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 Amendment
Claims 1-17, 20-22 are pending. No claim is amended or newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues –
In summary, the cited portions of BAKALASH discuss a process of generating primary HIPs, and then shooting secondary rays targeting and sampling the augmented object. The primary shots are repeated multiple times for multi-sampling in the image pixels. The Office Action appears to rely on the HIPs to teach the reflection points in the claim. However, BAKALASH has not been shown to disclose specifically determining, among the M intersecting points, a plurality of intersecting points that correspond to the at least one piece of material information. In contrast, BAKALASH has not been shown to disclose how a piece of material information is used in determining the a plurality of intersecting points among M intersecting points. Instead, BAKALASH merely discusses shooting secondary rays to sample the image pixels.
[see pages 9-10 of remarks of Applicant submitted on 4/2/2026]
Examiner does not agree with the arguments made by applicant and conclusions drawn therefrom. In response, the Examiner respectfully points out that because applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified [ In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). (“During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.”); < In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969)].
Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s assertion that BAKALASH must show disclosure as to how a piece of material information is used in determining the plurality of intersecting points among M intersecting points – to commensurate with the claimed invention recited in claim 1. However, Examiner contends that, under provisions of BRI, while it is necessary to show that ‘performing ray tracing-based intersection calculation based on space information of a reflective object and space information of a reflected object to obtain M intersecting points on the reflected object’ [which it appears Applicant agrees taught in Bakalash reference] – nevertheless, it is not necessary to show ‘how a piece of material information is used in determining the plurality of intersecting points among M intersecting points’ – since such positive recitation is absent in claim 1. Clam 1, recites, ‘wherein the reflected object corresponds to at least one piece of material information’ – which could easily be met by mere citation that a reflected object has some kind of relation (or correspondence) with material information.
Examiner indeed showed that in ¶0092, essential data includes material information (see Office Action of 1/16/2026, page 3, ¶1). Examiner is unable to find any arguments from Applicant in the response of 4/2/2026, as to how the disclosure in ¶0092 regarding material information being included in essential data does not meet the claimed limitation of ‘wherein reflected object corresponds to at least one piece of material information’.
Nevertheless, in ¶0092 Bakalash discloses, “Once a render target is completed, the exact ray/triangle intersection point 823 is found by inspecting the render target at the u, v coordinates of the DAS carrier ray. The triangle of intersection delivers essential data, such as color, light, normal, material, etc.”
Examiner contends that the triangle intersection delivering essential data that includes material information – sufficiently meets the limitation of reflected object corresponds to at least one piece of material information, since, ‘secondary rays in ray tracing are spawned from primary rays at the ray-polygon intersection points. They are used to compute things like shadows, reflections, refractions, etc.’ [¶0058].
Furthermore, besides discloses material information in ¶0092, ¶0103 discloses – “The sampled illumination impacts the image according to the object's material and the level of its specularity or diffuseness, e.g. if the object is reflective or partly reflective, it will result in reflection of the environment in the object, or just an amount of background lighting if it is diffuse, creating the object's response to the environment.” – indicating that the reflected object corresponds to material information. The disclosure here also confirms that material property such as specularity or diffuseness of the object affects how secondary rays are created at intersection point. Similarly, in ¶0107 Bakalash discloses that reflection on a shiny surface or tile enhances the photo-realistic effects of a 3D rendering. The extent of reflection depends on surface's reflectivity (the BRDF of the material). The concept as to how BRDF function of the surface material generates secondary ray at intersection point is clarified further in ¶0112-0113. In ¶0117 Bakalash discloses how light and corresponding color values are aggregated along the light path to determine rendered values of the pixels, include consideration of the surface material property.
Therefore, based on the arguments provided above, Examiner contends that Bakalash sufficiently discloses the limitation of, wherein the reflected object corresponds to at least one piece of material information. Hence Examiner asserts that the rejection of claim 1 and dependents as applicable is proper for the Office Action of 1/16/2026, which is repeated here.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6-9, 14-17, 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bakalash (US 20190304163 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bakalash discloses an image rendering method, wherein the method (abstract, ¶2, ¶0008-0009, figs. 8c, 12c, 14c, 15c, claim 1 and dependents) comprises:
S1: performing ray tracing-based intersection calculation based on space information of a reflective object and space information of a reflected object to obtain M intersecting points on the reflected object, wherein the reflected object corresponds to at least one piece of material information, and M≥1 (¶0106-0115, HIPs standing for "Hit Points" as intersection of reflective surface and tracing rays. In ¶0092, essential data, includes material information); and
S2: determining, in the M intersecting points, a plurality of intersecting points corresponding to target material information, and performing shading based on the target material information and space information of the plurality of intersecting points corresponding to the target material information (ibid, ¶0106-0115, ¶0092, fig. 14c.
The layout of the prior art ray tracing method is depicted in Fig. 1. First, an acceleration structure must be constructed 10. The construction is done as a preprocessing step, and takes much more time than generating a single image. Generally, the construction time depends on the scene size. The bigger the scene, the longer the construction time. Every major modification in the scene necessitates a reconstruction of the acceleration structure. The memory size is typically doubled by the acceleration structure. Tracing of rays 12 is based on massive traversals of the acceleration structure 11, when each ray is traversed across the structure in search of intersections between the ray and various scene objects. The resulting intersection points are lighted, textured, shaded 13, and aggregated into image pixels, ¶0009), to obtain an image of a reflection that is of the reflected object and that is in the reflective object, wherein the target material information is the at least one piece of material information (ibid, fig. 14c., ¶0009. Also see ¶0107-0108. Once a render target is completed, the exact ray/triangle intersection point 823 is found by inspecting the render target at the u, v coordinates of the DAS carrier ray. The triangle of intersection delivers essential data, such as color, light, normal, material, etc., ¶0092.
Render target is a feature of modern graphics processing units (GPUs) that allows a 3D scene to be rendered to an intermediate memory buffer, or Render Target Texture (RTT), instead of the frame buffer or back buffer. This RTT can then be manipulated by pixel shaders in order to make searches or apply effects to the final image., ¶0056).
Regarding claim 6, Bakalash discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
performing rasterization based on the space information of the reflective object and material information of the reflective object to obtain an image of the reflective object;
performing rasterization based on the space information of the reflected object and material information of the reflected object to obtain an image of the reflected object; and
fusing the image of the reflective object, the image of the reflected object, and the image of the reflection in the reflective object to obtain a target image (First, the reflective or semi-reflective surfaces (or items) in the real scene, which may reflect the augmented object, must be identified. Then we shoot primary rays at the surface in which the object is intended to be reflected, or part thereof, generating primary HIPs. From these HIPs, we shoot secondary rays targeting and sampling the augmented object. This way of generating reflections is illustrated in FIGS. 13a and 13b. Primary HIPs covering the intended reflection area are created by primary rays that are shot from the camera 133, through the image screen 130, toward the area of reflection 134. The location and boundaries of the reflection area 134 in surface 132 is determined according to the location of the camera, the distance and the size of the augmented object 110, and the consideration of the principal direction 131 according to the Snell law. The primary shots are repeated multiple times for multi-sampling in the image pixels. Each successive time the primary projection is slightly deviated randomly from the principal direction, such that each pixel of the image gets multiple samples. The surface of the reflection area 134 becomes covered by a dense array of primary HIPs. The randomness of the multi-sampling prevents unwanted patterns in the resulting image, ¶0108).
Regarding claim 7, Bakalash discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the space information comprises at least one of the following: vertex coordinates, a vertex normal line, or a triangle index ( An exemplary cluster of three existing HIPs, with their underlying triangles, are shown, 405, 408 and 403. Secondary rays of HIPs 405, 408
are driven by the DAS structure. As an example, the carrier ray 402 runs into HIP 408. From the point of encounter with the HIP and onwards, it becomes a secondary ray 406, associated with the HIP, seeking for intersection 409. A DAS is relevant only to HIPs that have their hemispheres oriented toward the projection, like 405 and 408, but not 403. The DAS method is mathematically articulated as follows… Note that Lc is a set of mappings from the same input, so there can be several target vertices for any input vertex., ¶0075-0081, fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, Bakalash discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the material information comprises at least one of a color, a metallicity, or a roughness (The triangle of intersection delivers essential data, such as color, light, normal, material, etc., ¶0092.
The sampled illumination impacts the image according to the object's material and the level of its specularity or diffuseness, e.g. if the object is reflective or partly reflective, it will result in reflection of the environment in the object, or just an amount of background lighting if it is diffuse, creating the object's response to the environment., ¶0103.
Also see ¶0107-0108, 0112 etc.).
Regarding claim 9, Bakalash discloses an image rendering apparatus (¶0051-0053), wherein the apparatus comprises:
at least one processor (¶0053); and
one or more memories coupled to the at least one processor and storing programming instructions for execution by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to (¶0053):
perform ray tracing-based intersection calculation based on space information of a reflective object and space information of a reflected object to obtain M intersecting points on the reflected object, wherein the reflected object corresponds to at least one piece of material information, and M≥1; and
determine, in the M intersecting points, a plurality of intersecting points corresponding to target material information, and perform shading based on the target material information and space information of the plurality of intersecting points corresponding to the target material information, to obtain an image of a reflection that is of the reflected object and that is in the reflective object, wherein the target material information is the at least one piece of material information (see substantively similar claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding apparatus claim(s) 14-16, although wording is different, the material is considered substantively equivalent to the method claim(s) 6-8 respectively as described above.
Regarding device claim(s) 17, 20-22 although wording is different, the material is considered substantively equivalent to the method claim(s) 1, 6-8 respectively as described above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 10-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, prior arts of record taken alone or in combination fails to reasonably disclose or suggest ,
wherein the at least one piece of material information are P pieces of material information, the target material information is an ith piece of material information, an initial value of i is 1, and S2 comprises:
S21: determining, in the M intersecting points, a plurality of intersecting points corresponding to the ith piece of material information, and performing shading based on the ith piece of material information and space information of the plurality of intersecting points corresponding to the ith piece of material information; and
S22: letting setting i=i+1, and re-performing S21, until i=P, to obtain the image of the reflection that is of the reflected object and that is in the reflective object.
Claims 3-5 are allowable for their dependence on allowable claim 2.
Regarding claim 10, prior arts of record taken alone or in combination fails to reasonably disclose or suggest,
wherein the at least one piece of material information is P pieces of material information, the target material information is an i.sup.th piece of material information, an initial value of i is 1, and wherein the programming instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: determine, in the M intersecting points, a plurality of intersecting points corresponding to the i.sup.th piece of material information, and perform shading based on the i.sup.th piece of material information and space information of the plurality of intersecting points corresponding to the i.sup.th piece of material information; and set i=i+1, and repeat the determining the plurality of intersecting points and performing shading, until i=P, to obtain the image of the reflection that is of the reflected object and that is in the reflective object.
Claims 11-13 are allowable for their dependence on allowable claim 10.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NURUN FLORA whose telephone number is (571)272-5742. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am -5:00 pm.
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.
/NURUN FLORA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619
Prosecution Insights