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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per ¶1, “A tile-based graphics system renders 2D or 3D computer graphics
images using tile based rendering. As part of a tile-based rendering technique a rendering space is sub-divided into a plurality of regions called tiles or blocks (herein referred to as "tiles"), which each comprise a plurality of pixels. Tiles are often rectangular, but they may be other shapes such as triangular or hexagonal. The rendering space may correspond to an image for display on a screen, but other render targets, such as texture data in memory, are also possible. Tiles can be various sizes, for example tiles may be 16 x 16 pixels. In one example of a screen resolution, there are 1280 x 1024 pixels. At such a resolution, there would 5120 tiles, each comprising 16x 16 pixels. ”
The examiner notes this doesn’t support the limitations of any of the claims using region in this particular way. Region(s) in this context is describing tiles and not support for regions in the context of the claims as claimed.
As per ¶9, “The method may further comprise determining bounding regions for
the graphics data items wherein a particular graphics data item may be associated with a particular tile if the bounding region for that graphics data item at least partially overlaps the particular tile, and for each of the graphics data items, the indicator for that graphics data item may be indicative of the number of tiles which at least partially overlap the bounding region for that graphics data item. For each of the graphics data items, the bounding region for that graphics data item may contain all of the graphics data items in the graphics data set of that graphics data item. ”
As per ¶43, “[0043] For each tile, the tiling unit 106 determines whether each of the primitives is located at least partially within that tile. That is, the tiling unit 106 determines whether at least part of the primitive is located within a viewable region of the tile.”
As per, ¶80, “[0080] In the examples given herein, rectangular bounding boxes are used which are simple to implement and well matched to rectangular tiles. However, a rectangular bounding box is just one example of a bounding region which may be used. Other bounding regions may be used. For example, tighter bounds such as spheres and polynomials may be used in a similar manner as that described herein for the rectangular bounding boxes. Methods also exist for optimizing the rectangular bounding box. In the example of Figure 6, such a method may exclude non-overlapped tiles G, H, and P to produce the minimal set of seven tiles overlapped by the primitives of the parameter block for use as the bounding region.”
None of the previous cited portions provide support for the claim language as presented for claim 1.
Claim 4 recites, the method of claim 3, wherein the graphics data items are parameters defining geometry for inclusion in the regions.
The examiner notes however none of the previous citations of above doesn’t explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 4 as the specification doesn’t support regions as claimed.
Claim 5 recites, 5. The method of claim 1, further comprising determining, for each of a plurality of graphics data items stored in the cache, the count indicating the number of regions with which that graphics data item is associated, the count also providing an indication of the likelihood of that graphics data item being used in the next region that is processed.
The examiner notes however none of the previous citations of above doesn’t explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 5 as the specification doesn’t support regions as claimed.
Claim 9 recites, 9. The method of claim 1, further comprising reading the graphics data items from the cache for use in processing a region in the graphics system.
The examiner notes however none of the previous citations of above doesn’t explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 9 as the specification doesn’t support regions as claimed.
Claim 10 recites 10. The method of claim 1, further comprising determining bounding regions for the graphics data items wherein a particular graphics data item is associated with a particular region if the bounding region for that graphics data item at least partially overlaps the particular region and wherein, for each of the graphics data items, the count for that graphics data item is indicative of the number of regions which at least partially overlap the bounding region for that graphics data item.
The examiner notes however none of the previous citations of above doesn’t explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 10 as the specification doesn’t support regions as claimed. The claims recites bounding regions, particular region, and number of regions. The examiner notes there is not support for particular region and number of regions as claimed.
Claim 11 recites 11. The method of claim 1, wherein, for each of the graphics data items, the number of regions with which that graphics data item is associated is determined during a step of determining which of the graphics data items are present in each of the regions, and wherein the method further comprises determining an order in which regions are to be processed based on the counts of the graphics data items in the cache and based on the step of determining which of the graphics data items are present in each of the regions.
The examiner notes however none of the previous citations of above doesn’t explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 11 as the specification doesn’t support regions as claimed.
Claim 15 recites 15. The method of claim 1, wherein for each of the graphics data items, the count for that graphics data item indicates one of four conditions, the four conditions being:(i) that the number of regions with which that graphics data item is associated is equal to one, (ii) that the number of regions with which that graphics data item is associated is equal to two, (iii) that the number of regions with which that graphics data item is associated is equal to three or four, and (iv) that the number of regions with that graphics data item is associated is greater than four.
The examiner notes however none of the previous citations of above doesn’t explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 15 as the specification doesn’t support regions as claimed.
Claim 16 recites 16. The method of claim 1, wherein for each of the graphics data items, the count for that graphics data item indicates one of two conditions, the two conditions being:(i) that the number of regions with which that graphics data item is associated is equal to one, and (ii) that the number of regions with which that graphics data item is associated is greater than one.
The examiner notes however none of the previous citations of above doesn’t explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 16 as the specification doesn’t support regions as claimed.
Claim 17 recites 17. The method of claim 3, wherein the graphics data items are texels of textures for inclusion in the regions, and the graphics data sets are textures and the graphics data memory is a texture memory.
The examiner notes however none of the previous citations of above doesn’t explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 17 as the specification doesn’t support regions as claimed.
Claim 18 recites 18. The method of claim 1, wherein if the determined counts are the same for a plurality of the graphics data items, said evicting a graphics data item from the cache in dependence on a count indicating a number of regions with which the graphics data item is associated is further based on respective times that the graphics data items in the cache were last used.
The examiner notes however none of the previous citations of above doesn’t explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 18 as the specification doesn’t support regions as claimed.
Claim 19 and 20 recite similar limitations to that of claim 1. The examiner notes however none of the previous citations of above doesn’t explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 19 and 20 as the specification doesn’t support regions as claimed.
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.
Claim 10 is 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.
As per claim 10: 10. The method of claim 1, further comprising determining bounding regions for the graphics data items wherein a particular graphics data item is associated with a particular region if the bounding region for that graphics data item at least partially overlaps the particular region and wherein, for each of the graphics data items, the count for that graphics data item is indicative of the number of regions which at least partially overlap the bounding region for that graphics data item.
The claims recite bounding regions, particular region, and number of regions. The examiner notes the usage of region(s) is confusing. There is ambiguity as there are bounding regions and other types of regions. Is a particular region, specific to a bounding region? As in, is this specifying a bounding region? Is the number of regions also referring to bounding regions? The usage is unclear and needs clarity.
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1- 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,551,326. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because broader in every way.
Instant Application
Patent No. 11,551,326.
1. A method of implementing an eviction policy for a cache in a graphics system wherein graphics data items are associated with regions within the graphics system, the method comprising:
1. A method of processing data in a graphics system wherein graphics data items are associated with tiles within the graphics system, the method comprising:
evicting a graphics data item from the cache in dependence on a count indicating a number of regions with which the graphics data item is associated; and
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising evicting a graphics data item from the cache in dependence on the indicator associated with the graphics data item
1. storing graphics data items in a cache, wherein each of the graphics data items in the cache is associated with an indicator which is indicative of a number of tiles with which the graphics data item is associated
decrementing the count for a particular graphics data item when a region with which the particular graphics data item is associated has been processed.
6.The method of claim 5, further comprising decrementing the count for a particular graphics data item when a tile with which the particular graphics data item is associated has been processed
Instant Application
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Patent No. 11,551,326.
1, 2, 6
1
1, 11, 15
15, 16
1
1
1
10
10
16
Instant Application
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Patent No. 11,551,326.
1, 10
7
7
8
9
9
17
16
11, 12
20
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 17 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. (9934549). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application is broader than the instant patent.
Instant Application
US Patent: 9934549
1. A method of implementing an eviction policy for a cache in a graphics system wherein graphics data items are associated with regions within the graphics system, the method comprising:
1. In a method of processing data in a graphics system, said data describing objects in a scene to be rendered, […]
evicting a graphics data item from a cache in dependence on an indication value, said indication value being indicative of a count of a number of tiles with which the graphics data item is associated, wherein said evicting a graphics data item from the cache comprises evicting the graphics data item in the cache which has the lowest count of a number of tiles with which that graphics data item is associated.
evicting a graphics data item from the cache in dependence on a count indicating a number of regions with which the graphics data item is associated; and
evicting a graphics data item from a cache in dependence on an indication value, said indication value being indicative of a count of a number of tiles with which the graphics data item is associated, wherein said evicting a graphics data item from the cache comprises evicting the graphics data item in the cache which has the lowest count of a number of tiles with which that graphics data item is associated.
decrementing the count for a particular graphics data item when a region with which the particular graphics data item is associated has been processed.
7. (Previously presented) The method of claim 1 further comprising decrementing the count for a particular graphics data item when a tile with which the particular graphics data item is associated has been processed.
Instant Application
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Instant Patent
1 & 7
2
15
3
7
5
5
1 & 5
5
Instant Application
10
11
Instant Patent
1 & 6
1, 12, 13
Instant Application
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Instant Patent
12
1 & 9
9
10
10
17
12
1, 7,12
20
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 16 and 22 of U.S. Patent No. (9928563). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application is broader than the instant patent.
Instant Application
US Patent: 9928563
1. A method of implementing an eviction policy for a cache in a graphics system wherein graphics data items are associated with regions within the graphics system, the method comprising:
1. A method of processing data in a tile-based graphics system having a rendering space sub-divided into a plurality of tiles with which graphics data items are associated, the method comprising: […]
evicting a graphics data item from the cache in dependence on a count indicating a number of regions with which the graphics data item is associated; and
determining which of the graphics data items in the cache to evict based on the determined indicators, such that the graphics data items to evict from the cache are determined in dependence on the numbers of tiles with which the graphics data items are associated as indicated by the determined indicators; and evicting the determined graphics data items from the cache.
decrementing the count for a particular graphics data item when a region with which the particular graphics data item is associated has been processed.
decrementing the count of the number of tiles with which a particular graphics data item is associated, when a tile with which that particular graphics data item is associated has been processed;
Instant Application
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Instant Patent
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
Instant Application
10
11
Instant Patent
2
1
Instant Application
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Instant Patent
4
5
7
9
12
16
1
1
22
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. (11,954,759). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application is broader than the instant patent.
Instant Application
US Patent:11,954,759
1. A method of implementing an eviction policy for a cache in a graphics system wherein graphics data items are associated with regions within the graphics system, the method comprising:
A method of processing data in a graphics system wherein graphics data items are associated with tiles within the graphics system, the method comprising:
evicting a graphics data item from the cache in dependence on a count indicating a number of regions with which the graphics data item is associated; and
evicting a graphics data item from a cache in dependence on a count indicating a number of tiles with which the graphics data item is associated, the count providing an indication of the likelihood of that graphics data item being used in the next tile that is processed;
decrementing the count for a particular graphics data item when a region with which the particular graphics data item is associated has been processed.
and decrementing the count for a particular graphics data item when a tile with which the particular graphics data item is associated has been processed.
Instant Application
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Instant Patent
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
Instant Application
10
11
Instant Patent
11
13
Instant Application
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Instant Patent
13
14
15
16
17
5
6
18
19
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J CRADDOCK whose telephone number is (571)270-7502. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 AM - 6 PM EST.
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, Devona E Faulk can be reached at 571-272-7515. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/ROBERT J CRADDOCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2618
Prosecution Insights