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 .
Claim Status
2. Claims 1, 5, 9-13, and 15-19 are currently amended.
3. Claims 1-20 are pending in the present application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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 1-6 and 15-20 are 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.
5. The term substantially in claims 1 and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term substantially is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Substantially is a relative term meaning and includes items that are the same. Therefore, it is impossible to ascertain the mete and bounds of substantially.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 1-20 are allowed over cited references.
7. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claim 1 recites the limitation performing, using the shader, a reorientation of one or more of the translucent sprites from the group of translucent sprites based in part on at least a direction of the ray or an orientation of a main camera for the scene; determining, using the shader, locations of translucent sprites that intersect the ray; and determining, using the shader, the color value to return for the pixel location based in part upon the locations of the translucent sprites that intersect the ray, and the substantially identical material property values of the translucent sprites which is neither disclosed nor suggested by the cited references, either singly or in combination.
8. Claim 7 recites the limitation determine, using a shader and in response to the ray intersecting a bounding box surrounding the group of translucent particles, locations of one or more of the translucent particles in the group that are intersected by the ray; and determine, using the shader, a color value based in part upon the locations of the translucent particles that are intersected by the ray, and the at least one material property value which is neither disclosed nor suggested by the cited references, either singly or in combination.
9. Claim 15 recites the limitation determining an intersection of the ray with a boundary surrounding the group of particles, the one or more processors further to invoke a shader, for the group of particles, to determine the color value based in part upon locations of individual particles that are intersected by the ray and have the substantially identical material properties which is neither disclosed nor suggested by the cited references, either singly or in combination.
10. The closet art of record Benthin et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0298255 A1) discloses ray tracing cores involving beam, wave, ray, or particle propagation within a coordinate space. However, Benthin fails to disclose the above indicated allowable limitations.
11. Another art of record is Lin et la. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0405982 A1). Lin discloses a shader that is configured to change a visual effect associated with one or more particles which may include, but is not limited to, producing blue, light bloom, lighting, bump mapping, and distortion. However, Lin fails to disclose the above indicated allowable limitations.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments filed in Remarks on 7/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The word substantially is still vague and ambiguous. Substantially is a word of degree and it is impossible to ascertain the degree based on the word in view of Applicants’ specification.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
CONTACT
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK S CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7993. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8-11:30 and 1:30-6.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at 5712727794. 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.
/FRANK S CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights