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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 10 are objected to because of a minor informality resulting from the amendment to claims 1 and 9: these claims recite “and the output of the temporal rate controller operation is based on…” (emphasis added) which no longer has antecedent basis in the claims, although the Examiner can understand what was meant.
There are a few ways to address this issue, such as amending the claims to read --and the temporal shading rate output by the temporal rate controller operation is based on…-- (similar to how it is worded in claims 6 and 14) or amending the claims to read --and the shading rate
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garvey et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0095266), referred herein as Garvey, in view of Yang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0166441), referred herein as Yang, and further in view of Nevraev et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0005712), referred herein as Nevraev.
Regarding claim 1, Garvey teaches a method for rendering, the method comprising: performing a visibility pass that designates portions of shade space textures visible in a scene, wherein the visibility pass generates tiles that cover the shade space textures visible in the scene (paragraph 64, the last 6 lines; paragraph 81, lines 1-7 and the last 5 lines; paragraph 88, lines 1-11; paragraph 92, lines 1-5; paragraph 96, lines 1-4 and the last 4 lines); performing a variable rate controller operation to select a variable shading rate for the tiles, and performing a shade space shading operation on the tiles that cover the shade space textures visible in the scene based on the variable shading rate, wherein samples in the tiles that cover the shade space textures visible in the scene are shaded in the shade space shading operation (paragraph 82; paragraph 92, lines 1-5; paragraph 120, lines 1-19); and performing a reconstruction operation using output from the shade space shading operation to produce a final scene (paragraph 74; paragraph 87, lines 1-13).
Garvey teaches a variable rate controller operation and variable shading rate, but does not explicitly teach a temporal rate controller operation to select a temporal shading rate for the tiles, wherein the temporal shading rate indicates a proportion of samples of the tile to shade and is based on degree of movement of visual elements of the tiles, and performing the shading operation based on the temporal shading rate.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Yang teaches a method for rendering comprising performing a shading operation on tiles covering shade space textures (figs 1A and 2; paragraph 28 and 32; paragraph 133, lines 1-17), and further comprising performing a temporal rate controller operation to select a temporal shading rate for the tiles, wherein the temporal shading rate indicates a proportion of samples of the tile to shade and is based on degree of movement of visual elements of the tiles (paragraphs 24 and 25; paragraph 56, lines 1-15; paragraphs 67 and 74), and performing the shading operation based on the temporal shading rate (paragraphs 31 and 32; paragraph 56, lines 1-15; paragraph 57, the last 14 lines; paragraph 70, lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the temporal shading rate of Yang with the variable shading rate of Garvey because this allows for smoother, clearer, higher quality image output at higher resulting frame rates (see, for example Yang, paragraph 47; paragraph 55, the last 6 lines).
Garvey in view of Yang does not explicitly teach that only a subset of samples are shaded in the shade space shading operation.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Nevraev teaches a method for rendering comprising performing a variable rate controller operation, performing a shade space shading operation on tiles covering shade space textures, and performing a reconstruction operation to produce a final scene (paragraphs 19, 37, and 43), wherein only a subset of samples in the tiles that cover the shade space textures visible in the scene are shaded in the shade space shading operation (paragraph 48, lines 9-14; paragraph 60, lines 1-14; paragraph 63; paragraph 64, the last 6 lines).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the subset shading of Nevraev with the shading of Garvey in view of Yang, because this provides more efficient shading operations and temporal sample blending, and improves coverage reconstruction (see, for example, Nevraev, paragraph 19, the last 7 lines).
Regarding claim 2, Garvey in view of Yang, further in view of Nevraev teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the temporal rate controller operation and the shade space shading operation are iteratively performed, and the output of the temporal rate controller operation is based on feedback from the shade space shading operation (Garvey, paragraph 99, lines 10-22; paragraph 118, lines 1-12; paragraph 123, lines 1-13; Yang, paragraph 69; paragraph 70, lines 1-16; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Garvey in view of Yang, further in view of Nevraev teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the temporal rate controller operation further comprises: (i) comparing values of spatially-corresponding samples output during first and second iterations of the shade space shading operation; and (ii) adjusting or maintaining the temporal shading rate based on a result of the comparing (Yang, paragraph 29, lines 1-13; paragraphs 31 and 32; paragraph 68, lines 1-5; paragraph 69; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Garvey in view of Yang, further in view of Nevraev teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the temporal shading rate is increased if one or more differences between the spatially-corresponding samples output during the first and second iterations of the shade space shading operation exceed a threshold (Yang, paragraphs 32 and 33; paragraph 70; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Garvey in view of Yang, further in view of Nevraev teaches the method of claim 2, wherein shaded samples are cached for reuse over a plurality of iterations of the shade space shading operation (Yang, paragraph 100; paragraph 133, lines 9-29; paragraph 140, lines 1-13; see also Garvey, paragraph 71; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Garvey in view of Yang, further in view of Nevraev teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the temporal shading rate output by the temporal rate controller operation is implemented in accordance with a predetermined budget of samples to be shaded in the shade space shading operation (Garvey, paragraph 102; Nevraev, paragraph 60; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Garvey in view of Yang, further in view of Nevraev teaches the method of claim 6, wherein an optimum temporal shading rate is selected for the shade space shading operation in order to minimize visual and perceptible impact of applying only a subset of samples to the shade space shading operation (Yang, paragraph 52, lines 1-16; paragraph 57, the last 14; paragraph 70; see also Garvey, paragraphs 78 and 120; Nevraev, paragraph 19; paragraph 48, lines 9-14; paragraph 60; the motivations to combine are similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Garvey in view of Yang, further in view of Nevraev teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: the reconstruction operation is part of a sequence of reconstruction intervals (Garvey, paragraph 82; paragraph 92, lines 1-5; paragraph 120, lines 1-19; Yang, paragraph 66; Nevraev, paragraph 18, the last 10 lines; paragraph 19; the motivations to combine are similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1); the shade space shading operation is part of a sequence of shade space shading frames (Garvey, paragraph 74; paragraph 87, lines 1-13; Yang, paragraph 43; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1); and the sequence of reconstruction intervals is processed at a higher frequency than the sequence of shade space shading frames (Yang, paragraphs 44 and 47; paragraph 52, lines 1-16; paragraph 66, lines 1-8; paragraph 70; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, the limitations of this claim substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 1 (except for the system comprising a processor and memory storing instructions, which is disclosed by Garvey, fig 1, processor 120, memory 124, and paragraph 49, the last 10 lines); thus they are rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding claims 10-16, the limitations of these claims substantially correspond to the limitations of claims 2-8, respectively; thus they are rejected on similar grounds as their corresponding claims.
Regarding claim 17, the limitations of this claim substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 1 (except for the medium storing instructions executed by a processor, which is disclosed by Garvey, fig 1, processor 120, memory 124, and paragraph 49, the last 10 lines); thus they are rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding claims 18, 19, and 20, the limitations of these claims substantially correspond to the limitations of claims 2, 5, and 6, respectively; thus they are rejected on similar grounds as their corresponding claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the double patenting rejections have been fully considered, and are persuasive. The approved terminal disclaimer obviates these rejections; thus they are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9 and 10 of the Applicant’s Remarks, with respect to the 103 rejection of claims 1, 9, and 17, the Applicant argues, in summary, that 1) the Office Action indicates that Garvey does not teach a temporal shading rate controller operation and that Yang does not teach the limitation regarding the subset of samples, thus Garvey and Yang cannot teach the amended limitation, and 2) Nevraev does not teach the amended limitation because Nevraev does not disclose a shading rate based on a degree of movement of visual elements of tiles. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with these arguments, in part.
Regarding the first argument, the Examiner agrees that Garvey does not teach the amended features regarding the temporal shading rate. However, while the Examiner also agrees that Yang does not teach the limitation regarding the subset of samples, it is respectfully submitted that Yang appears to clearly disclose the amended limitations regarding the temporal shading rate controller and the temporal shading rate that indicates a proportion of samples of the tile to shade and is based on degree of movement of visual elements of the tiles (please refer to the citations to Yang provided in the above Office Action, in the 103 rejection of claim 1).
Regarding the second argument, the Examiner also agrees that Nevraev does not teach the amended limitation. However, it respectfully submitted that Nevraev is not relied upon to teach this feature, as it is disclosed by Yang.
For these reasons the rejections are respectfully maintained. However, Applicant is invited to contact the Examiner in the event that an interview would help advance prosecution.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Mueller (Temporally Adaptive Shading Reuse for Real-Time Rendering and Virtual Reality); ACM Transactions on Graphics; 2017.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DAVID T WELCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30-5:30 EST, and alternate Fridays, 9:00-2:30 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, Xiao Wu can be reached at 571-272-7761. 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.
DAVID T. WELCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/DAVID T WELCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613