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 Arguments
This is in response to applicant’s amendment/response filed on 01/02/2026, which have been entered and made of record. Claims 1, 2, 8-9, and 15-16 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 1, 8, and 15 in regarding to the process of bounding volume hierarchy ("BVH") construction, have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 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, 3, 5-6, 8, 10, 12-13, 15, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith-Lacey (US20250166282) in view of Muthler (US20210390759).
Regarding claim 1, Smith-Lacey teaches:
A method for improving performance of a graphics processing pipeline, the method comprising:
determining a unique set of edges that are shared among a group of polygons; (Smith-Lacey at least in Abstract and [0054], teaches a set of distinct edges is determined for the set of primitives/polygons.)
testing a ray against each of the unique set of the edges that are shared among the group of the polygons, wherein the testing generates a result for each edge included in the unique set of the edges; (Smith-Lacey at least in Abstract and [0010-0011], teaches for each distinct edge in the set of distinct edges, an edge test is performed to determine which side of the distinct edge the ray passes on… The ray may be determined to intersect a primitive if the results of the edge tests for each distinct edge that defines the primitive indicate that the ray passes on the inside of each of the edges of the primitive. [0011] Said for each primitive in the set of primitives, using a result of the edge test for each distinct edge that defines that primitive to determine whether or not the ray intersects that primitive may be performed once an edge test has been performed for each distinct edge in the set of distinct edges.)
determining a polygon among the group of the polygons that is intersected by the ray based on the result for each respective edge that comprises the polygon; and ((Smith-Lacey at least in Abstract and [0010-0011], teaches The ray may be determined to intersect a primitive if the results of the edge tests for each distinct edge that defines the primitive indicate that the ray passes on the inside of each of the edges of the primitive. [0011] Said for each primitive in the set of primitives, using a result of the edge test for each distinct edge that defines that primitive to determine whether or not the ray intersects that primitive may be performed once an edge test has been performed for each distinct edge in the set of distinct edges.)
Smith-Lacey does not explicitly teach rendering the polygon.
However, Smith-Lacey [0003], Ray tracing is a rendering technique… [0058], In known intersection testing methods, each primitive in a region of a scene to be rendered. [0069], The division of the primitives in a scene to be rendered into sets of primitives. Before effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to render the primitive/polygon result from the ray intersection test for the primitive to be rendered.
Smith-Lacey does not explicitly teach as part of a process of bounding volume hierarchy ("BVH") construction, determining a unique set of edges that are shared among a group of polygons (the missing limitation is a process of building a BVH for ray intersection testing with determining edge shared among a group of polygons.)
However, Muthler teaches a process of building a BVH for ray intersection testing with determining edge shared among a group of polygons (Muthler at least in Abstract and pars. [0017, 0028, 0059], teaches building a suitable acceleration data structure with grouping of primitives/polygons sharing at least one feature (e.g., a vertex or an edge) for ray-primitive intersection testing.)
Before effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to understand that the bounding volume hierarchy (BVH) is an acceleration data structure and the smaller bounding volumes terminating in leaf nodes containing geometric primitives/polygons for ray testing in Muthler in combination with ray testing the set of distinct edges of group of polygons in Smith-Lacey. As noticed above, the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference with the only difference being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. The examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Since it was known in the art of computer graphics’ modern ray tracers that the acceleration data structure most commonly used by is a bounding volume hierarchy (BVH). The results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Smith-Lacey teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the group of the polygons is a leaf node of the BVH. (Muthler at least in pars. [0068, 0071], teaches a hierarchical tree data structure with the large bounding volume represented by a parent node of the tree and the smaller bounding volumes represented by children nodes of the tree that are contained by the parent node. The smallest bounding volumes are represented as leaf nodes in the tree and identify one or more geometric primitives contained within these smallest bounding volumes. It implies containing group of primitives/polygons in the leaf nodes of the BVH.)
Regarding claim 3, Smith-Lacey teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the testing is performed concurrently on the unique set of the edges. (Smith-Lacey at least in [0062], Once the set of distinct edges has been determined, the method proceeds to step S304 at which, for each distinct edge in the set of distinct edges, an edge test is performed to determine which side of the distinct edge the ray passes on. That is, at step S304, an edge test is performed for each of the distinct edges in the set of distinct edges. Step S304 may be performed consecutively for each edge in the set of distinct edges, or alternatively may be performed for two or more of the edges in the set of distinct edges in parallel.)
Regarding claim 5, Smith-Lacey teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the rendering includes excluding particular edges that are shared among adjacent polygons among the group of the polygons from watertightness testing. (Smith-Lacey at least in [0207] For the example method shown in FIG. 4 to be reliable, e.g. to guarantee at least “watertight” behaviour for shared edges)
Regarding claim 6, Smith-Lacey teaches:
The method of claim 1, the result for each edge included in the unique set of the edges includes a winding order. (Smith-Lacey at least in [0055, 0057], teaches winding order… The edge winding orders of two primitives are considered equivalent if they differ only by cycling edges. For a primitive, its edge winding order can be deduced from its vertex winding order and vice versa, therefore they may both be referred to as a single “winding order”. This primitive winding order can be used to indicate that the front face of the primitive is observed from a particular viewpoint (i.e., associated with a ray intersection), given a fixed orientation for front-facing (i.e., clockwise or anticlockwise).
Regarding claims 8-10, 12-13, 15-17 and 19-20, it recites similar limitations of claims 1-6 but in different forms. The rationale of claims 1, 3, 5-6 rejection is applied to reject claims 8, 10, 12-13, 15, 17 and 19-20.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith-Lacey and Muthler, as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Burns (US 20230099114).
Regarding claim 4, Smith-Lacey in view of Muthler, teaches:
The method of claim 1.
Smith-Lacey at least in Abstract and par. [0041], perform intersection testing for each of a plurality of rays against nodes of a hierarchical acceleration structure;
Smith-Lacey in view of Muthler is silent teach the testing is performed using reduced precision operations.
On the other hand, Burns teaches the testing is performed using reduced precision operations. (Burns at least in Abstract, teaches test circuitry is configured to perform intersection tests that operate on reduced-precision representations of rays that were generated by quantizing initial representations of the rays and reduced-precision representations of primitives that were generated by quantizing initial representations of the primitives. Some reduced-precision tests (e.g., for any-hit rays) may generate a definitive hit according to the initial representations. In this situation, graphics processing circuitry may record an intersection with the reduced-precision representation of the primitive for the ray based on the first result, without performing an intersection test for the first ray using the initial representation of the ray and the primitive. Disclosed techniques may advantageously reduce power consumption, improve performance, or both.)
Before effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement reduced-precision operations from Burns with Smith-Lacey’s ray tracing system. The combination provides techniques may advantageously reduce power consumption, improve performance, or both. (Burn Abstract)
Regarding claims 11 and 18, it recites similar limitations of claim 4 but in different forms. The rationale of claim 4 rejection is applied to reject claims 11 and 18.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith-Lacey and Muthler, as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Hyatt (US 5487172).
Regarding claim 7, Smith-Lacey in view of Muthler, teaches:
The method of claim 1.
Smith-Lacey at least in Abstract and par. [0055], primitive winding order can be used to indicate that the front face of the primitive is observed from a particular viewpoint (i.e., associated with a ray intersection), given a fixed orientation for front-facing (i.e., clockwise or anticlockwise).
Smith-Lacey is silent teach the result for each edge included in the unique set of the edges includes a face normal. (Examiner interprets the missing limitation is using face normal to representing facing of the primitive.)
On the other hand, Hyatt at least in col. 76 lines 58-63, teaches a face normal vector can be defined for each surface. If the face normal vector is greater than zero degrees, the horizontal direction; then the face is visible because it is pointing towards the observer. If the face normal vector is less than zero degrees, then the face is non-visible because it is pointing away from the observer.
Before effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate face normal to present directing of primitives toeard observer as taught in Hyatt. As noticed above, the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference with the only difference being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. The examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Since it was known in the art of computer graphics’ modern ray tracers that winding order is the method, and face normal is the resulting attribute that determines visibility and orientation. The results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 14, it recites similar limitations of claim but in different form. The rationale of claim 7 rejection is applied to reject claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see form PTO-892.
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 PHUC N DOAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3397. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm.
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, 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
