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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 5th June, 2026. Claims 1, 6-10, and 15-19 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remain rejected in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to Claims 1, 10, and 19, filed on 5th June, 2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 regarding that the prior art does not teach "the shade space textures are used in texturing objects in an output image reconstruction operation", "identifying a subset of samples within the tiles to shade using spatially-adaptive sampling", "generating, by a technique other than shading, sample values for samples of the tiles not shaded by the sparse shading", and "performing the output image reconstruction operation by texturing the objects using the shade space textures to produce the output image." The proposed amended claim limitations have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., performing the reconstruction operation using output from the regularization operation to produce a final scene) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, applicant’s remark cannot be considered persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art does not teach "the shade space textures are used in texturing objects in an output image reconstruction operation" as recited in Claim 1, these limitations are taught by Garvey and Golas. In particular, Garvey teaches the following:
Paragraph [0080]: discloses a shading atlas referring to a 2D data structure that includes shading information of visible surfaces (i.e., visible tiles) that correspond to rendered scenes, which includes geometric objects; and
Paragraph [0082]: discloses a shading stage that shades (i.e., textures) geometric objects, where the device shades visible patches (i.e., tiles) into the shading atlas.
In addition, Golas teaches the following:
Paragraph [0061]: discloses tiles in a current frame being selected for sub-sampling at a reduced average sampling rate, where rendering and reconstruction is then performed on the current frame, which is interpreted to be a form of output image reconstruction operation as it takes a form of output and reconstructs it using a sampling rate (i.e., a type of operation that recreates the initial frame/image).
Therefore, applicant’s remark cannot be considered persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art does not teach "identifying a subset of samples within the tiles to shade using spatially-adaptive sampling" as recited in Claim 1, these limitations are taught by Garvey and Golas. In particular, Garvey teaches the following:
Paragraph [0081]: discloses marking certain patches (i.e., sampled tiles) in a patch ID buffer as visible and performing visibility sampling during a visibility stage, where "a unit for determining visibility for geometry may be referred to as a patch, where the patch may include one or more adjacent triangles".
In addition, Golas teaches the following:
Paragraph [0114]: discloses "the shading reduction pipeline state 1806 includes a sampling rate stage (or heuristic) 1820 (e.g., the sampling rate required as a function of quality reducing filter (depth-of-field (DoF), motion blur, etc.))", where the shading reduction pipeline state 1806 is interpreted to be a state where portions of the current frame/image are shaded at different rates; and
FIG. 18: discloses the shading reduction pipeline 1806, which determines shading rate function in regions of the current image based on samples before generating a shading-rate image 1808.
Therefore, applicant’s remark cannot be considered persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art does not teach "generating, by a technique other than shading, sample values for samples of the tiles not shaded by the sparse shading" as recited in Claim 1, these limitations are taught by Garvey. In particular, Garvey teaches the following:
Paragraph [0117]: discloses a sampler feedback stage 1112 (i.e., a technique that’s not shading) that, for a given frame, marks texels at which MIP levels in texture space "will be sampled from screen space in order to inform a shading system as to which texels are to be shaded in the frame"; and
Paragraph [0121]: discloses a sampler feedback texture 2104 corresponding to feedback 1916, where it utilizes "depth testing hardware of a GPU to quickly skip parts of the shading atlas that do not contain a matching material ID," which are interpreted to be samples that are not sparsely shaded.
Therefore, applicant’s remark cannot be considered persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art does not teach "performing the output image reconstruction operation by texturing the objects using the shade space textures to produce the output image" as recited in Claim 1, these limitations are taught by Golas. In particular, Golas teaches the following:
FIG. 18 discloses the shading reduction pipeline 1806 determining the shading rate function 1826 in regions of the current image (i.e., reuse vs. redraw analysis from previous frames and tracked objects that were previously shaded) before generating a shading-rate image 1808, which is then passed onto the GPU pipeline 1804, where additional draw calls and shading operations, such as shaders related to geometry in the scene being shaded (i.e., textured), are performed, which then result in an output render image 1810.
Therefore, applicant’s remark cannot be considered persuasive.
Regarding arguments to Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20, they directly/indirectly depend on independent Claims 1, 10, and 19 respectively. Applicant does not argue anything other than independent Claims 1, 10, and 19. The limitations in those claims, in conjunction with combination, was previously established as explained.
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 1-2, 5, 9-11, 14-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garvey et al. (US 20250095266 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Garvey, in view of Golas et al. (US 20200143550 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Golas.
Regarding Claim 1, Garvey discloses a method for rendering (Garvey, [0063]: teaches a rendering method), the method comprising:
designating portions of shade space textures visible in a scene (Garvey, [0063]: teaches the rendering method dividing the scene into multiple bins for processing, which includes "a visibility pass that identifies the triangles <read on designated portions> that are visible in each bin <read on visible portions of shade space textures>"; [0071]: teaches texture space shading (TSS) 502, which is a shading process that dynamically computes and stores shading values in a texture as texels in a texture space, sampling the visibility and the appearance of object textures at independent rates and in separate coordinate systems; Note: "designating" is being interpreted as a form of "identification"), wherein
the designating includes generating tiles that of the shade space textures that are visible in the scene (Garvey, [0081]: teaches a device that marks certain patches in a patch ID buffer as visible and performs visibility sampling 508 during a visibility stage, where "a unit for determining visibility for geometry may be referred to as a patch, where the patch may include one or more adjacent triangles" as shown in FIG. 7; FIG. 7 teaches only visible triangle patches being added to shading atlas 708 <read on generating tiles of visible shade space textures>; Note: it should be noted that the shading atlas is being interpreted as a form of texture atlas; in addition, the shading atlas is utilized to provide for an improved TSS), and wherein
PNG
media_image1.png
401
551
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the shade space textures comprise textures into which texels are written by shader operations (Garvey, [0074]: teaches the apparatus performing texture space sampling 512 <read on shader operations>, where texels are shaded into texture space 516 <read on textures>), wherein
the shade space textures are used in texturing objects [[in an output image reconstruction operation]] (Garvey, [0080]: teaches the shading atlas referring to a 2D data structure that includes shading information of visible surfaces that correspond to rendered scenes that includes geometric objects; [0082]: teaches a shading stage <read on texturing objects>, where the device shades visible patches into the shading atlas);
identifying a subset of samples within the tiles to shade [[using spatially-adaptive sampling]] (Garvey, [0081]: teaches marking certain patches <read on identified subset of samples> in a patch ID buffer as visible and performing visibility sampling during a visibility stage, where "a unit for determining visibility for geometry may be referred to as a patch, where the patch may include one or more adjacent triangles");
sparsely shading the tiles that cover the shade space textures visible in the scene [[based on a result of the spatially-adaptive sampling]] (Garvey, [0109]: teaches "the device may sparsely allocate a MIP region map (e.g., the MIP region map 902) and corresponding tiles in the shading atlas for visible shadels <read on tiles that cover shade space textures>"; [0119]: teaches the device shading textures <read on sparsely shading> (e.g., packed textures in a shading atlas); [0120]: teaches VRS 2002 varying shading rates for different regions of a frame 2004);
generating, by a technique other than shading, sample values for samples of the tiles not shaded by the sparse shading (Garvey, [0117]: teaches a sampler feedback stage 1112 <read on technique other than shading> that, for a given frame, marks texels at which MIP levels in texture space "will be sampled from screen space in order to inform a shading system as to which texels are to be shaded in the frame"; [0121]: teaches a sampler feedback texture 2104 corresponding to feedback 1916, where it utilizes "depth testing hardware of a GPU to quickly skip parts <read on samples not shaded by sparse shading> of the shading atlas that do not contain a matching material ID"; Note: it should be noted that samples, by their very nature, have sample values; in addition, the specification of the current application does not disclose what "sample values" are specifically, thus the examiner will interpret this terminology broadly); and
[[performing the output image reconstruction operation by texturing the objects using the shade space textures to produce the output image.]]
However, Garvey does not expressly disclose
the shade space textures are used in texturing objects in an output image reconstruction operation;
identifying a subset of samples within the tiles to shade using spatially-adaptive sampling;
sparsely shading the tiles that cover the shade space textures visible in the scene based on a result of the spatially-adaptive sampling; and
performing the output image reconstruction operation by texturing the objects using the shade space textures to produce the output image.
Golas discloses
the shade space textures are used in texturing objects in an output image reconstruction operation (Golas, [0061]: teaches tiles in a current frame being selected for sub-sampling at a reduced average sampling rate, where rendering and reconstruction <read on output image reconstruction operation> is then performed on the current frame);
identifying a subset of samples within the tiles to shade using spatially-adaptive sampling (Golas, [0114]: teaches "the shading reduction pipeline state 1806 <read on spatially adaptive sampling> includes a sampling rate stage (or heuristic) 1820 (e.g., the sampling rate required as a function of quality reducing filter (depth-of-field (DoF), motion blur, etc.))" as shown in FIG. 18; FIG. 18 teaches the shading reduction pipeline 1806, which determines shading rate function in regions of the current image based on samples before generating a shading-rate image 1808; [0092]: teaches the system automatically analyzing individual tiles for sampling);
PNG
media_image2.png
403
589
media_image2.png
Greyscale
sparsely shading the tiles that cover the shade space textures visible in the scene based on a result of the spatially-adaptive sampling (Golas, [0113]: teaches "the shading rate image stage 1808 may generate the shading rate image based on the output from the shading reduction pipeline state 1806 <read on sparsely shading>," where the raster image is composed of pixels <read on tiles>; Note: it should be noted that a "block of pixels" are referred to as screen tiles; see Paragraph [0002] of Golas; FIG. 20 teaches the system detecting a quality reduction in a rendered image and computing a shading rate image based on the detected number of samples <read on spatially-adaptive sampling result>); and
PNG
media_image3.png
357
447
media_image3.png
Greyscale
performing the output image reconstruction operation by texturing the objects using the shade space textures to produce the output image (Golas, FIG. 18 teaches the shading reduction pipeline 1806 <read on output image reconstruction operation> determining the shading rate function 1826 in regions of the current image (i.e., reuse vs. redraw analysis from previous frames and tracked objects <read on shade space textures>) before generating a shading-rate image 1808, which is then passed onto the GPU pipeline 1804, where additional draw calls and shading operations, such as shaders related to geometry in the scene being shaded <read on texturing objects>, are performed, which then result in an output render image 1810 <read on output image>).
Golas is analogous art with respect to Garvey because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely GPU tile-rendering. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement a shading reduction pipeline as taught by Golas into the teaching of Garvey. The suggestion for doing so would allow the system to reuse tile data from prior frames and combine them with the current frame, thereby reducing rendering overhead and improving overall rendering efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Golas with Garvey.
Regarding Claim 10, it recites the limitations that are similar in scope to Claim 1, but in a system. As shown in the rejection, the combination of Garvey and Golas discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Additionally, Garvey discloses a system (Garvey, [0048]: teaches a processing unit 120 <read on system>) comprising:
a processor (Garvey, [0048]: teaches the processing unit 120 including one or more processors); and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations including (Garvey, [0048]: teaches the processing unit 120 including internal memory 121, which further include instructions for the processors to execute to perform techniques <read on operations>):…
Thus, Claim 10 is met by Garvey according to the mapping presented in the rejection of Claim 1, given the method corresponds to a system.
Regarding Claim 19, it recites the limitations that are similar in scope to Claim 1, but in a non-transitory computer-readable medium. As shown in the rejection, the combination of Garvey and Golas discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Additionally, Garvey discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations (Garvey, [0048]: teaches a processing unit 120 that includes internal memory 121, which is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, that further includes executable instructions for one or more processors to perform techniques <read on operations>) comprising:…
Thus, Claim 19 is met by Garvey according to the mapping presented in the rejection of Claim 1, given the method corresponds to a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
Regarding Claims 2, 11, and 20, the combination of Garvey and Golas discloses the method, the system and the non-transitory computer-readable medium of Claims 1, 10, and 19 respectively. Garvey does not expressly disclose the limitations of Claims 2, 11, and 20; however, Golas discloses wherein the spatially-adaptive sampling comprises
sampling at a higher spatial sampling rate proximate a high-frequency detail in a tile (Golas, [0098]: teaches a higher shading rate <read on higher spatial sampling rate>, which provides more visual fidelity), and
sampling at a lower spatial sampling rate in other areas of the tile (Golas, [0098]: teaches a lower shading rate <read on lower spatial sampling rate>, which provides less visual fidelity; [0158]: teaches "areas <read on other areas> of a render target (e.g., image) that do not require fine scale details may often be rendered at a lower resolution without suffering noticeable visual artifacts").
Golas is analogous art with respect to Garvey because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely GPU tile-rendering. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement a shading reduction pipeline as taught by Golas into the teaching of Garvey. The suggestion for doing so would allow the system to reuse tile data from prior frames and combine them with the current frame, thereby reducing rendering overhead and improving overall rendering efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Golas with Garvey.
Regarding Claims 5 and 14, the combination of Garvey and Golas discloses the method and the system of Claims 1 and 10 respectively. Garvey does not expressly disclose the limitations of Claims 5 and 14; however, Golas discloses wherein the spatially-adaptive sampling comprises:
(i) dithering a spatial sampling pattern within a tile (Golas, [0059]: teaches performing dithering 540 for sampling patterns <read on spatial sampling pattern>, which are for given tiles, such as a 4x4 block/tile 535 as shown in FIG. 5),
PNG
media_image4.png
242
606
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(ii) determining whether the dithered spatial sampling pattern provides additional information during the shade space shading operation (Golas, [0058]: teaches additional checks being performed "to determine if pixels from the previous frame may be used <read on additional information> in the current frame"), and
(iii) determining whether to further dither a spatial sampling pattern within the tile in response to the result of step (ii) (Golas, [0060]: teaches a dithering module selecting a sample pattern <read on spatial sampling pattern>, where "the sample patterns are selected so that each pixel is guaranteed to be rendered at least <read on determining whether to further dither within tile> once every k frames, where
n
*
n
k
is the minimum number of samples per
n
×
n
tile"; Note: it should be noted that temporal dithering is being interpreted as a continuous dither over a period of time; additionally, the process is only performed when a pixel change between the previous and current frames exceed a threshold).
Golas is analogous art with respect to Garvey because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely GPU tile-rendering. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement a shading reduction pipeline as taught by Golas into the teaching of Garvey. The suggestion for doing so would allow the system to reuse tile data from prior frames and combine them with the current frame, thereby reducing rendering overhead and improving overall rendering efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Golas with Garvey.
Regarding Claims 9 and 15, the combination of Garvey and Golas discloses the method and the system of Claims 1 and 10 respectively. Garvey does not expressly disclose the limitations of Claims 9 and 15; however, Golas discloses wherein:
the output image reconstruction operation is part of a sequence of reconstruction frames (Golas, [0149]: teaches the GPU checking for changes in the underlying assets (e.g., camera and viewport) between an input image frame an output image frame, where it determines which data should be reused <read on reconstruction operation> from the previous frame to reduce rendering overhead and reconstruct a frame <read on part of sequence of reconstruction frames>; Note: it should be noted that it is being interpreted that the constant process of checking between previous and current frames to construct an updated frame is creating a set of reconstruction frames);
the sparsely shading is part of a sequence of shade space shading frames (Golas, [0113]: teaches "the shading rate image stage 1808 may generate the shading rate image <read on part of sequence of shade space shading frames> based on the output from the shading reduction pipeline state 1806 <read on shade space shading operation>"); and
the sequence of reconstruction frames is processed at a higher frequency than the sequence of shade space shading frames (Golas, [0098]: teaches a higher shading rate <read on higher frequency>, which provides more visual fidelity).
Golas is analogous art with respect to Garvey because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely GPU tile-rendering. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the system check for changes in the underlying assets between the current and previous frames as taught by Golas into the teaching of Garvey. The suggestion for doing so would allow the system to determine which tile data to reuse from the previous frame, thereby reducing overall rendering workload and improving rendering efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Golas with Garvey.
Claims 3-4, 8, 12-13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garvey et al. (US 20250095266 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Garvey, in view of Golas et al. (US 20200143550 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Golas as applied to Claims 1 and 10 above respectively, and further in view of Yang et al. (US 20210166441 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Yang.
Regarding Claims 3 and 12, the combination of Garvey and Golas discloses the method and the system of Claims 1 and 10 respectively. The combination of Garvey and Golas does not expressly disclose the limitations of Claims 3 and 12; however, Yang discloses wherein the spatially-adaptive sampling comprises
equalization of a spatial sampling rate between neighboring tiles in order to reduce a rate of change the spatial sampling rate between the neighboring tiles (Yang, [0056]: teaches applying a temporal smoothing scalar <read on equalization of spatial sampling rate> to generate adaptive velocity thresholds to reduce dramatic variability <read on reducing rate of change> of shading rate patterns across neighboring frames <read on neighboring tiles>).
Yang is analogous art with respect to Garvey, in view of Golas because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely applying variable rate shading to sets of pixels. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement a temporal smoothing scalar that generates adaptive velocity thresholds as taught by Yang into the teaching of Garvey, in view of Golas. The suggestion for doing so would allow the system to determine sampling discrepancies between neighboring frames, where the temporal smoothing scalar would smooth out the output tiles for each frame, thereby yielding consistent image quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yang with Garvey, in view of Golas.
Regarding Claims 4 and 13, the combination of Garvey and Golas discloses the method and the system of Claims 1 and 10 respectively. The combination of Garvey and Golas does not expressly disclose the limitations of Claims 4 and 13; however, Yang discloses wherein the spatially-adaptive sampling comprises:
(i) changing a spatial sampling rate within a tile (Yang, [0045]: teaches an example of the system reducing shading rates <read on changing spatial sampling rate> of a tile at location (1, 5) "along both X and Y dimensions because animated object 135(3) covers all pixel in the tile and has moderate pixel velocity and both X and Y," where "selectively reducing shading rates in this way creates a broader tradeoff space between static shaded resolution per frame and frame rate, allowing systems to achieve better overall visual quality"),
(ii) determining whether the changed spatial sampling rate provides additional information during the shade space shading operation (Yang, [0055]: teaches performing multiple shading operations <read on shade space shading operation> per pixel "to effectively super sample a pixel shading result," where "super sampling may increase temporal stability and reduce aliasing artifacts appearing on high-frequency details" and "a higher per-pixel shading rate may provide additional detail <read on providing additional information> and perceived image quality at lower object motion speeds, as aliasing artifacts are more easily noticeable at lower speeds"; Note: it should be noted that shading operations are performed in the rasterization pipeline), and
(iii) determining whether to further vary the spatial sampling rate within the tile in response to the result of step (ii) (Yang, [0067]: teaches variable pixel shading rate being supported "by varying the shading resolution in texture MIP-level," where "since this form of shading rate can be determined on a per texture-tile basis, there is enough flexibility to vary shading rate adaptively at each visible surface location and respond to a shading rate determination <read on determining spatial sampling rate variation> based on screen-space motion").
Yang is analogous art with respect to Garvey, in view of Golas because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely applying variable rate shading to sets of pixels. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform variable pixel shading rates at varying shading resolutions as taught by Yang into the teaching of Garvey, in view of Golas. The suggestion for doing so would provide the rendering pipeline additional context for region-based shading rates, thereby improving the overall rendering process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yang with Garvey, in view of Golas.
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, the combination of Garvey and Golas discloses the method and the system of Claims 1 and 10 respectively. The combination of Garvey and Golas does not expressly disclose the limitations of Claims 8 and 18; however, Yang discloses wherein
an optimum pattern of samples are selected for the sparsely shading in order to minimize the visual and perceptible impact of applying only a subset of the samples to the sparsely shading (Yang, [0037]: teaches determining the maximum shading rate difference <read on selecting an optimum pattern of samples> between a first and second shading rate, which is specified "as one list position difference from a list of possible shading rates (e.g., one, one half, one quarter, and so forth)," which is used for variable rate shading <read on applying only a subset of samples>).
Yang is analogous art with respect to Garvey, in view of Golas because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely applying variable rate shading to sets of pixels. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform variable pixel shading rates at varying shading resolutions as taught by Yang into the teaching of Garvey, in view of Golas. The suggestion for doing so would provide the rendering pipeline additional context for region-based shading rates, thereby improving the overall rendering process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yang with Garvey, in view of Golas.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garvey et al. (US 20250095266 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Garvey, in view of Golas et al. (US 20200143550 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Golas as applied to Claims 1 and 10 above respectively, and further in view of Fuller et al. (US 20190005714 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Fuller.
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, the combination of Garvey and Golas discloses the method and the system of Claims 1 and 10 respectively. The combination of Garvey and Golas does not expressly disclose the limitations of Claims 6 and 16; however, Fuller discloses wherein
the spatially-adaptive sampling is implemented in accordance with a predetermined budget of samples to be shaded in the sparsely shading (Fuller, [0019]: teaches analyzing a previous fragment (e.g., individually and/or as part of a larger area of the previous image) "to determine whether the previous fragment is subject to high frequency detail (e.g., that achieves at least a threshold frequency)" and "if so, the variable shading rate <read on spatially-adaptive sampling> selected for the current fragment can be increased or decreased and/or can otherwise be set to a certain value (e.g., a maximum value) <read on predetermined budget of samples> based on determining that the previous fragment is subject to the high frequency detail" for shading <read on shade space operation>).
Fuller is analogous art with respect to Garvey, in view of Golas because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely applying variable rate shading to sets of pixels in an input image. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to analyze a previous fragment to set a determined value based on frequency detail as taught by Fuller into the teaching of Garvey, in view of Golas. The suggestion for doing so would allow the system to adjust the type of variable shading rate based on fidelity, thereby offering a flexible and adaptive rendering system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fuller with Garvey, in view of Golas.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garvey et al. (US 20250095266 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Garvey, in view of Golas et al. (US 20200143550 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Golas, and further in view of Fuller et al. (US 20190005714 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Fuller as applied to Claims 6 and 16 above respectively, and further in view of Yang et al. (US 20210166441 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Yang.
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, the combination of Garvey, Golas, and Fuller discloses the method and the system of Claims 6 and 16 respectively. The combination of Garvey, Golas, and Fuller does not expressly disclose the limitations of Claims 7 and 17; however, Yang discloses wherein
an optimum spatial amount of samples are selected for the sparsely shading in order to minimize the visual and perceptible impact of applying only a subset of the samples to the sparsely shading (Yang, [0041]: teaches "a pixel block size of 1×1 includes one pixel and is shaded from at least one color shading operation" and "a pixel block of 4×4 pixels comprises sixteen pixels <read on selecting an optimum spatial amount of samples>, which are collectively shaded from one color shading operation, thereby reducing computational workload relative to a 1×1 pixel block <read on applying only a subset of samples>").
Yang is analogous art with respect to the combination of Garvey, Golas, and Fuller because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely applying variable rate shading to sets of pixels. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform variable pixel shading rates at varying shading resolutions as taught by Yang into the combined teaching of Garvey, Golas, and Fuller. The suggestion for doing so would provide the rendering pipeline additional context for region-based shading rates, thereby improving the overall rendering process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yang with the combination of Garvey, Golas, and Fuller.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Goel et al. (US 20130265309 A1) discloses a GPU that performs vertex shading operations using patch shading; and
Saleh et al. (US 20200202605 A1) discloses determining a centroid for fragments generated using variable rate shading.
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 KARL TRUONG whose telephone number is (703)756-5915. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30 AM - 7:30 PM.
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.
/K.D.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2614
/KENT W CHANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2614
Prosecution Insights