DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
3. The amendment filed November 12, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 5-10, 14-16, and 21 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed August 29, 2025.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed November 12, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
5. Applicant argues that Yang et al. (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 111161390 A), hereinafter referred to as Yang, and the prior art fail to teach claim 1 which incorporates claims 2-4. The Applicant asserts that the prior art fails to specifically teach "converting the to-be-rendered element data to the pixel data by setting a texture pixel and/or directly setting a frame buffer". The Applicant further argues that Qiu et al. (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 110544290 A), hereinafter referred to as Qiu, which is used to teach the frame buffer in the office action, teaches an off-CPU staging buffer containing geometric data like vertex coordinates, matrix data, mesh data and not pixel data like RGBA values.
Examiner replies that claim 1 does not include the limitation that the pixel data has to be RGBA values. Thus, the geometric data like vertex coordinates can be considered the pixel data and the cache/display storage taught in Qiu can teach the frame buffer under broadest reasonable interpretation.
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., pixel data being RGBA values) 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).
6. Applicant argues that the Examiner used impermissible hindsight to combine references.
Examiner replies that in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant's argument that the Applicant’s invention addresses the problem that WebGL is susceptible to “errors in rendering results due to difficulty in maintaining complicated states, such as vertex coordinates and texture coordinates” that is not addressed in the cited references, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Furthermore, there is a reason to combine the references provided by the prior art Qiu in Paragraph 9 which explains using a frame buffer is useful to shorten loading times when rendering massive amounts of data and to improve performance. Thus, the Applicant’s arguments on impermissible hindsight are unpersuasive.
7. Applicant argues that the Inventor identified a problem that cited prior art do not identify. The Inventors identified that “current implementations of a WebGL are susceptible to errors in rendering results due to difficulty in maintaining complicated states, such as vertex coordinates and texture coordinates.” They argue that a person having ordinary skill would not have increased the cost of implementing these features without recognizing the problem identified by the inventors.
Examiner replies that in response to applicant's argument that the Applicant’s invention addresses the problem that WebGL is susceptible to “errors in rendering results due to difficulty in maintaining complicated states, such as vertex coordinates and texture coordinates” that is not addressed in the cited references, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Furthermore, MPEP 2144(IV) states that “the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant.” Qiu in Paragraph 9 and 43 gives the reason and motivation that using a frame buffer is useful to shorten loading times when rendering massive amounts of data and to improve performance. Thus, the Applicant’s arguments that the prior art does not teach the problem the Inventor discovered are unpersuasive.
8. Conclusion: The rejections set in the previous Office Action are shown to have been proper, and the claims are rejected below. New citations and parenthetical remarks can be considered new grounds of rejection and such new grounds of rejection are necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Therefore, the present Office Action is made final.
Claim Interpretation
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
10. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: an acquisition module, format conversion module, data processing module, rendering module, and setting module in claims 10 and 14-16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The structure for these modules can be found on Page 15 of the Applicant’s Specification which points out a process and memory that executes the functions for these modules.
11. This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "the step of converting the linear transformation instruction" in claim 5 and "the step of mapping the layer rendering data" in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Objections
12. Claim 21 objected to because of the following informalities: It is dependent on claim 4 which has been cancelled. Claim 21 will be interpreted as being dependent on claim 1 instead. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
14. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
15. Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 10, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 111161390 A), hereinafter referred to as Yang, in view of Chen (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0294303 A1) and Qiu et al. (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 110544290 A), hereinafter referred to as Qiu.
16. Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches a method for graphics rendering based on a Web Graphics Library (WebGL), comprising: acquiring initial rendering information (Paragraph 66-67 teaches obtaining a BIM model file which can be considered the initial rendering information);
converting the initial rendering information according to a preset layer encapsulation format to obtain layer rendering data (Paragraph 68-69 teaches converting the BIM model file into model data. The model data can be considered the layer rendering data. It teaches using a format identifier that converts the BIM model file into model data. The format identifier can be considered the preset layer encapsulation format);
mapping the layer rendering data into a WebGL data format to obtain WebGL rendering data (Paragraphs 73-81 teach mapping the model data into a WebGL data format for WebGL rendering. In S301 and S302 it acquires the attribute information from the model data of the BIM model file and then creates matrix data or grid/mesh data of each component in the model data in S303 and S304. The grid/mesh data can be considered the WebGL data format which WebGL renders to create rendering data);
and invoking a WebGL interface and performing rendering output according to the WebGL rendering data (Paragraph 60 teaches that WebGL is invoked in a browser, which can be considered the WebGL interface, to render a model. Thus, in Paragraph 80 when the WebGL renders the rendering data or grid data, it does so in the browser or WebGL interface and performs the rendering output by displaying it in the browser),
wherein the initial rendering information comprises to-be-rendered element data (Paragraph 66-67 teaches obtaining a BIM model file which can be considered the initial rendering information or the to-be-rendered element data; Paragraph 70 teaches there is component attribute information in the BIM model file which can be considered the to-be-rendered element data)
However, Yang fails to teach wherein the initial rendering information comprises a linear transformation instruction to be performed on the to-be-rendered element, wherein the preset layer encapsulation format comprises a preset data source format and a preset matrix format, the layer rendering data comprising pixel data of the to-be-rendered element and transformation matrix data of the to-be-rendered element, wherein the step of converting the initial rendering information according to the preset layer encapsulation format to obtain the layer rendering data comprises: converting the to-be-rendered element data according to the preset data source format to obtain the pixel data; and
converting the linear transformation instruction according to the preset matrix format to obtain the transformation matrix data, wherein the step of converting the to-be-rendered element data according to the preset data source format to obtain the pixel data comprises converting the to-be-rendered element data to the pixel data by setting a texture pixel and/or directly setting a frame buffer.
Chen teaches the method for graphics rendering wherein the initial rendering information comprises a linear transformation instruction to be performed on the to-be-rendered element (Paragraph 94 teaches obtaining operation instructions like rotation, which is a linear transformation, as part of the initial rendering information), wherein the preset layer encapsulation format comprises a (Paragraph 72 teaches that there are conversion matrices corresponding to multiple operations. These conversion matrices can be considered the preset matrix formats), the layer rendering data comprising initial rendering information according to the preset layer encapsulation format to obtain the layer rendering data comprises: (Paragraph 72 teaches converting linear transformation instructions like rotation into a matrix. Converting it into a matrix can be considered converting the linear transformation instruction into a preset matrix format which then is performed on the image; Paragraph 96 teaches the image data is processed according to the image processing parameters from the matrix. Thus, the processed image data is the transformation matrix data).
Yang and Chen are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of rendering graphics through WebGL. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of graphics rendering taught by Yang with the linear transformation taught by Chen in order to smoothly display the user’s desired operation and rendered image at a local processing device (Chen Paragraph 4).
However, Yang and Chen fail to teach wherein the preset layer encapsulation format comprises a preset data source format, the layer rendering data comprising pixel data of the to-be-rendered element, wherein the step of converting the initial rendering information according to the preset layer encapsulation format to obtain the layer rendering data comprises: converting the to-be-rendered element data according to the preset data source format to obtain the pixel data, wherein the step of converting the to-be-rendered element data according to the preset data source format to obtain the pixel data comprises converting the to-be-rendered element data to the pixel data by setting a texture pixel and/or directly setting a frame buffer.
Qiu teaches wherein the preset layer encapsulation format comprises a preset data source format, the layer rendering data comprising pixel data of the to-be-rendered element (Paragraphs 41-44 and 62 teach a coordinate transformation that converts the coordinates into a float32array. This teaches outputting pixel data of the to-be-rendered element in a preset data format), wherein the step of converting the initial rendering information according to the preset layer encapsulation format to obtain the layer rendering data comprises: converting the to-be-rendered element data according to the preset data source format to obtain the pixel data (Paragraphs 41-44 and 62 teach a coordinate transformation that converts the vertex coordinates, or to-be-rendered element data, into a float32array. The float32array is the preset data source format and the vertex coordinates converted into the array can be considered the obtained pixel data),
wherein the step of converting the to-be-rendered element data according to the preset data source format to obtain the pixel data comprises converting the to-be-rendered element data to the pixel data by setting a texture pixel and/or directly setting a frame buffer (Paragraph 43 teaches storing the vertex data or to-be-rendered element data in a cache area or display storage area. This can be considered the frame buffer which is used to easily read the coordinates and obtain the pixel data. Applicant defines ‘and/or’ in Page 16 as including a combination of one or more items. Thus, setting a texture pixel does not need to be taught in the prior art since the frame buffers are taught).
Yang, Chen, and Qiu are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of rendering graphics through WebGL. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of graphics rendering taught by Yang in view of Chen with the conversion of to-be-rendered elements into a preset data source format and pixel data and setting of a frame buffer taught by Qiu in order to shorten loading times when rendering massive amounts of data and improve performance (Qiu Paragraph 9).
17. Regarding claim 5, Yang in view of Chen and Qiu teaches the limitations of claim 1. Yang fails to teach the method for graphics rendering based on the WebGL wherein the step of converting the linear transformation instruction according to the preset matrix format to obtain the transformation matrix data comprises: obtaining, according to the linear transformation instruction and a corresponding preset matrix format, a linear transformation matrix corresponding to the linear transformation instruction and then multiplying an initial matrix by a corresponding linear transformation matrix in turn according to an order of the linear transformation instruction to obtain the transformation matrix data.
Chen teaches the method for graphics rendering based on the WebGL wherein the step of converting the linear transformation instruction according to the preset matrix format to obtain the transformation matrix data comprises: obtaining, according to the linear transformation instruction and a corresponding preset matrix format, a linear transformation matrix corresponding to the linear transformation instruction (Paragraph 72 teaches converting linear transformation instructions like rotation into a matrix. Converting it into a matrix can be considered converting the linear transformation instruction into a preset matrix format. The resulting matrix can be considered the linear transformation matrix),
and then multiplying an initial matrix by a corresponding linear transformation matrix in turn according to an order of the linear transformation instruction to obtain the transformation matrix data (Paragraph 72 teaches the operations are performed on the image. The initial matrix can be considered the original image coordinates which are multiplied by the composite conversion matrix during processing to obtain the transformation matrix data; Paragraph 96 teaches the image data is processed according to the image processing parameters from the matrix. Thus, the processed image data is the transformation matrix data).
Yang, Chen, and Qiu are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of rendering graphics through WebGL. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of graphics rendering taught by Yang in view of Qiu with the conversion of the linear transformation instruction taught by Chen in order to smoothly display the user’s desired operation and rendered image at a local processing device (Chen Paragraph 4).
18. Regarding claim 6, Yang in view of Chen and Qiu teaches the limitations of claim 5. Yang fails to teach the method for graphics rendering wherein the preset matrix format is preset according to the linear transformation instruction, wherein a same type of linear transformation instructions correspond to a same preset matrix format.
Chen teaches the method for graphics rendering wherein the preset matrix format is preset according to the linear transformation instruction, wherein a same type of linear transformation instructions correspond to a same preset matrix format (Paragraph 72 teaches that there are conversion matrices corresponding to multiple operations. Thus, each linear transformation instruction or operation would correspond to a same preset matrix format).
Yang, Chen, and Qiu are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of rendering graphics through WebGL. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of graphics rendering taught by Yang in view of Qiu with the preset matrix formats taught by Chen in order to smoothly display the user’s desired operation and rendered image at a local processing device (Chen Paragraph 4).
19. Regarding claim 10, Yang teaches an apparatus for graphics rendering based on a Web Graphics Library (WebGL), comprising: an acquisition module, configured to acquire initial rendering information (Paragraph 66-67 teaches obtaining a BIM model file which can be considered the initial rendering information; Paragraph 94 teaches an acquiring unit which can be considered the acquisition module);
a format conversion module, configured to convert the initial rendering information according to a preset layer encapsulation format to obtain layer rendering data (Paragraph 68-69 teaches converting the BIM model file into model data. The model data can be considered the layer rendering data. It teaches using a format identifier that converts the BIM model file into model data. The format identifier can be considered the preset layer encapsulation format; Paragraph 95 teaches a conversion unit which can be considered the format conversion module);
a data processing module, configured to map the layer rendering data into a WebGL data format to obtain WebGL rendering data (Paragraphs 73-81 teach mapping the model data into a WebGL data format for WebGL rendering. In S301 and S302 it acquires the attribute information from the model data of the BIM model file and then creates matrix data or grid/mesh data of each component in the model data in S303 and S304. The grid/mesh data can be considered the WebGL data format which WebGL renders to create rendering data; Paragraph 101-108 teaches a rendering module which consist of determining units and a division unit which create the matrix data and grid data for rendering in WebGL);
and a rendering module, configured to invoke a WebGL interface and perform rendering output according to the WebGL rendering data (Paragraph 60 teaches that WebGL is invoked in a browser, which can be considered the WebGL interface, to render a model. Thus, in Paragraph 80 when the WebGL renders the rendering data or grid data, it does so in the browser or WebGL interface and performs the rendering output by displaying it in the browser; Paragraph 107 teaches a rendering unit which renders the grid data according to WebGL).
wherein the acquisition module is configured to acquire the following information: to-be-rendered element data (Paragraph 66-67 teaches obtaining a BIM model file which can be considered the initial rendering information or the to-be-rendered element data; Paragraph 70 teaches there is component attribute information in the BIM model file which can be considered the to-be-rendered element data)
However, Yang fails to teach wherein the acquisition module is configured to acquire the following information: a linear transformation instruction to be performed on the to-be-rendered element, wherein the preset layer encapsulation format comprises a preset data source format and a preset matrix format, the layer rendering data comprising pixel data of the to-be-rendered element and transformation matrix data of the to-be-rendered element, wherein the format conversion module is configured to obtain the layer rendering data in the following manner: converting the to-be-rendered element data according to the preset data source format to obtain the pixel data; and converting the linear transformation instruction according to the preset matrix format to obtain the transformation matrix data, wherein the step of converting the to-be-rendered element data according to the preset data source format to obtain the pixel data comprises converting the to-be-rendered element data to the pixel data by setting a texture pixel and/or directly setting a frame buffer.
Chen teaches wherein the acquisition module is configured to acquire the following information: a linear transformation instruction to be performed on the to-be-rendered element (Paragraph 94 teaches obtaining operation instructions like rotation, which is a linear transformation, as part of the initial rendering information), wherein the preset layer encapsulation format comprises a (Paragraph 72 teaches that there are conversion matrices corresponding to multiple operations. These conversion matrices can be considered the preset matrix formats), the layer rendering data comprising matrix data (Paragraph 72 teaches converting linear transformation instructions like rotation into a matrix. Converting it into a matrix can be considered converting the linear transformation instruction into a preset matrix format which then is performed on the image; Paragraph 96 teaches the image data is processed according to the image processing parameters from the matrix. Thus, the processed image data is the transformation matrix data).
Yang and Chen are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of rendering graphics through WebGL. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of graphics rendering taught by Yang with the linear transformation taught by Chen in order to smoothly display the user’s desired operation and rendered image at a local processing device (Chen Paragraph 4).
However, Yang and Chen fail to teach wherein the preset layer encapsulation format comprises a preset data source format, the layer rendering data comprising pixel data of the to-be-rendered element, wherein the format conversion module is configured to obtain the layer rendering data in the following manner: converting the to-be-rendered element data according to the preset data source format to obtain the pixel data, wherein the converting the to-be-rendered element data according to the preset data source format to obtain the pixel data comprises converting the to-be-rendered element data to the pixel data by setting a texture pixel and/or directly setting a frame buffer.
Qiu teaches wherein the preset layer encapsulation format comprises a preset data source format, the layer rendering data comprising pixel data of the to-be-rendered element (Paragraphs 41-44 and 62 teach a coordinate transformation that converts the coordinates into a float32array. This teaches outputting pixel data of the to-be-rendered element in a preset data format), wherein the format conversion module is configured to obtain the layer rendering data in the following manner: converting the to-be-rendered element data according to the preset data source format to obtain the pixel data (Paragraphs 41-44 and 62 teach a coordinate transformation that converts the vertex coordinates, or to-be-rendered element data, into a float32array. The float32array is the preset data source format and the vertex coordinates converted into the array can be considered the obtained pixel data),
wherein the converting the to-be-rendered element data according to the preset data source format to obtain the pixel data comprises converting the to-be-rendered element data to the pixel data by setting a texture pixel and/or directly setting a frame buffer (Paragraph 43 teaches storing the vertex data or to-be-rendered element data in a cache area or display storage area. This can be considered the frame buffer which is used to easily read the coordinates and obtain the pixel data. Applicant defines ‘and/or’ in Page 16 as including a combination of one or more items. Thus, setting a texture pixel does not need to be taught in the prior art since the frame buffers are taught).
Yang, Chen, and Qiu are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of rendering graphics through WebGL. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of graphics rendering taught by Yang in view of Chen with the conversion of to-be-rendered elements into a preset data source format and pixel data and setting of a frame buffer taught by Qiu in order to shorten loading times when rendering massive amounts of data and improve performance (Qiu Paragraph 9).s
20. Regarding claim 14, Yang in view of Chen and Qiu teaches the limitations of claim 10. Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 5. Therefore, similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 5 applies herein.
21. Claim(s) 7, 15, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 111161390 A), hereinafter referred to as Yang, in view of Chen (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0294303 A1) and Qiu et al. (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 110544290 A), hereinafter referred to as Qiu, as applied to claim 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Du (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 110956673 A).
22. Regarding claim 7, Yang in view of Chen and Qiu teaches the limitations of claim 1. However, Yang and Chen fail to teach the method for graphics rendering wherein the step of mapping the layer rendering data into the WebGL data format to obtain the WebGL rendering data comprises: mapping the pixel data into WebGL texture; and mapping the transformation matrix data into an attribute in a WebGL shader.
Qiu teaches the method for graphics rendering wherein the step of mapping the layer rendering data into the WebGL data format to obtain the WebGL rendering data comprises: mapping the pixel data into WebGL texture (Paragraph 55 teaches a fragment shader gets the color value for each pixel. The color value can be considered a WebGL texture);
Yang, Chen, and Qiu are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of rendering graphics through WebGL. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of graphics rendering taught by Yang in view of Chen with the setting of a frame buffer taught by Qiu in order to shorten loading times when rendering massive amounts of data and improve performance (Qiu Paragraph 9).
However, Yang, Chen, and Qiu fail to teach mapping the transformation matrix data into an attribute in a WebGL shader.
Du teaches mapping the transformation matrix data into an attribute in a WebGL shader (Paragraph 57 teach the methods use the WebGL drawing interface and preset shaders; Paragraphs 83-85 teach the transformation matrix data is calculated in a preset shader which consists of the vertex and fragment shaders. The fragment shaders extracts the color or texture for each pixel which means the transformation matrix data has been mapped into an attribute like a color or texture).
Yang, Chen, Qiu, and Du are considered analogous to the claimed invention as because both are in the same field of rendering graphics through WebGL. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of graphics rendering taught by Yang in view of Chen and Qiu with the WebGL shader taught by Du in order to effectively draw each frame of the graphic and improve response speed to user operations (Du Paragraph 23).
23. Regarding claim 15, Yang in view of Chen and Qiu teaches the limitations of claim 10. Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 7. Therefore, similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 7 applies herein.
24. Regarding claim 21, Yang in view of Chen and Qiu teaches the limitations of claim 1. Claim 21 is similar in scope to claim 7. Therefore, similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 7 applies herein.
25. Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 111161390 A), hereinafter referred to as Yang, in view of Chen (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0294303 A1) and Qiu et al. (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 110544290 A), hereinafter referred to as Qiu, as applied to claim 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Brown (“5.1 – Introduction to Rendering” https://learnwebgl.brown37.net/rendering/introduction.html ) and Bouazizi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0346906 A1), hereinafter referred to as Bouazizi.
26. Regarding claim 8, Yang in view of Chen and Qiu teaches the limitations of claim 1. Yang further teaches the method for graphics rendering wherein the initial rendering information comprises global attribute data (Paragraph 70 teaches the BIM model file, which is the initial rendering information, comprises attribute information. The attribute information can be considered global attribute data),
However, Yang fails to teach the method further comprises: setting, before converting the initial rendering information according to the preset layer encapsulation format to obtain the layer rendering data, WebGL context according to the global attribute data.
Brown teaches the method further comprises: setting, before converting the initial rendering information according to the preset layer encapsulation format to obtain the layer rendering data, WebGL context (Section ‘Pre-processing: WebGL Setup’ teaches in step 2 creating a WebGL context before going through the steps to convert initial rendering information in to a WebGL rendering data format. Thus, the context is created before converting the initial rendering information according to the preset layer encapsulation format since that is part of the process to convert the initial rendering information into WebGL rendering data)
Yang, Chen, Qiu, and Brown are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of rendering graphics through WebGL. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method for graphics rendering taught by Yang in view of Chen and Qiu with the setting of the WebGL context taught by Brown in order to prevent the GPU from slowing down in rendering (Brown Section ‘Rendering Speed Considerations’).
However, Yang, Chen, Qiu, and Brown fail to teach setting WebGL context according to the global attribute data.
Bouazizi teaches setting WebGL context according to the global attribute data (Paragraph 62-63 teaches creating a WebGL context by binding it to an initial or global texture).
Yang, Chen, Qiu, Brown, and Bouazizi are considered analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of rendering graphics through WebGL. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method for graphics rendering taught by Yang in view of Chen, Qiu, and Brown with the setting the WebGL context with a global attribute taught by Bouazizi in order to provide a texturing reference and operation to the graphics (Bouazizi Paragraph 62).
27. Regarding claim 16, Yang in view of Chen and Qiu teaches the limitations of claim 10. Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 8. Therefore, similar rationale as applied to claim 8 is applied herein.
28. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 111161390 A), hereinafter referred to as Yang, in view of Chen (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0294303 A1) and Qiu et al. (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 110544290 A), hereinafter referred to as Qiu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of He (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 112559647 A).
Regarding claim 9, Yang teaches a method for graphics rendering based on a Web Graphics Library (WebGL), comprising: obtaining a first rendering element (Paragraph 80-81 teaches rendering the data which results in a rendered element obtained) by adopting the method for graphics rendering based on the WebGL of claim 1 (See rejection for claim 1 above); (Paragraph 55-56 teaches detecting new uploads of BIM model files and processing it through the method taught in claim 1. Detecting the upload can be considered judging and determining if new initial rendering information exists. If it doesn’t detect any, then it doesn’t exist. If it does detect, then it does exist. The new uploads of BIM model files can be considered new initial rendering information existing.) by adopting the method for graphics rendering based on the WebGL of claim 1 (See rejection for claim 1 above).
However, Yang fails to teach the method comprising: judging whether to keep the first rendering element; when the first rendering element is not kept, recycling the first rendering element; judging whether new initial rendering information exists.
He teaches the method comprising: judging whether to keep the first rendering element; when the first rendering element is not kept, recycling the first rendering element (Paragraph n0009 and n0013 teaches comparing the new data set with the old data set, or first rendering element, and recycling the old data set depending on the comparison result).
Yang, Chen, Qiu, and He are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of graphics rendering. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method for graphics rendering taught by Yang in view of Chen and Qiu with the recycling of elements taught by He in order to avoid data display jams from updates to the data and improve stability of the rendering instead (He Paragraph n0004 and n0005).
Conclusion
29. 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.
30. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE Y AHN whose telephone number is (571)272-0672. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at (571)272-2330. 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.
/CHRISTINE YERA AHN/Examiner, Art Unit 2615
/ALICIA M HARRINGTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights