DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6, filed 02 February 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and similar claims in substance under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Zimmerman (US 9,087,394 B1).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8, 12-14, 16, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudson (US 2018/0261037 A1) in view of Zimmerman (US 9,087,394 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Hudson discloses one or more processors (Paragraph 0167, GPU), comprising circuitry to: receive a call to an application programming interface (API) (Paragraph 0186, API call with parameters for casting rays into a scene); and return, via the API, one or more identifiers of one or more objects intersected by the one or more rays (Paragraphs 0186-0187, API for casting a ray into the scene with an identified object and reporting intersections by the rays). Hudson does not clearly disclose the call comprising one or more identifiers of one or more rays. Zimmerman discloses attributes of a ray casting API that includes a ray identifier (Column 69, lines 19-56). Zimmerman’s attributes of a ray casting API that includes a ray identifier would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the API for casting rays into a scene using an API call with parameters of Hudson and the results would have been predictable in an API for casting rays into a scene using calls that can include parameters for identifiers of the rays. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, Hudson discloses wherein the API is to cause the one or more objects to be indicated based, at least in part, on software performed by a graphics processing unit (GPU) (Paragraph 0167, server side rendering using GPU resources).
Regarding claim 5, Hudson discloses wherein the one or more objects include one or more triangles (Paragraph 0141, the object can be triangle based).
Regarding claim 6, Hudson discloses wherein the API is to cause the one or more objects to be indicated based, at least in part, on a set of input parameters that includes a ray of the one or more rays (Paragraph 0186, rays casted into the scene for intersection with the object) and a data structure that includes the one or more objects (Paragraph 0141, format for the object).
Regarding claims 8 and 14, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 1 is applied.
Regarding claim 12, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 5 is applied.
Regarding claim 13, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 6 is applied.
Regarding claim 16, Hudson discloses wherein the API is to cause the one or more objects to be indicated based, at least in part, on a function call from software (Paragraphs 0186-0186, API calls for ray intersection with objects) by a graphics processing unit (GPU) (Paragraph 0167, GPU resources).
Regarding claim 18, Hudson discloses wherein the API is to cause an identifier of an intersected object of the one or more objects to be included in an output data structure indicated by a user (Paragraphs 0186-0187, JSON having indicators for the object that are intersected by rays).
Regarding claim 20, Hudson discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon a set of instructions, which if performed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to at least perform the method of claim 14 (See rejection of claim 14 and Hudson, paragraph 0218, medium storing a program executable by a processor).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudson (US 2018/0261037 A1) in view of Zimmerman (US 9,087,394 B1) and further in view of Kensler et al. (US 2025/0209723 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Hudson in view of Zimmerman discloses all limitations as discussed in claim 1. Hudson in view of Zimmerman does not clearly disclose wherein the API is to cause the one or more objects to be indicated based, at least in part, on a tree data structure. Kensler discloses organizing objects in a scene for ray intersection into a hierarchical tree of bounding volumes (Paragraph 0070). Kensler’s technique of organizing objects in a scene for ray intersection into a hierarchical tree of bounding volumes would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the API that casts rays into a scene for reporting intersections with an object of Hudson in view of Zimmerman and the results would have been predictable in a API that casts rays into a scene with objects that are organized into a hierarchical tree of bounding volumes for determining and reporting ray intersections. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, Hudson in view of Zimmerman discloses all limitations as discussed in claim 1. Hudson in view of Zimmerman does not clearly disclose wherein the API is to cause the one or more objects to be indicated using a ray tracing core. Kensler discloses performing ray intersections using ray tracing cores (Paragraph 0021). Kensler’s technique of performing ray intersections using ray tracing cores would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the rays cast into a scene for intersecting objects of Hudson in view of Zimmerman and the results would have been predictable in performing the casting of rays into a scene for intersecting objects using ray tracing cores. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, Hudson in view of Zimmerman discloses all limitations as discussed in claim 1. Hudson further discloses casting rays into the scene (Paragraphs 0186-0187). Hudson in view of Zimmerman does not clearly disclose wherein the API is to cause the one or more objects to be indicated using one or more ray tracing cores of a graphics processing unit (GPU) based, at least in part, on a tree data structure that includes the one or more objects. Kensler discloses performing ray intersections using ray tracing cores (Paragraph 0021) on organizing objects in a scene for the ray intersection into a hierarchical tree of bounding volumes (Paragraph 0070).
Kensler’s technique of performing ray intersections using ray tracing cores on organizing objects in a scene for the ray intersection into a hierarchical tree of bounding volumes would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the casting of rays for intersection with objects in a scene of Hudson in view of Zimmerman and the results would have been predictable in the casting of rays into a scene for intersection with object using ray tracing cores where the objects in the scene are organized into a hierarchical tree of bounding volumes. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 9 and 17, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 3 is applied.
Regarding claims 10 and 15, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 2 is applied.
Regarding claim 11, Hudson in view of Zimmerman discloses all limitations as discussed in claim 8. Hudson further discloses wherein the API is to cause the one or more objects to be indicated based, at least in part, on one or more function calls of software (Paragraphs 0186-0186, API calls for ray intersection with objects) performed by a graphics processing unit (GPU) (Paragraph 0167, GPU resources). Hudson in view of Zimmerman does not clearly disclose wherein the API is to cause the one or more objects to be indicated using one or more ray tracing cores included in a graphics processing unit (GPU). Kensler discloses performing ray intersections using ray tracing cores with a GPU (Paragraphs 0021 and 0036). Kensler’s technique of performing ray intersections using ray tracing cores with a GPU would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the rays cast into a scene for intersecting objects using a GPU resources of Hudson in view of Zimmerman and the results would have been predictable in performing the casting of rays into a scene for intersecting objects using ray tracing cores with a GPU. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 19, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 7 is applied.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Peterson et al. (US 2011/0032257 A1) discloses an API for interfacing a ray tracing rendering system.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3417. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, JASON CHAN can be reached at (571)272-3022. 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.
/PHI HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619
Prosecution Insights