-precision test provides a conclusive miss …. the processor may perform a higher-precision intersection test (e.g., using the original floating-point representation) if there is an inconclusive result (a potential hit)”, par 0092-0094, “ FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating example regions enclosed by a quantized representation of a two-dimensional triangular primitive (e.g., post-shear). In the illustrated example, edges 1010 show the precise edges, e.g., if represented according to the original precision. Outer bounds 1020 and inner bounds 1030 show the bounds of the quantized representation, e.g., using an interval representation. As shown, a ray falling in the region outside bounds 1020 is a conclusive miss, e.g., as detectable by the circuitry of FIG. 7. A ray falling in the region between bounds 1020 and 1030 is inconclusive (e.g., because it is unknown precisely where the triangle edges fall within this region). Rays falling in this region may require a higher-precision test. As shown, a ray falling in the region within bounds 1030 is a conclusive hit for a line corresponding to the ray.” par 0091-0096, “intersection test circuitry that operates on quantized inputs may still provide definitive information regarding whether a line corresponding to the ray intersects a primitive, which may be useful for certain types of rays. Therefore, referring back to the example of FIG. 7, modified comparison circuitry may be implemented (in addition to or in place of the circuitry of FIG. 7) to provide a result that indicates either a conclusive hit or that it is inconclusive whether a hit occurred …. a ray falling in the region outside bounds 1020 is a conclusive miss, e.g., as detectable by the circuitry of FIG. 7. A ray falling in the region between bounds 1020 and 1030 is inconclusive (e.g., because it is unknown precisely where the triangle edges fall within this region). Rays falling in this region may require a higher-precision test”, par 0147-0150, “the intersection tests generate a first result for a first ray and a first primitive wherein the first result indicates that first ray intersects the first primitive, according to their initial representations. In some embodiments, the intersection tests may also generate a second result for a second ray and the first primitive wherein the second result indicates that it is inconclusive whether the second ray intersects the first primitive. The graphics processor may perform an intersection test for the second ray using the initial representation of the second ray and the first primitive. The intersection tests may be performed based on traversal of an acceleration data structure that includes hierarchically-arranged bounding volumes for a at least a portion of a graphics scene …. test circuitry is further configured to output a result for the first ray and the first primitive that indicates either: the first ray missed the first primitive, according to their initial representations or it is inconclusive whether the first ray misses the first primitive. For example, the processor may include the comparator and logic circuitry of both FIGS. 7 and 12. For the first ray and first primitive, in the example discussed above, this output will indicate that it is inconclusive whether the first ray misses the first primitive, because the other output indicated a definitive hit”). This would be obvious for the same reason given in the rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Clark et al. as modified by Burns teach all the limitation of claim 8, the claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 16 and is rejected under the same rational.
Regarding claims 17-18, Clark et al. as modified by Burns teach all the limitation of claim 15, the claims 17-18 are similar in scope to claims 3-4 and are rejected under the same rational.
Claim(s) 6, 13, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PGPubs 2021/0192829 to Clark et al. in view of U.S, PGPubs 2023/0102071 to Burns, further in view of U.S. PGPubs 2023/0081791 to Burgess et al..
Regarding claim 6, Clark et al. as modified by Burns teach all the limitation of claim 5, but keep silent for teaching wherein the ray tracing circuitry is configured to: compute a weighted average of vertices of a triangle using barycentric coordinates for the triangle; identify, using the weighted average, an intersection point at which a ray intersects with the triangle; and calculate one or more ray parameters for the ray based at least in part on the intersection point.
In related endeavor, Burgess et al. teach wherein the ray tracing circuitry is configured to: compute a weighted average of vertices of a triangle using barycentric coordinates for the triangle; identify, using the weighted average, an intersection point at which a ray intersects with the triangle; and calculate one or more ray parameters for the ray based at least in part on the intersection point (par 0346-352, “Those skilled in the art understand that barycentric coordinates are commonly used in ray tracing e.g., to determine whether a ray intersecting with a plane is intersecting a point on the plane inside a given triangle. For example, one expression of barycentric coordinates is:
sothatP(α,β,γ)=αa+βb+γc,whereα=1-β-γP(β,γ)=(1-β-γ)a+βb+γc=a+β(b-a)+γ(c-a). In this expression, β(b−a) and γ(c−a) are vectors describing the triangle's three vertices, the vectors lying on the triangle's plane. Any point on the plane of the triangle can be expressed as a weighted average of the vertices of the triangle, and the weight of the weighted average are the barycentric coordinates of that point. As is well known, if the weights α,β,γ≥0 “).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modified Clark et al. as modified by Burns to include wherein the ray tracing circuitry is configured to: compute a weighted average of vertices of a triangle using barycentric coordinates for the triangle; identify, using the weighted average, an intersection point at which a ray intersects with the triangle; and calculate one or more ray parameters for the ray based at least in part on the intersection point as taught by Burgess et al. to encode vertex positions of a triangle micro-mesh based on a barycentric grid, and enable micro vertex displacements to be encoded efficiently (e.g., as scalars linearly interpolated between minimum and maximum triangle surfaces) to improve in ray tracing hardware permit automatic processing of such primitive for ray-geometry intersection testing by ray tracing circuits without requiring intermediate reporting to a shader while minimizing the associated builder costs and preserving high efficiency ray and path tracing.
Regarding claim 13, Clark et al. as modified by Burns teach all the limitation of claim 12, the claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 6 and is rejected under the same rational.
Regarding claim 19, Clark et al. as modified by Burns teach all the limitation of claim 18, but keep silent for teaching wherein a given primitive from the plurality of primitives includes a triangle, and wherein a result of the first ray intersection test for the triangle corresponds to barycentric coordinates for the triangle.
In related endeavor, Burgess et al. teach wherein a given primitive from the plurality of primitives includes a triangle, and wherein a result of the first ray intersection test for the triangle corresponds to barycentric coordinates for the triangle (par 0346-352, “Those skilled in the art understand that barycentric coordinates are commonly used in ray tracing e.g., to determine whether a ray intersecting with a plane is intersecting a point on the plane inside a given triangle. For example, one expression of barycentric coordinates is:
sothatP(α,β,γ)=αa+βb+γc,whereα=1-β-γP(β,γ)=(1-β-γ)a+βb+γc=a+β(b-a)+γ(c-a). In this expression, β(b−a) and γ(c−a) are vectors describing the triangle's three vertices, the vectors lying on the triangle's plane. Any point on the plane of the triangle can be expressed as a weighted average of the vertices of the triangle, and the weight of the weighted average are the barycentric coordinates of that point. As is well known, if the weights α,β,γ≥0 “).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modified Clark et al. as modified by Burns to include wherein a given primitive from the plurality of primitives includes a triangle, and wherein a result of the first ray intersection test for the triangle corresponds to barycentric coordinates for the triangle as taught by Burgess et al. to encode vertex positions of a triangle micro-mesh based on a barycentric grid, and enable micro vertex displacements to be encoded efficiently (e.g., as scalars linearly interpolated between minimum and maximum triangle surfaces) to improve in ray tracing hardware permit automatic processing of such primitive for ray-geometry intersection testing by ray tracing circuits without requiring intermediate reporting to a shader while minimizing the associated builder costs and preserving high efficiency ray and path tracing.
Regarding claim 20, Clark et al. as modified by Burns teach all the limitation of claim 19, the claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 6 and is rejected under the same rational.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jin Ge whose telephone number is (571)272-5556. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 to 5:00.
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, Jason Chan can be reached at (571)272-3022. 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.
JIN . GE
Examiner
Art Unit 2619
/JIN GE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619