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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 16-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For claim 1, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
A system comprising:
one or more processors for executing instructions stored in memory to perform operations including:
determining one or more reflective values representative of a reflective property for a surface based at least on a point that corresponds to the surface in a virtual environment;
selecting [[a]] at least one specular model from a plurality of specular models based at least on the one or more reflective values;
based at least on the selecting, using the at least one specular model to determine lighting condition data for the point; and
rendering one or more images corresponding to the virtual environment using the lighting condition data.
For claim 3, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The system of claim 1, wherein the selecting is based at least on the one or more reflective values exceeding one or more threshold values.
For claim 4, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more reflective values indicate the surface is a glossy surface and the at least one specular model is a specular reflection model.
For claim 5, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more reflective values indicate a roughness corresponding to the surface.
For claim 7, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The system of claim 1, wherein the determining the one or more reflective values is based at least on an interaction of a ray with the point, the ray reflecting from the point to intersect an object in the virtual environment.
For claim 9, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
A method comprising:
determining a point on a surface in a virtual environment based at least on an interaction of a ray with the point;
comparing one or more reflective values representative of a reflective property associated with the surface to one or more threshold values;
based at least on the comparing, selecting [[a]] at least one specular model from a plurality of specular models to determine lighting condition data for the point; and
rendering one or more images corresponding to the virtual environment using the lighting condition data.
For claim 11, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The method of claim 9, wherein the selecting of the at least one specular model is based at least on the one or more reflective values exceeding the one or more threshold values.
For claim 12, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The method of claim 9, wherein the one or more reflective values indicate the surface is a glossy surface and the at least one specular model is a specular reflection model.
For claim 14, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
At least one processor comprising:
one or more circuits to render one or more images of a virtual environment using lighting condition data determined using [[a]] at least one specular model for a point on a surface in the virtual environment, the at least one specular model being selected from a plurality of specular models based at least on one or more reflective values representative of a reflective property associated with the surface at the point.
For claim 16, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The at least one processor of claim 14, wherein the at least one specular model is selected based at least on the one or more reflective values exceeding one or more threshold values.
For claim 17, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The at least one processor of claim 14, wherein the one or more reflective values indicate the surface is a glossy surface and the at least one specular model is a specular reflection model.
For claim 18, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The at least one processor of claim 14, wherein the at least one specular model is selected is based at least on a comparison of the one or more reflective values to one or more threshold values.
For claim 19, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The at least one processor of claim 14, wherein the at least one specular model is selected based at least on an interaction of a ray with the point, the ray reflecting from the point to intersect an object in the virtual environment.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7-8, 10 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,776,985 in view of Colbert et al., BRDF-Shop: Creating Physically Correct Bidirectional Reflectance Distribution Functions, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, Vol. 26, Issue 1, January 2006, pages 30-36 (made of record of the IDS submitted 8/08/2024). Claims 14, 16, 18 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,776,985 in view of Colbert et al., BRDF-Shop: Creating Physically Correct Bidirectional Reflectance Distribution Functions, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, Vol. 26, Issue 1, January 2006, pages 30-36, and Zhou et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0269723 A1) (made of record of the IDS submitted 8/08/2024).
The following is a claim comparison of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 16, 18 and 20 of the instant application and claims 1, 7-8, 10 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,776,985.
Application No. 18/612,293
U.S. Patent No. 10,776,985
1. A system comprising: one or more processors to perform operations including:
determining one or more values representative of a reflective property for a surface based at least on a point that corresponds to the surface in a virtual environment;
selecting a specular model from a plurality of specular models based at least on the one or more values; based at least on the selecting, using the specular model to determine lighting condition data for the point; and rendering one or more images corresponding to the virtual environment using the lighting condition data.
10. A method comprising:
determining, based at least in part on a view vector to a point that corresponds to a surface in a virtual environment and a normal distribution function associated with the point, first geometry of a bidirectional reflectance distribution function (BRDF) lobe of the point; based at least in part on the first geometry of the BRDF lobe, determining a second geometry that corresponds to a projection of a reflection of the BRDF lobe across the surface along the view vector towards a virtual screen in the virtual environment; determining at least one dimension of a filter based at least in part on the second geometry; and applying the filter to an image of the virtual environment at a location that corresponds to the view vector.
14. The method of claim 10, further comprising: determining a roughness value of the surface of the virtual environment is above a threshold value, the threshold value being greater than zero; based at least in part on the roughness value being above the threshold value, computing a bias on sampling the BRDF lobe based at least in part on the roughness value; based at least in part on the bias, sampling a portion of the BRDF lobe that corresponds to the bias to determine lighting condition data representative of lighting conditions of the location with respect to at least an object of the virtual environment, wherein the applying the filter to the image comprises applying the filter to the lighting condition data.
3
10 and 14
5
10 and 14
6
10 and 14
8
10 and 14
9. A method comprising:
determining a point on a surface in a virtual environment based at least on an interaction of a ray with the point;
comparing one or more values representative of a reflective property associated with the surface to one or more threshold values; based at least on the comparing, selecting a specular model from a plurality of specular models to determine lighting condition data for the point; and rendering one or more images corresponding to the virtual environment using the lighting condition data.
1. A method comprising:
determining a view vector of a portion of a virtual light path that extends from a virtual camera of a virtual environment to a point on a surface of the virtual environment, the virtual light path projecting from a pixel of a virtual screen in the virtual environment to the point, and reflecting from the point on the surface to intersect an object of the virtual environment;
computing, based at least in part on the view vector and a normal distribution function of the surface at the point, first geometry of a bidirectional reflectance distribution function (BRDF) lobe that defines the virtual light path; based at least in part on the first geometry of the BRDF lobe, computing a second geometry that corresponds to a cross-section, at the virtual screen, of a projection of a reflection of the BRDF lobe below the surface along the view vector to the pixel;
determining an anisotropic filter kernel of a size and orientation that is based at least in part on the second geometry of the cross-section; determining filter weights that correspond to the size; and
applying the anisotropic filter kernel to the pixel in an image of the virtual screen.
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a roughness value of the surface of the virtual environment is below a threshold value; based at least in part on the roughness value being below the threshold value, mirroring a reflected ray from an incident ray of the point on the surface of the virtual environment to form the virtual light path; and determining lighting condition data representative of lighting conditions of the pixel with respect to at least the object based at least in part on the virtual light path, wherein the applying the anisotropic filter kernel to the pixel comprises applying the anisotropic filter kernel to the lighting condition data.
8. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining sampling bias data representative of a bias on sampling the BRDF lobe based at least in part on a roughness value of the surface of the virtual environment; based at least in part on the bias, sampling a portion of the BRDF lobe that corresponds to the bias to form the virtual light path; and determining lighting condition data representative of lighting conditions of the pixel with respect to at least the object based at least in part on the virtual light path, wherein the applying the anisotropic filter kernel to the pixel comprises applying the anisotropic filter kernel to the lighting condition data.
13
1 and 7
14. At least one processor comprising:
one or more circuits to render one or more images of a virtual environment using lighting condition data determined using a specular model for a point on a surface in the virtual environment, the specular model being selected from a plurality of specular models based at least on one or more values representative of a reflective property associated with the surface at the point.
10. A method comprising:
determining, based at least in part on a view vector to a point that corresponds to a surface in a virtual environment and a normal distribution function associated with the point, first geometry of a bidirectional reflectance distribution function (BRDF) lobe of the point; based at least in part on the first geometry of the BRDF lobe, determining a second geometry that corresponds to a projection of a reflection of the BRDF lobe across the surface along the view vector towards a virtual screen in the virtual environment; determining at least one dimension of a filter based at least in part on the second geometry; and applying the filter to an image of the virtual environment at a location that corresponds to the view vector.
14. The method of claim 10, further comprising: determining a roughness value of the surface of the virtual environment is above a threshold value, the threshold value being greater than zero; based at least in part on the roughness value being above the threshold value, computing a bias on sampling the BRDF lobe based at least in part on the roughness value; based at least in part on the bias, sampling a portion of the BRDF lobe that corresponds to the bias to determine lighting condition data representative of lighting conditions of the location with respect to at least an object of the virtual environment, wherein the applying the filter to the image comprises applying the filter to the lighting condition data.
16
10 and 14
18
10 and 14
20
10 and 14
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7-8, 10 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,776,985 in view of Colbert et al., BRDF-Shop: Creating Physically Correct Bidirectional Reflectance Distribution Functions, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, Vol. 26, Issue 1, January 2006, pages 30-36. Claims 14, 16, 18 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,776,985 in view of Colbert et al., BRDF-Shop: Creating Physically Correct Bidirectional Reflectance Distribution Functions, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, Vol. 26, Issue 1, January 2006, pages 30-36, and Zhou et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0269723 A1).
For claim 1, claims 10 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,776,985 does not disclose a system of one or more processors and rendering an image. However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Colbert et al., BRDF-Shop: Creating Physically Correct Bidirectional Reflectance Distribution Functions, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, Vol. 26, Issue 1, January 2006, pages 30-36. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the use of a computing system with a graphics card as a processor to perform image rendering to appropriately render lighting condition data for a surface in an illuminated scene as (page 34) as taught in Colbert et al., BRDF-Shop: Creating Physically Correct Bidirectional Reflectance Distribution Functions, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, Vol. 26, Issue 1, January 2006, pages 30-36. Claims 10 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,776,985 otherwise disclose the same limitations of claim 1 as shown in the claim chart above. Thus, claim 1 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 10 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,776,985.
Similarly, for claims 3, 5, 6 and 8, claims 10 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,776,985 mirror the limitations of claims 3, 5, 6 and 8 as set forth in the claim chart above. Thus, claims 3, 5, 6 and 8 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from claims 10 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,776,985.
For claim 9, claims 1, 7 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,776,985 does not disclose rendering an image. However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Colbert et al., BRDF-Shop: Creating Physically Correct Bidirectional Reflectance Distribution Functions, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, Vol. 26, Issue 1, January 2006, pages 30-36. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the use of image rendering to appropriately render lighting condition data for a surface in an illuminated scene as (page 34) as taught in Colbert et al., BRDF-Shop: Creating Physically Correct Bidirectional Reflectance Distribution Functions, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, Vol. 26, Issue 1, January 2006, pages 30-36. Claims 1, 7 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,776,985 otherwise disclose the same limitations of claim 9 as shown in the claim chart above. Thus, claim 9 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 1, 7 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,776,985.
Similarly, for claim 13, claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 10,776,985 mirror the limitations of claim 13 as set forth in the claim chart above. Thus, claim 13 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 10,776,985.
For claim 14, claims 10 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,776,985 does not disclose a processor comprising one or more circuits and rendering an image. However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Colbert et al., BRDF-Shop: Creating Physically Correct Bidirectional Reflectance Distribution Functions, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, Vol. 26, Issue 1, January 2006, pages 30-36, and Zhou et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0269723 A1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the use of a computing system with a processor to perform image rendering to appropriately render lighting condition data for a surface in an illuminated scene as (page 34) as taught in Colbert et al., BRDF-Shop: Creating Physically Correct Bidirectional Reflectance Distribution Functions, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, Vol. 26, Issue 1, January 2006, pages 30-36. It would have been further obvious to apply the use of circuitry to appropriately perform the functions of a computer system (page 1/par. 12) as taught in Zhou et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0269723 A1). Claims 10 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,776,985 otherwise disclose the same limitations of claim 14 as shown in the claim chart above. Thus, claim 14 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 10 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,776,985.
Similarly, for claims 16, 18 and 20, claims 10 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,776,985 mirror the limitations of claims 16, 18 and 20 as set forth in the claim chart above. Thus, claims 16, 18 and 20 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from claims 10 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,776,985.
Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9, 14 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,373,359 in view of Colbert et al., BRDF-Shop: Creating Physically Correct Bidirectional Reflectance Distribution Functions, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, Vol. 26, Issue 1, January 2006, pages 30-36. Claims 14, 16 and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9, 14 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,373,359 in view of Colbert et al., BRDF-Shop: Creating Physically Correct Bidirectional Reflectance Distribution Functions, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, Vol. 26, Issue 1, January 2006, pages 30-36, and Zhou et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0269723 A1).
The following is a claim comparison of claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, 13, 14, 16 and 18-20 of the instant application and claims 9, 14 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,373,359.
Application No. 18/612,293
U.S. Patent No. 11,373,359
1. A system comprising: one or more processors to perform operations including:
determining one or more values representative of a reflective property for a surface based at least on a point that corresponds to the surface in a virtual environment;
selecting a specular model from a plurality of specular models based at least on the one or more values; based at least on the selecting, using the specular model to determine lighting condition data for the point; and rendering one or more images corresponding to the virtual environment using the lighting condition data.
9. A method comprising:
determining data representative of lighting conditions associated with a pixel of a virtual screen based at least on a virtual light path that includes a point associated with a surface of a virtual environment, the virtual light path reflecting from the point to intersect an object; projecting to locations on the virtual screen using a view vector that extends from the point to the pixel, a combination of a reflected ray of the point and a reflection of the reflected ray to below the surface; computing a filter direction of a filter based at least in part on the locations; and generating image data representative of a ray-traced image based at least on applying the filter to the data representative of the lighting conditions.
16. The method of claim 9, further comprising: determining second data representative of a bias on sampling a Bidirectional Reflectance Distribution Function (BRDF) lobe based at least in part on a roughness value of the surface of the virtual environment; and based at least in part on the bias, sampling a portion of the BRDF lobe that corresponds to the bias to form the virtual light path.
3
14
5
16
6
16
7
9
8
9
9. A method comprising:
determining a point on a surface in a virtual environment based at least on an interaction of a ray with the point;
comparing one or more values representative of a reflective property associated with the surface to one or more threshold values; based at least on the comparing, selecting a specular model from a plurality of specular models to determine lighting condition data for the point; and rendering one or more images corresponding to the virtual environment using the lighting condition data.
9. A method comprising:
determining data representative of lighting conditions associated with a pixel of a virtual screen based at least on a virtual light path that includes a point associated with a surface of a virtual environment, the virtual light path reflecting from the point to intersect an object; projecting to locations on the virtual screen using a view vector that extends from the point to the pixel, a combination of a reflected ray of the point and a reflection of the reflected ray to below the surface; computing a filter direction of a filter based at least in part on the locations; and generating image data representative of a ray-traced image based at least on applying the filter to the data representative of the lighting conditions.
14. The method of claim 9, further comprising: determining a roughness value of the surface is below a threshold value; and based at least in part on the roughness value being below the threshold value, generating the reflected ray as a mirror from an incident ray of the point associated with the surface to form the virtual light path.
16. The method of claim 9, further comprising: determining second data representative of a bias on sampling a Bidirectional Reflectance Distribution Function (BRDF) lobe based at least in part on a roughness value of the surface of the virtual environment; and based at least in part on the bias, sampling a portion of the BRDF lobe that corresponds to the bias to form the virtual light path.
11
14
13
16
14. At least one processor comprising:
one or more circuits to render one or more images of a virtual environment using lighting condition data determined using a specular model for a point on a surface in the virtual environment, the specular model being selected from a plurality of specular models based at least on one or more values representative of a reflective property associated with the surface at the point.
9. A method comprising:
determining data representative of lighting conditions associated with a pixel of a virtual screen based at least on a virtual light path that includes a point associated with a surface of a virtual environment, the virtual light path reflecting from the point to intersect an object; projecting to locations on the virtual screen using a view vector that extends from the point to the pixel, a combination of a reflected ray of the point and a reflection of the reflected ray to below the surface; computing a filter direction of a filter based at least in part on the locations; and generating image data representative of a ray-traced image based at least on applying the filter to the data representative of the lighting conditions.
16. The method of claim 9, further comprising: determining second data representative of a bias on sampling a Bidirectional Reflectance Distribution Function (BRDF) lobe based at least in part on a roughness value of the surface of the virtual environment; and based at least in part on the bias, sampling a portion of the BRDF lobe that corresponds to the bias to form the virtual light path.
16
14
18
14
19
9
20
9
Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9, 14 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,373,359 in view of Colbert et al., BRDF-Shop: Creating Physically Correct Bidirectional Reflectance Distribution Functions, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, Vol. 26, Issue 1, January 2006, pages 30-36. Claims 14, 16 and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9, 14 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,373,359 in view of Colbert et al., BRDF-Shop: Creating Physically Correct Bidirectional Reflectance Distribution Functions, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, Vol. 26, Issue 1, January 2006, pages 30-36, and Zhou et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0269723 A1).
For claim 1, claims 9 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,373,359 does not disclose a system of one or more processors and rendering an image. However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Colbert et al., BRDF-Shop: Creating Physically Correct Bidirectional Reflectance Distribution Functions, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, Vol. 26, Issue 1, January 2006, pages 30-36. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the use of a computing system with a graphics card as a processor to perform image rendering to appropriately render lighting condition data for a surface in an illuminated scene as (page 34) as taught in Colbert et al., BRDF-Shop: Creating Physically Correct Bidirectional Reflectance Distribution Functions, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, Vol. 26, Issue 1, January 2006, pages 30-36. Claims 9 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,373,359 otherwise disclose the same limitations of claim 1 as shown in the claim chart above. Thus, claim 1 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 9 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,373,359.
Similarly, for claims 3 and 5-8, claims 9, 14 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,373,359 mirror the limitations of claims 3 and 5-8 as set forth in the claim chart above. Thus, claims 3 and 5-8 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from claims 9, 14 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,373,359.
For claim 9, claims 9 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,373,359 does not disclose rendering an image. However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Colbert et al., BRDF-Shop: Creating Physically Correct Bidirectional Reflectance Distribution Functions, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, Vol. 26, Issue 1, January 2006, pages 30-36. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the use of image rendering to appropriately render lighting condition data for a surface in an illuminated scene as (page 34) as taught in Colbert et al., BRDF-Shop: Creating Physically Correct Bidirectional Reflectance Distribution Functions, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, Vol. 26, Issue 1, January 2006, pages 30-36. Claims 9 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,373,359 otherwise disclose the same limitations of claim 9 as shown in the claim chart above. Thus, claim 9 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 9 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,373,359.
Similarly, for claims 11 and 13, claims 14 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,373,359 mirror the limitations of claims 11 and 13 as set forth in the claim chart above. Thus, claims 11 and 13 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from claims 14 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,373,359.
For claim 14, claims 9 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,373,359 does not disclose a processor comprising one or more circuits and rendering an image. However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Colbert et al., BRDF-Shop: Creating Physically Correct Bidirectional Reflectance Distribution Functions, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, Vol. 26, Issue 1, January 2006, pages 30-36, and Zhou et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0269723 A1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the use of a computing system with a processor to perform image rendering to appropriately render lighting condition data for a surface in an illuminated scene as (page 34) as taught in Colbert et al., BRDF-Shop: Creating Physically Correct Bidirectional Reflectance Distribution Functions, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, Vol. 26, Issue 1, January 2006, pages 30-36. It would have been further obvious to apply the use of circuitry to appropriately perform the functions of a computer system (page 1/par. 12) as taught in Zhou et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0269723 A1). Claims 9 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,373,359 otherwise disclose the same limitations of claim 14 as shown in the claim chart above. Thus, claim 14 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 9 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,373,359.
Similarly, for claims 16 and 18-20, claims 9 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,373,359 mirror the limitations of claims 16 and 18-20 as set forth in the claim chart above. Thus, claims 16 and 18-20 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from claims 9 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,373,359.
Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, 13, 15 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,941,745.
The following is a claim comparison of claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18 and 20 of the instant application and claims 1, 9, 13, 15 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,941,745.
Application No. 18/612,293
U.S. Patent No. 11,941,745
1. A system comprising: one or more processors to perform operations including:
determining one or more values representative of a reflective property for a surface based at least on a point that corresponds to the surface in a virtual environment; selecting a specular model from a plurality of specular models based at least on the one or more values;
based at least on the selecting, using the specular model to determine lighting condition data for the point; and
rendering one or more images corresponding to the virtual environment using the lighting condition data.
9. A system comprising: one or more graphics processing units (GPUs) to perform operations based at least on executing instructions stored in memory, the operations comprising:
determining one or more roughness values for a surface based at least on a point that corresponds to the surface in a virtual environment; selecting a portion of a bidirectional reflectance distribution function (BRDF) lobe for the point based at least on the one or more roughness values, the portion of the BRDF lobe representing a subset of a probability space of the BRDF lobe;
based at least on the selecting, sampling the portion of the BRDF lobe according to a sampling bias to determine lighting condition data for the point; and
rendering one or more images corresponding to the virtual environment using the lighting condition data.
3
13
5
9
6
9
7
15
8
9
9. A method comprising:
determining a point on a surface in a virtual environment based at least on an interaction of a ray with the point;
comparing one or more values representative of a reflective property associated with the surface to one or more threshold values; based at least on the comparing, selecting a specular model from a plurality of specular models to determine lighting condition data for the point; and
rendering one or more images corresponding to the virtual environment using the lighting condition data.
1. A method comprising:
determining a point on a surface in a virtual environment based at least on an interaction of a ray with the point;
comparing one or more roughness values associated with the surface to one or more threshold values; based at least on the comparing of the one or more roughness values to the one or more threshold values, sampling a portion of a bidirectional reflectance distribution function (BRDF) lobe for the point according to a sampling bias to determine lighting condition data for the point; and
rendering one or more images corresponding to the virtual environment using the lighting condition data.
11
1
13
1
14. At least one processor comprising:
one or more circuits to render one or more images of a virtual environment using lighting condition data determined using a specular model for a point on a surface in the virtual environment, the specular model being selected from a plurality of specular models based at least on one or more values representative of a reflective property associated with the surface at the point.
17. A processor comprising:
one or more circuits to render one or more images using lighting condition data for a point in a virtual environment based at least on sampling a portion of a bidirectional reflectance distribution function (BRDF) lobe for the point according to a sampling bias, the sampling bias being determined based at least on a comparison of one or more roughness values for a surface corresponding to the point to one or more threshold values.
16
17
18
17
20
17
Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, 13, 15 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,941,745.
For claim 1, claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,941,745 anticipates and discloses the limitations of claim 1. Thus, claim 1 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 9 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,941,745.
Similarly, for claims 3 and 5-8, claims 9, 13 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,941,745 mirror the limitations of claims 3 and 5-8 as set forth in the claim chart above. Thus, claims 3 and 5-8 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from claims 9, 13 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,941,745.
For claim 9, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,941,745 anticipates and discloses the limitations of claim 9. Thus, claim 9 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,941,745.
Similarly, for claims 11 and 13, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,941,745 mirrors the limitations of claims 11 and 13 as set forth in the claim chart above. Thus, claims 11 and 13 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,941,745.
For claim 14, claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,941,745 anticipates and discloses the limitations of claim 14. Thus, claim 14 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,941,745.
Similarly, for claims 16, 18 and 20, claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,941,745 mirrors the limitations of claims 16, 18 and 20as set forth in the claim chart above. Thus, claims 16, 18 and 20of the instant application are not patentably distinct from claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,941,745.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For dependent claim 11, parent claim 9 establishes “one or more values” and “one or more threshold values”. Claim 11 goes on to recite the phrase “the one or more values” and it is unclear and ambiguous to which of the previously established “one or more values” and “one or more threshold values” are being referenced by the phrase “the one or more values”. Examiner has suggested amendments in the claim objections discussed above to resolve the ambiguities.
For dependent claim 12, parent claim 9 establishes “one or more values” and “one or more threshold values”. Claim 12 goes on to recite the phrase “the one or more values” and it is unclear and ambiguous to which of the previously established “one or more values” and “one or more threshold values” are being referenced by the phrase “the one or more values”. Examiner has suggested amendments in the claim objections discussed above to resolve the ambiguities.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colbert et al., BRDF-Shop: Creating Physically Correct Bidirectional Reflectance Distribution Functions, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, Vol. 26, Issue 1, January 2006, pages 30-36 (hereinafter “Colbert”) in view of Chien et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0323471 A1, hereinafter “Chien”) (made of record of the IDS submitted 8/08/2024).
For claim 1, Colbert discloses a system (disclosing a computer system (page 34)) comprising: one or more processors to perform operations (disclosing a Nvidia 6800 GT graphics card as a graphics processor to perform operations of the computer system (page 34)) including: determining one or more values representative of a reflective property for a surface based at least on a point that corresponds to the surface in an environment (disclosing the determination of a value representative of a reflective property for a surface such as a roughness value based on a point that corresponds to the surface in an environment (pages 33-34/Figs. 3-4)); selecting a specular model from a plurality of specular models based at least on the one or more values (disclosing the roughness value controls a shape of a bidirectional reflectance distribution function (BRDF) lobe to select a portion of the BRDF lobe as a specular model from a plurality of BRDF lobes as a plurality of specular models (pages 33-34/Fig. 4)); based at least on the selecting, using the specular model to determine lighting condition data for the point (disclosing the portion of the BRDF lobe is sampled with narrow samples focused around the peak highlight direction as a sampling bias to determine lighting condition data for the point (page 34/Fig. 4)); and rendering one or more images corresponding to the environment using the lighting condition data (disclosing rendering an image corresponding to the environment using the lighting condition data (pages 34-35/Figs. 4-5)).
Colbert does not specifically disclose an environment as a virtual environment.
However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Chien.
Chien similarly discloses a system and method for rendering a surface in accordance with a bidirectional reflectance distribution function of the surface (page 1/par. 17). Chien explains its rendering is performed for a scene within virtual reality as a virtual environment (page 1/par. 2, 3 and 17; and page 2/par. 26). It follows Colbert may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Chien to implement its environment as a virtual environment for rendering its image of its surface.
A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Colbert with the teachings of Chien. Chien is analogous art in dealing with a system and method for rendering a surface in accordance with a bidirectional reflectance distribution function of the surface (page 1/par. 17). Chien discloses its rendering of virtual scenes and environments is advantageous in appropriately satisfying the demand for video quality in the presentation of virtual reality (page 1/par. 2, 3 and 17; and page 2/par. 26). Consequently, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of Chien into Colbert for appropriately satisfying the demand for video quality in the presentation of virtual reality. Therefore, claim 1 is rendered obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For claim 2, depending on claim 1, Colbert as modified by Chien discloses wherein the plurality of specular models includes at least a Bidirectional Reflectance Distribution Function (BRDF) model and a specular reflection model (Colbert discloses the plurality of specular models includes an original Ward BRDF model and further discloses the original BRDF model is extended over multiple reflection lobes across specular albedos to establish an extended Ward BRDF model as a specular reflection model (pages 34-35/Figs. 4-5)).
For claim 4, depending on claim 1, Colbert as modified by Chien discloses wherein the one or more values indicate the surface is a glossy surface and the specular model is a specular reflection model (Colbert discloses the one or more values representative of a reflective property for a surface may include parameters indicating gloss of a surface as a glossy surface (page 31) and further discloses the specular model is a BRDF lobe selected from multiple reflection lobes across specular albedos to establish the extended Ward BRDF model as the specular reflection model (pages 34-35/Figs. 4-5)).
For claim 5, depending on claim 1, Colbert as modified by Chien discloses wherein the one or more values indicate a roughness corresponding to the surface (Colbert discloses the one or more values representative of a reflective property for a surface may include a roughness value based on the point that corresponds to the surface (pages 33-34/Figs. 3-4))
For claim 6, depending on claim 1, Colbert as modified by Chien discloses wherein the selecting comprises selecting at least one of performing sampling of a Bidirectional Reflectance Distribution Function (BRDF) lobe to determine the lighting condition data or evaluating the point as a mirrored surface to determine the lighting condition data (Colbert discloses the portion of the BRDF lobe is sampled with narrow samples focused around the peak highlight direction as a sampling bias to determine lighting condition data for the point (page 34/Fig. 4)).
For claim 7, depending on claim 1, Colbert as modified by Chien discloses wherein the determining the one or more values is based at least on an interaction of a ray with the point, the ray reflecting from the point to intersect an object in the virtual environment (Chien similarly discloses a system and method for rendering a surface in accordance with a bidirectional reflectance distribution function of the surface (page 1/par. 17); Chien explains an intersection of a ray reflecting from a point of a surface to intersect objects in a virtual environment may be used to determine reflective properties of the surface such as glossy reflections (pages 1-2/par. 17-19); and it follows Colbert may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Chin to determine its one or more values based on an interaction of a ray with its point, the ray reflecting from its point to intersect an object in the virtual environment to appropriately render illumination effects).
For claim 8, depending on claim 1, Colbert as modified by Chien discloses wherein the system is comprised in at least one of: a system for performing one or more simulation operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for presenting at least one of virtual reality content or augmented reality content; a system for real-time rendering of the virtual environment; or a system for performing one or more rendering operations in gaming (Chien similarly discloses a system and method for rendering a surface in accordance with a bidirectional reflectance distribution function of the surface (page 1/par. 17); Chien explains its rendering is performed for a scene within virtual reality as a virtual environment to present virtual reality content (page 1/par. 2, 3 and 17; and page 2/par. 26); and it follows Colbert may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Chien to implement its environment as a virtual environment for rendering its image of its surface to present virtual reality content).
Claim(s) 14, 15, 17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colbert in view of Chien further in view of Zhou et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0269723 A1) (made of record of the IDS submitted 8/08/2024).
For claim 14, Colbert as modified by Chien discloses at least one processor to perform the operations performed by the one or more processors of the system of claim 1 (see above as to claim 1).
Colbert as modified by Chien does not specifically disclose one or more circuits.
However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Zhou.
Zhou similarly discloses a system and method to perform 3D image rendering (page 1/par. 12). Zhou explains the hardware of its system such as a processor may be implemented with circuitry (page 1/par. 12; and page 4/par. 30). It follows Colbert and Chien may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Zhou to implement its processor with circuitry for performing the functions of its system.
A PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Colbert and Chien with the teachings of Zhou. Zhou is analogous art in dealing with a system and method to perform 3D image rendering (page 1/par. 12). Zhou discloses its use of circuitry is advantageous in implementing hardware to appropriately perform the functions of a computer system (page 1/par. 12). Consequently, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of Zhou into Colbert and Chien for implementing hardware to appropriately perform the functions of a computer system. Therefore, claim 14 is rendered obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For claim 15, depending on claim 14, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 14 and claim 2. It follows claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 14 and claim 2.
For claim 17, depending on claim 14, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 14 and claim 4. It follows claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 14 and claim 4.
For claim 19, depending on claim 14, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 14 and claim 7. It follows claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 14 and claim 7.
For claim 20, depending on claim 14, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 14 and claim 8. It follows claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 14 and claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-13 would be allowable if rewritten to address any claim objections, any rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, and upon submission of suitable terminal disclaimers.
Claims 3, 16 and 18 would be would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, to address any claim objections, and upon submission of suitable terminal disclaimers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES TSENG whose telephone number is (571)270-3857. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-5.
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, Xiao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-7761. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/CHARLES TSENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613