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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim recites “a projection of a three-dimensional data object two a two-dimensional image”. It appears to be typographical error.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The combine references of Wu and Howson and Chen does not recite the limitations as in claims 18 and 4-6: a location of the plurality of locations comprises a center point of a cell disposed in a grid; the boundary is defined according to a polynomial function of the grid; and the state is represented using: a first bit, indicative of the intersection with the boundary; and a second bit, indicative of the visual characteristic.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9-14, 17, and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wu (US 20220189096) in view of Howson (US 20150221127).
Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches:
A processor comprising:
one or more circuits to:
identify a visual characteristic for a shape element mapped to a plurality of locations of a texture map; (Wu at least in par. [0042] and Fig. 7, teaches triangle shape mapped to locations of texture map of leaf object… FIG. 7 illustrates an example technique for subdividing primitives with an opacity texture… The primitive 700 is shown, with an opacity texture 708 applied. The primitive 700 is divided into multiple sub-primitives, including opaque primitive portions 704 and invisible primitive portions 706.)
PNG
media_image1.png
1087
933
media_image1.png
Greyscale
determine whether the shape element intersects a boundary of the texture map, the boundary corresponding to the visual characteristic (Wu at least in par. [0042] and Fig. 7 above, teaches the primitive 700 is shown, with an opacity texture 708 applied. The primitive 700 is divided into multiple sub-primitives, including opaque primitive portions 704 and invisible primitive portions 706. The opaque primitive portions 704 are portions of the primitive 700 that are overlapped (intersect with a boundary of the texture map 708) by an opaque portion of the opacity texture 708.)
assign, responsive to the determination of the intersection and according to the visual characteristic, a state to the shape element to control generation of an image comprising the shape element. (Wu at least in FIG. 6 illustrates an example application 600 of the technique for applying an opacity texture to a primitive in the context of ray tracing. Several primitives 602 are shown, and several opacity textures 604 indicating opaque (state) areas are shown… The opaque (state) primitive portions 704 are portions of the primitive 700 that are overlapped by an opaque portion of the opacity texture 708. The invisible portions are portions of the primitive 700 that are not overlapped by an opaque portion of the opacity texture 708…. [0035], teaches control generation of an image comprising the shape element where a single primitive is rendered with an opacity texture that indicates which portions of that primitive are considered opaque and which portions are considered invisible. This alternative technique has the benefit that a much smaller amount of geometry is processed… [0058], teaches at step 904, the BVH builder 801 identifies, from the primitive portions, opaque primitive portions, and invisible primitive portions. Opaque primitive portions are portions designated as opaque by the opacity texture. Invisible primitive portions are portions designed as invisible by the opacity texture.)
Wu is silent to using a threshold value for the (opaque) visual characteristic in determining the opacity for texture map.
On the other hand, Howson teaches using a threshold value for the (opaque) visual characteristic in determining the opacity for texture map (Howson at least in par. [0035] and FIG. 2, teaches some regions of the primitive 202 are fully transparent (e.g. the texels of the texture for these regions have alpha values of zero) and are shown as clear regions in FIG. 2, denoted 204. A region 206 of the primitive 202 is fully opaque (e.g. the texels of the texture for this region has an alpha value of one) and is shown as a solid black region in FIG. 2. A region 208 of the primitive 202 is neither fully transparent nor fully opaque (e.g. the texels of the texture for these regions have alpha values, α, where 0≦α≦1) and is shown as a hashed region in FIG. 2.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply/implement opacity states based on threshold as from Howson in view of Wu’s. The combination provides a well know method of determining a state of transparency/opacity texture element based on alpha values. The result of combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Wu in view of Howson teaches:
The processor of claim 1, comprising:
one or more second circuits to:
identify an interface between a simulated ray and the shape element; and determine an absorption or propagation of the simulated ray at the interface according to a criterion corresponding to the state of the shape element. (Wu in par. [0024], teaches the acceleration structure traversal stage 304 performs the ray intersection test to determine whether a ray hits a triangle. Wu at least in par. [0042] and Fig. 7 above, teaches the primitive 700 is shown, with an opacity texture 708 applied. The primitive 700 is divided into multiple sub-primitives, including opaque primitive portions 704 and invisible primitive portions 706. The opaque primitive portions 704 are portions of the primitive 700 that are overlapped (intersect with a boundary of the texture map 708) by an opaque portion of the opacity texture 708… The state of texture’s opacity within the triangles in Wu’s Fig. 7 above, indicates the ray will go/propagate through transparent tiles in the triangle element.)
Regarding claim 3, Wu in view of Howson teaches:
The processor of claim 1, comprising:
one or more second circuits to:
identify an interface between a simulated ray and the shape element (Wu in par. [0024], teaches the acceleration structure traversal stage 304 performs the ray intersection test to determine whether a ray hits a triangle.);
retrieve, responsive to the state of the shape element, a representation of the shape element comprising an indication of the boundary; and (Wu at least in par. [0042] and Fig. 7 above, teaches the primitive 700 is shown, with an opacity texture 708 applied. The primitive 700 is divided into multiple sub-primitives, including opaque primitive portions 704 and invisible primitive portions 706. The opaque primitive portions 704 are portions of the primitive 700 that are overlapped (intersect with a boundary of the texture map 708) by an opaque portion of the opacity texture 708.)
determine an absorption or propagation of the simulated ray at the interface according to criteria comprising the state of the representation of the shape element.
(The determined state of texture opacity within the triangles in Wu’s Fig. 7 above, indicates the ray will go/propagate through transparent tiles in the triangle element.)
Regarding claim 7, Wu in view of Howson teaches:
The processor of claim 1, wherein the texture map is a two-dimensional texture map that maps a projection of a three-dimensional data object two a two-dimensional image. (Wu in Fig. 7 above, implies texture map in 2D projected from texture of the 3D scene.)
Regarding claim 9, Wu in view of Howson teaches:
The processor of claim 1 wherein:
the visual characteristic is a binary indication of an opacity; (Howson at least in par. [0035] and FIG. 2, teaches some regions of the primitive 202 are fully transparent (e.g. the texels of the texture for these regions have alpha values of zero) and are shown as clear regions in FIG. 2, denoted 204. A region 206 of the primitive 202 is fully opaque (e.g. the texels of the texture for this region has an alpha value of one.)
the shape element is a triangle; and the opacity is identified by comparing a map location bounded by the triangle to the threshold value. (Wu at least in FIG. 6 illustrates an example application 600 of the technique for applying an opacity texture to a primitive in the context of ray tracing. Several primitives 602 are shown, and several opacity textures 604 indicating opaque (state) areas are shown… The opaque (state) primitive portions 704 are portions of the primitive 700 that are overlapped by an opaque portion of the opacity texture 708. The invisible portions are portions of the primitive 700 that are not overlapped by an opaque portion of the opacity texture 708…. [0035], teaches control generation of an image comprising the shape element where a single primitive is rendered with an opacity texture that indicates which portions of that primitive are considered opaque and which portions are considered invisible. This alternative technique has the benefit that a much smaller amount of geometry is processed… [0058], teaches at step 904, the BVH builder 801 identifies, from the primitive portions, opaque primitive portions, and invisible primitive portions. Opaque primitive portions are portions designated as opaque by the opacity texture. Invisible primitive portions are portions designed as invisible by the opacity texture.)
Regarding claim 10, Wu in view of Howson teaches:
The processor of claim 1, wherein the processor is comprised in at least one of:
a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine;
a perception system for the autonomous or semi-autonomous machine;
a system for performing simulation operations;
a system for performing digital twin operations;
a system for performing light transport simulation;
a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets;
a system for performing deep learning operations;
a system implemented using an edge device;
a system implemented using a robot;
a system implementing one or more large language models (LLMs);
a system for performing conversational AI operations;
a system for generating synthetic data;
a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs);
a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or
a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources.
(Wu [0018], physics simulations.)
Regarding claims 11-13, 16-17, and 20, it recites similar limitations of claims 1-3, 7, and 9 but in different forms. The rationale of claims 1-3, 7, and 9 rejection is applied to reject claims 11-13, 16-17, and 20.
Claims 8, 15 and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wu (US 20220189096) in view of Howson (US 20150221127) as applied in the independent claims above, and further in view of Chen (US s7623136).
Regarding claim 8, Wu in view of Howson teaches:
The processor of claim 1.
Wu in view of Howson is silent to teach the boundary is defined according to a bilinear sampling of a two-dimensional texture map.
On the other hand, Chen teaches the boundary is defined according to a bilinear sampling of a two-dimensional texture map (Chen at least in Fig. 1C, teaches one technique commonly used in this texture filtering operation is bilinear interpolation defining the boundary.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the method of bilinear interpolation to determine the boundary, as disclosed by Chen, with Wu and Howson’s rendering system. As noticed above, the Wu and Howson references contained a “base” device (method, or product) upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement”. The Chen prior art contained a known technique that is applicable to the base device (method, or product). The examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Regarding claims 15 and 19, it recites similar limitations of claim 8 but in different forms. The rationale of claim 8 rejection is applied to reject claims 15 and 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUC N DOAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3397. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faulk Devona can be reached on (571) 272-7515. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PHUC N DOAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2618
Prosecution Insights