DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 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 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/14/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 11, and 13-14 were amended. Claim 12 was canceled. Claims 1-11 and 13-20 are pending in the application.
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, 4, 6, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al. (US 2010/0110462) in view of Lee et al. ("Practical multiple scattering for rough surfaces," ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 37.6 (2018): 1-12).
Regarding claim 1, Arai teaches/suggests: A method of rendering a computer model (Arai [0006] “in the field of computer graphics, a technology for reproducing the realistic texture of the surface of an object on a display screen as a computer graphics image has been developed … a realistic image that may be taken for a real photograph can be generated in consideration of both direct light and indirect light”), comprising:
identifying, relative to a macro surface, respective positions of a light source and an observer (Arai [0059] “a vector H (half vector) of the perpendicular bisector of a light source directional vector L and an observation directional vector V … a vector N is a normal-line vector for the surface of the object”);
determining, based on the positions of the light source and the observer, a light direction vector and a view direction vector v (Arai [0059] “a vector H (half vector) of the perpendicular bisector of a light source directional vector L and an observation directional vector V”);
determining a half vector based on the light direction vector and the view direction vector (Arai [0059] “a vector H (half vector) of the perpendicular bisector of a light source directional vector L and an observation directional vector V”);
Arai further teaches/suggests a first microfacet and a second microfacet (Arai [0059] “When microfacets are assumed to form concavity and convexity of the surface of the object, the microfacets face various directions”). Arai does not teach/suggest:
determining, based on the vector c, respective positions of a first microfacet and a second microfacet, wherein: the vector c bisects an angle subtended by the first and second microfacets and
wherein light travelling from the light source to the macro surface is reflected by the first microfacet toward the second microfacet, and then by the second microfacet toward the observer;
determining, based on the positions of the first and second microfacets, a multi-scattering factor; and
rendering the computer model based on the multi-scattering factor.
Lee, however, teaches/suggests:
determining, based on the vector c, respective positions of a first microfacet and a second microfacet, wherein: the vector c bisects an angle subtended by the first and second microfacets (Lee Abstract “Microfacet theory concisely models light transport over rough surfaces … we revisit the traditional V-groove cavity model and derive an analytical, cost-effective solution for multiple scattering in rough surfaces” §3 ¶2 “the surface is made up of symmetric grooves with aperture angle θv and bisector aligned with n”) and
wherein light travelling from the light source to the macro surface is reflected by the first microfacet toward the second microfacet, and then by the second microfacet toward the observer (Lee Fig. 4 “Depending on the angle and position of the incident light, we can determine the number of reflections k, as well as the geometric term G(i, o, s)”);
determining, based on the positions of the first and second microfacets, a multi-scattering factor (Lee §3 ¶1 “The orientation of the facets is defined statistically as a distribution function D(h) ... F(i, h) is the Fresnel reflection term, and G(i, o, h) is the geometric term”); and
rendering the computer model based on the multi-scattering factor (Lee Eq. 1; Fig. 1 “Three different objects made of rough conductors (gold, silver, and copper), with spatially-varying roughness specified by a texture, rendered with … multiple-scattering-aware microfacet model”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light transport of Arai to include the V-groove cavity model of Lee for multiple scattering of light.
Arai as modified by Lee does not teach/suggest:
determining a vector c as a bisector between the half vector and a surface normal of the macro surface;
However, given the half and normal vectors of Arai and that the bisector of Lee aligns with the normal vector, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to try aligning the bisector with (1) the half vector or (2) the halfway vector between the half and normal vectors. As such, (2) meets the determining.
Regarding claim 4, Arai as modified by Lee teaches/suggests: The method of claim 1, wherein the positions of the first and second microfacets are such that light travelling from the light source to the macro surface is reflected by the first microfacet toward the second microfacet, and then by the second microfacet toward the observer, and is not reflected by any other microfacet (Lee Fig. 4 “Depending on the angle and position of the incident light, we can determine the number of reflections k, as well as the geometric term G(i, o, s)”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 6, Arai as modified by Lee teaches/suggests: The method of claim 1, wherein determining the multi-scattering factor comprises:
determining Di, Gi, and Fi, wherein Di is a distribution factor of microfacets on the macro surface, Gi is an attenuation factor of microfacets on the macro surface, and Fi is a reflectance factor of the macro surface (Lee §3 ¶1 “The orientation of the facets is defined statistically as a distribution function D(h) ... F(i, h) is the Fresnel reflection term, and G(i, o, h) is the geometric term”); and
determining the multi-scattering factor is based on Di, Gi, and Fi (Lee Eq. 1).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 11, Arai as modified by Lee teaches/suggests: The method of claim 1, wherein the positions of the first and second microfacets are positions in which light travelling from the light source to the macro surface is reflected by the first microfacet toward the second microfacet and in a direction parallel to the macro surface, and then by the second microfacet toward the observer (Lee Fig. 4 “Depending on the angle and position of the incident light, we can determine the number of reflections k, as well as the geometric term G(i, o, s)”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Claim 13 recites limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claim 1, and is rejected for the same reason(s). Arai as modified by Lee further teaches/suggests a graphics processing unit; and a computer-readable medium comprising computer program code (Arai Fig. 1: CPU 110 and memory 120; [0006] “in the field of computer graphics, a technology for reproducing the realistic texture of the surface of an object on a display screen as a computer graphics image has been developed”).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al. (US 2010/0110462) in view of Lee et al. ("Practical multiple scattering for rough surfaces," ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 37.6 (2018): 1-12) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2009/0219287).
Regarding claim 2, Arai as modified by Lee teaches/suggests: The method of claim 1, wherein:
the method further comprises determining, based on the positions of the light source and the observer, a single-scattering factor (Arai Eq. 2);
Arai and Lee are silent regarding:
rendering the model comprises rendering the model based on the single-scattering factor and the multi-scattering factor.
Wang, however, teaches/suggests:
rendering the model comprises rendering the model based on the single-scattering factor and the multi-scattering factor (Wang [0101] “FIG. 7 shows different scattering components including a single scattering term 702 and a multiple scattering term 704 along with an overall rendering result 706 for a bunny model under environment lighting. The overall result is the sum of the two components 702 and 704”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the single and multiple scattering terms of Arai as modified by Lee to be added as taught/suggested by Wang to account for both.
Regarding claim 3, Arai as modified by Lee and Wang teaches/suggests: The method of claim 2, wherein rendering the model comprises:
determining a sum of the single-scattering factor and the multi-scattering factor (Wang [0101] “FIG. 7 shows different scattering components including a single scattering term 702 and a multiple scattering term 704 along with an overall rendering result 706 for a bunny model under environment lighting. The overall result is the sum of the two components 702 and 704”); and
rendering the model based on the sum (Wang [0101] “FIG. 7 shows different scattering components including a single scattering term 702 and a multiple scattering term 704 along with an overall rendering result 706 for a bunny model under environment lighting. The overall result is the sum of the two components 702 and 704”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al. (US 2010/0110462) in view of Lee et al. ("Practical multiple scattering for rough surfaces," ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 37.6 (2018): 1-12) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hayton et al. (US 2010/0060563).
Regarding claim 5, Arai as modified by Lee teaches/suggests: The method of claim 1, wherein:
the positions of the first and second microfacets are positions in which light travelling from the light source to the macro surface is reflected by a front surface of the first microfacet toward the second microfacet, and then by a front surface of the second microfacet toward the observer, wherein the front surfaces of the first and second microfacets are opposite the respective rear surfaces of the first and second microfacets (Lee Fig. 4 “Depending on the angle and position of the incident light, we can determine the number of reflections k, as well as the geometric term G(i, o, s)”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated herein.
Arai as modified by Lee does not teach/suggest:
respective rear surfaces of the first and second microfacets are assumed to be transparent to light such that, for each of the first and second microfacets, light incident on the rear surface is assumed to pass through the microfacet;
Hayton, however, teaches/suggests transparent to light (Hayton [0008] “this housing is recessed into the transparent rear panel which is provided with a pigmented (e.g., painted) inner surface which gives the impression that the device is physically thinner than it actually is”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the microfacets of Arai as modified by Lee such that their rear surfaces are transparent as taught/suggested by Hayton to give a thinner impression. As such, Arai as modified by Lee and Hayton teaches/suggests:
respective rear surfaces of the first and second microfacets are assumed to be transparent to light such that, for each of the first and second microfacets, light incident on the rear surface is assumed to pass through the microfacet (Lee Fig. 4 “Depending on the angle and position of the incident light, we can determine the number of reflections k, as well as the geometric term G(i, o, s)” Hayton [0008] “this housing is recessed into the transparent rear panel which is provided with a pigmented (e.g., painted) inner surface which gives the impression that the device is physically thinner than it actually is”);
Claim(s) 14 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al. (US 2010/0110462) in view of Lee et al. ("Practical multiple scattering for rough surfaces," ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 37.6 (2018): 1-12) and Hayton et al. (US 2010/0060563).
Regarding claim 14, Arai as modified by Lee teaches/suggests: A method of rendering a computer model, comprising:
identifying, relative to a macro surface, respective positions of a light source and an observer (Arai [0059] “a vector H (half vector) of the perpendicular bisector of a light source directional vector L and an observation directional vector V … a vector N is a normal-line vector for the surface of the object”);
determining, based on the positions of the light source and the observer, respective positions of a first microfacet and a second microfacet (Lee Abstract “Microfacet theory concisely models light transport over rough surfaces … we revisit the traditional V-groove cavity model and derive an analytical, cost-effective solution for multiple scattering in rough surfaces” §3 ¶2 “the surface is made up of symmetric grooves with aperture angle θv and bisector aligned with n”),
wherein: the positions of the first and second microfacets are positions in which light travelling from the light source to the macro surface is reflected from a front surface of the first microfacet toward the second microfacet, and then from a front surface of the second microfacet toward the observer, wherein the front surfaces of the first and second microfacets are opposite the respective rear surfaces of the first and second microfacets (Lee Fig. 4 “Depending on the angle and position of the incident light, we can determine the number of reflections k, as well as the geometric term G(i, o, s)”);
determining, based on the positions of the first and second microfacets, a multi-scattering factor (Lee §3 ¶1 “The orientation of the facets is defined statistically as a distribution function D(h) ... F(i, h) is the Fresnel reflection term, and G(i, o, h) is the geometric term”); and
rendering the computer model based on the multi-scattering factor (Lee Eq. 1; Fig. 1 “Three different objects made of rough conductors (gold, silver, and copper), with spatially-varying roughness specified by a texture, rendered with … multiple-scattering-aware microfacet model”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Arai as modified by Lee does not teach/suggest:
respective rear surfaces of the first and second microfacets are assumed to be transparent to light such that, for each of the first and second microfacets, light incident on the rear surface is assumed to pass through the microfacet;
Hayton, in view of Lee, teaches/suggests:
respective rear surfaces of the first and second microfacets are assumed to be transparent to light such that, for each of the first and second microfacets, light incident on the rear surface is assumed to pass through the microfacet (Lee Fig. 4 “Depending on the angle and position of the incident light, we can determine the number of reflections k, as well as the geometric term G(i, o, s)” Hayton [0008] “this housing is recessed into the transparent rear panel which is provided with a pigmented (e.g., painted) inner surface which gives the impression that the device is physically thinner than it actually is”);
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated herein.
Claims 17 and 18 recite limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claims 4 and 6, respectively, and are rejected for the same reason(s).
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al. (US 2010/0110462) in view of Lee et al. ("Practical multiple scattering for rough surfaces," ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 37.6 (2018): 1-12) and Hayton et al. (US 2010/0060563) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2009/0219287).
Regarding claim 15, Arai as modified by Lee and Hayton teaches/suggests: The method of claim 14, wherein:
the method further comprises determining, based on the positions of the light source and the observer, a single-scattering factor (Arai Eq. 2);
Arai as modified by Lee and Hayton does not teach/suggest:
rendering the model comprises rendering the model based on the single-scattering factor and the multi-scattering factor.
Wang, however, teaches/suggests:
rendering the model comprises rendering the model based on the single-scattering factor and the multi-scattering factor (Wang [0101] “FIG. 7 shows different scattering components including a single scattering term 702 and a multiple scattering term 704 along with an overall rendering result 706 for a bunny model under environment lighting. The overall result is the sum of the two components 702 and 704”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the single and multiple scattering terms of Arai as modified by Lee and Hayton to be added as taught/suggested by Wang to account for both.
Regarding claim 16, Lee as modified by Hayton and Wang teaches/suggests: The method of claim 15, wherein rendering the model comprises:
determining a sum of the single-scattering factor and the multi-scattering factor (Wang [0101] “FIG. 7 shows different scattering components including a single scattering term 702 and a multiple scattering term 704 along with an overall rendering result 706 for a bunny model under environment lighting. The overall result is the sum of the two components 702 and 704”); and
rendering the model based on the sum (Wang [0101] “FIG. 7 shows different scattering components including a single scattering term 702 and a multiple scattering term 704 along with an overall rendering result 706 for a bunny model under environment lighting. The overall result is the sum of the two components 702 and 704”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated herein.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 and 19-20 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The multi-scattering factor in claims 7-10 and 19 and the Di in claim 20, taken as a whole, render the respective claims patentably distinct over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2010/0108123 – V-grooves
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be Directed to ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-270-7513. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-5PM ET. 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 on 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 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.
/ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619
Prosecution Insights