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.
Applicant’s amendment/response filed 12/18/2025 has been entered and made of record. Claims 1-20 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, 6-7, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. ("Practical multiple scattering for rough surfaces," ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 37.6 (2018): 1-12).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches/suggests: A method of rendering a computer model, comprising:
determining, based on the positions of the light source and the observer, respective positions of a first microfacet and a second microfacet (Lee §5.1 ¶4 “two different microfacet orientations s1 and s2 can end up reflecting light in the same direction o, given an incident direction i”),
wherein:
a vector c bisects an angle subtended by the first and second microfacets (Lee §3 ¶2 “we focus on the V-cavity model … the surface is made up of symmetric grooves with aperture angle θv and bisector aligned with n”); and
the positions of the first and second microfacets are positions in which, based on multiple orientations of c, 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 §1 ¶1 “the reflectance field at a surface point is the result of light reflections off several microscale specular facets with random orientations” §5.1 ¶4 “two different microfacet orientations s1 and s2 can end up reflecting light in the same direction o, given an incident direction i”);
determining, based on the positions of the first and second microfacets, a multi-scattering factor (Lee §3 ¶1 “Mirror reflection on a microfacet occurs when its normal s is the same as h. Following this model, the BRDF of a surface is modeled as…” 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)”); and
rendering the computer model based on the multi-scattering factor (Lee 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”).
Lee is silent regarding:
identifying, relative to a macro surface, respective positions of a light source and an observer;
However, the concept and advantages of such identification are well known and expected in the art (Official Notice). It would have been obvious for Lee to include such identification to determine the reflecting light.
Regarding claim 4, 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: the illustrated reflection).
Regarding claim 6, 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 §3 ¶1 “Mirror reflection on a microfacet occurs when its normal s is the same as h. Following this model, the BRDF of a surface is modeled as…” 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)”).
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches/suggests: The method of claim 6, wherein determining the multi-scattering factor comprises determining:
(Di * Gi * Fi) / 2θvc (Lee Equation #1 [Given that 2θvc is the angle of reflection, it would have been obvious to try for such equation.])
and wherein:
light transmitted from the light source and reflected by the macro surface toward the observer defines a vector v extending from the macro surface and toward the observers (Lee §3 ¶1 “where h ... is the halfway vector to indicate the angle between i and o” [Vector o meets the vector v.]); and
θvc is the angle subtended by c and v (Lee §3 ¶¶1-2 “Mirror reflection on a microfacet occurs when its normal s is the same as h … we focus on the V-cavity model … the surface is made up of symmetric grooves with aperture angle θv and bisector aligned with n”).
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches/suggests: The method of claim 1, wherein the positions of the first and second microfacets are positions in which, based on the multiple orientations of c, 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: the illustrated reflection).
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches/suggests: The method of claim 1, wherein the multiple orientations of c consist of all orientations of c (Lee §1 ¶1 “the reflectance field at a surface point is the result of light reflections off several microscale specular facets with random orientations”).
Claim 13 recites limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claim 1, and is rejected for the same reason(s). Lee further teaches/suggests a graphics processing unit; and a computer-readable medium comprising computer program code (Lee §2 ¶1 “microfacets for modeling the appearance of rough surfaces in computer graphics”).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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, 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 (Lee Fig. 1 “Three different objects made of rough conductors (gold, silver, and copper), with spatially-varying roughness specified by a texture, rendered with the Cook-Torrance model ... Cook-Torrance assumes single scattering”);
Lee 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 Lee are added as taught/suggested by Wang to account for both.
Regarding claim 3, Lee as modified by 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 (Lee Fig. 1 “Three different objects made of rough conductors (gold, silver, and copper), with spatially-varying roughness specified by a texture, rendered with the Cook-Torrance model … and our multiple-scattering-aware microfacet model”); 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 above is incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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, 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: the illustrated reflection).
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 facets of Lee such that their rear surfaces are transparent as taught/suggested by Hayton to give a thinner impression. As such, Lee as modified by 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 §3 ¶2 “we focus on the V-cavity model … This geometry imposes a strong correlation between facets, so that a facet can only be shadow-masked by its adjacent-facing facet” 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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. ("Practical multiple scattering for rough surfaces," ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 37.6 (2018): 1-12) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Hellsten (US 2015/0331097).
Regarding claim 10, Lee does not teach/suggest: The method of claim 7, wherein:
Fi = F2; and F is a Fresnel reflectance of the macro surface.
Hellsten, however, teaches/suggests:
Fi = F2; and F is a Fresnel reflectance of the macro surface (Hellsten [0109] “expressions squared in the two equations above is Fresnel reflection coefficient”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the substitution of one known element (the Fresnel reflection of Hellsten) for another (the Fresnel reflection of Lee) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because such substitutions would have yielded predictable results, namely for the reflection of light.
Claim(s) 14 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. ("Practical multiple scattering for rough surfaces," ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 37.6 (2018): 1-12) in view of Hayton et al. (US 2010/0060563).
Regarding claim 14, Lee teaches/suggests: A method of rendering a computer model, comprising:
determining, based on the positions of the light source and the observer, respective positions of a first microfacet and a second microfacet (Lee §5.1 ¶4 “two different microfacet orientations s1 and s2 can end up reflecting light in the same direction o, given an incident direction i”),
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: the illustrated reflection);
determining, based on the positions of the first and second microfacets, a multi-scattering factor (Lee §3 ¶1 “Mirror reflection on a microfacet occurs when its normal s is the same as h. Following this model, the BRDF of a surface is modeled as…” 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)”); and
rendering the computer model based on the multi-scattering factor (Lee 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”).
Lee is silent regarding:
identifying, relative to a macro surface, respective positions of a light source and an observer;
However, the concept and advantages of such identification are well known and expected in the art (Official Notice). It would have been obvious for Lee to include such identification to determine the reflecting light.
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 §3 ¶2 “we focus on the V-cavity model … This geometry imposes a strong correlation between facets, so that a facet can only be shadow-masked by its adjacent-facing facet” 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 above is incorporated herein.
Claims 17-19 recite limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claims 4 and 6-7, respectively, and is/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 Lee et al. ("Practical multiple scattering for rough surfaces," ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 37.6 (2018): 1-12) in view of 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, Lee as modified by 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 (Lee Fig. 1 “Three different objects made of rough conductors (gold, silver, and copper), with spatially-varying roughness specified by a texture, rendered with the Cook-Torrance model ... Cook-Torrance assumes single scattering”);
Lee as modified by 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”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 2 above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 15, 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 (Lee Fig. 1 “Three different objects made of rough conductors (gold, silver, and copper), with spatially-varying roughness specified by a texture, rendered with the Cook-Torrance model … and our multiple-scattering-aware microfacet model”); 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 above is incorporated herein.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 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 Di or Gi as claimed, taken as a whole, renders the respective claims patentably distinct over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Lee does not disclose or suggest determining microfacet positions based on multiple orientations of such a bisector vector.” See Remarks, p. 10.
PNG
media_image1.png
266
348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite that the microfacet positions are determined based on the positions of the light source and the observer, not the multiple orientations of the bisector vector.
The claims, however, recite that the microfacet positions are such that, based on the multiple orientations of the bisector vector, light travels as claimed. As shown in Fig. 2 of Lee (reproduced above), that is an inherent feature of a V groove.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2005/0200953 – transparent V grooves
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 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