DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on/after Mar. 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06 November 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 5, filed 06 November 2025, with respect to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection(s) of 22 October 2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, regarding the “failing to comply with the written description requirement” rejection under 35 USC § 112(a), filed 6 Nov. 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant cites support for the amended claim language at pp. 5-6 of Applicant’s remarks. Applicant further adds claim 17 (see Remarks, p. 6), asserting that this claim imparts clarity/support for independent claim 1. The Examiner does not know how the “depth bias” is necessarily related to the ‘position of a virtual camera’, as the Examiner asserts that the position of a virtual camera within a 3-D environment is arbitrary and may be dictated by a viewer of a virtual scene and/or virtual navigation/gameplay.
Applicant cites various Wikipedia articles related to ‘frustum’, ‘viewing frustum’, ‘angle of view’, etc. (see Remarks, pp. 6-10). The Examiner maintains that a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would not be able to ascertain the relationship between the ‘frustum height’ and the ‘vertical screen resolution’. Even allowing that the ‘frustum height’ is a fixed orthogonal distance between two parallel near/far clipping planes, the PHOSITA cannot know how wide/tall the frustum is (What is the angle at which the ‘cone of vision’ flares outwardly?), or the corresponding height/width of either clipping plane without undue experimentation or foreknowledge.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-11, and 15-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claim limitation “… wherein the depth bias is based at least in part on a frustum height and a vertical screen resolution associated with the pixel”, lacks written description in that the Examiner cannot ascertain the metes and/or bounds of the specific relationship between the depth bias and the frustum height/vertical screen resolution. The instant specification discloses “In addition to … the feature(s) described herein, or as an alternative, further embodiments of the method/system may include that the depth bias is based at least in part on a frustum height and a vertical screen resolution” (¶ [0012], [0020]).
PNG
media_image1.png
426
519
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viewing_frustum) explains that “a viewing frustum or view frustum is the region of space in the modeled world that may appear on the screen; it is the field of view of a perspective virtual camera system. The view frustum is typically obtained by taking a geometrical frustum — that is a truncation with parallel planes — of the pyramid of vision, which is the adaptation of (idealized) cone of vision that a camera or eye would have to the rectangular viewports typically used in computer graphics. Some authors use pyramid of vision as a synonym for view frustum itself, i.e. consider it truncated. The exact shape of this region varies depending on what kind of camera lens is being simulated, but typically it is a frustum of a rectangular pyramid (hence the name). The planes that cut the frustum perpendicular to the viewing direction are called the near plane and the far plane. Objects closer to the camera than the near plane or beyond the far plane are not drawn. Sometimes, the far plane is placed infinitely far away from the camera so all objects within the frustum are drawn regardless of their distance from the camera.”
The Examiner generally understands that there is a relationship between the distance/depth between objects and the viewing camera/eye that may relate to frustum height; however, the viewing angle(s) are not specified, so the Examiner asserts that it is not feasible for a person having ordinary skill in the art to ascertain both the frustum height and the vertical screen resolution, which seems to be an arbitrary design choice based on the height of the environment/object(s) and the desired image quality relative to computing resources. Further, the Examiner asserts that a lack of precision/support exists for the language “vertical screen resolution associated with the pixel”. Does a single pixel have a relationship to physical area? If so, what is the relationship and how might it be quantified?
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 7-11, and 15-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claims 1 and 9, the prior art of record does not teach, suggest, or disclose the claim limitation “… wherein the depth bias is based at least in part on a frustum height and a vertical screen resolution associated with the pixel” in combination with the other recited claim limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M COFINO whose telephone number is (303) 297-4268. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10A-4P MT.
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, Kent Chang can be reached at 571-272-7667. 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.
/JONATHAN M COFINO/Examiner, Art Unit 2614
/KENT W CHANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2614