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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5, 8-13 and 16-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For claim 1, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
A method comprising:
determining a point corresponding to a surface in a virtual environment based at least on an interaction of a first ray with the point in the virtual environment;
casting a second ray from the point towards a light source in the virtual environment;
computing an intersection of the second ray and an occluding element, the occluding element being disposed between the point and the light source along a path of the second ray;
based at least on the intersection, projecting a vector of the light source along the second ray to the surface to determine a first filter direction; and
rendering an image corresponding to the virtual environment based at least on applying a filter in the first filter direction to lighting condition data corresponding to the point.
For claim 2, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The method of claim 1, wherein the projecting the vector of the light source determines a world space version of the first filter direction, and the method further comprises:
projecting the world space version of the first filter direction along a view vector to determine a screen space version of the first filter direction, wherein the applying of the filter uses the screen space version of the first filter direction.
For claim 3, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The method of claim 1, further comprising computing a second filter direction based at least on the first filter direction and a normal vector corresponding to the surface, wherein the applying the filter is further in the second filter direction.
For claim 4, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The method of claim 1, wherein the applying the filter includes determining one or more filter weights for the filter based at least on applying one or more distribution functions to the filter based at least on the first filter direction.
For claim 5, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The method of claim 1, wherein the filter includes a separable filter having one or first sub-matrices corresponding to the first filter direction and one or more second sub-matrices corresponding to a second filter direction.
For claim 8, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first filter direction extends along a first width of the filter that is different than a second width of the filter.
For claim 9, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
A system comprising:
one or more processors to execute instructions stored by one or more memory devices to cause the one or more processors to perform operations including:
casting a ray from a point corresponding to a surface in a virtual environment towards a light source in the virtual environment;
computing an intersection of the ray and an occluding element, the occluding element being disposed between the point and the light source along a path of the ray;
based at least on the intersection, determining a first filter direction corresponding to a projection of a vector of the light source along the ray to the surface; and
rendering an image corresponding to the virtual environment based at least on applying a filter in the first filter direction to lighting condition data corresponding to the point.
For claim 10, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The system of claim 9, wherein the projection determines a world space version of the first filter direction, and the determining the first filter direction further comprises:
projecting the world space version of the first filter direction to screen space to determine a screen space version of the first filter direction, wherein the applying of the filter uses the screen space version of the first filter direction.
For claim 11, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The system of claim 9, wherein the operations include computing a second filter direction based at least on the first filter direction and a normal vector corresponding to the surface, wherein the applying the filter is further in the second filter direction.
For claim 12, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The system of claim 9, wherein the applying the filter includes determining one or more filter weights for the filter based at least on applying one or more distribution functions to the filter based at least on the first filter direction.
For claim 13, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The system of claim 9, wherein the filter includes a separable filter having one or first sub-matrices corresponding to the first filter direction and one or more second sub-matrices corresponding to a second filter direction.
For claim 16, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The system of claim 9, wherein the first filter direction extends along a first width of the filter that is different than a second width of the filter.
For claim 17, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
At least one processor comprising:
one or more circuits to render an image based at least on applying a filter in a first filter direction corresponding to a projection of a vector of a light source along a ray to a surface,
the ray cast from a point corresponding to the surface towards the light source,
the first filter direction being computed based at least on an intersection of the ray and an occluding element disposed between the point and the light source along a path of the ray.
For claim 18, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The at least one processor of claim 17, wherein the projection determines a world space version of the first filter direction, and the first filter direction is further determined based at least on:
projecting the world space version of the first filter direction to screen space to determine a screen space version of the first filter direction, wherein the applying of the filter uses the screen space version of the first filter direction.
For claim 19, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The at least one processor of claim 17, wherein the one or more circuits are to compute a second filter direction based at least on the first filter direction and a normal vector corresponding to the surface, wherein the applying the filter is further in the second filter direction.
For claim 20, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The at least one processor of claim 17, wherein the applying the filter includes determining one or more filter weights for the filter based at least on applying one or more distribution functions to the filter based at least on the first filter direction.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8, 11 and 19 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.
For independent claim 1, this claim establishes a “first ray” and a “second ray”. Claim 1 goes on to recite the phrase “the ray” and it is unclear and ambiguous to which of the previously established “first ray” and “second ray” is being referenced by the phrase “the ray”. Examiner has suggested amendments in the claim objections discussed above to resolve the ambiguities.
Dependent claims 2-8 depend from claim 1 and inherit the deficiencies of claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-8 are likewise indefinite.
Furthermore, for dependent claim 3, parent claim 1 establishes a “filter direction” and claim 3 goes on to establish a “second filter direction”. Claim 3 goes on to recite the phrase “the filter direction” and it is unclear and ambiguous to which of the previously established “filter direction” and “second filter direction” is being referenced by the phrase “the filter direction”. Examiner has suggested amendments in the claim objections discussed above to resolve the ambiguities.
For dependent claim 11, parent claim 9 establishes a “filter direction” and claim 11 goes on to establish a “second filter direction”. Claim 11 goes on to recite the phrase “the filter direction” and it is unclear and ambiguous to which of the previously established “filter direction” and “second filter direction” is being referenced by the phrase “the filter direction”. Examiner has suggested amendments in the claim objections discussed above to resolve the ambiguities.
For dependent claim 19, parent claim 17 establishes a “filter direction” and claim 19 goes on to establish a “second filter direction”. Claim 19 goes on to recite the phrase “the filter direction” and it is unclear and ambiguous to which of the previously established “filter direction” and “second filter direction” is being referenced by the phrase “the filter direction”. Examiner has suggested amendments in the claim objections discussed above to resolve the ambiguities.
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, 4, 6-9, 11, 12, 14-17, 19 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 10,740,954 in view of DeCell et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0260245 A1) (made of record of the IDS submitted 11/01/2024).
The following is a claim comparison of claims 1, 3, 4, 6-9, 11, 12, 14-17, 19 and 20 of the instant application and claims 1, 3, 5 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 10,740,954.
Application No. 18/746,536
U.S. Patent No. 10,740,954
1. A method comprising:
determining a point corresponding to a surface in a virtual environment based at least on an interaction of a first ray with the point in the virtual environment; casting a second ray from the point towards a light source in the virtual environment; computing an intersection of the second ray and an occluding element, the occluding element being disposed between the point and the light source along a path of the second ray;
based at least on the intersection, projecting a vector of the light source along the ray to the surface to determine a filter direction; and rendering an image corresponding to the virtual environment based at least on applying a filter in the filter direction to lighting condition data corresponding to the point.
1. A method comprising:
determining a point on a surface of a virtual environment that is visible to a virtual camera and is in a virtual light path that projects from a virtual pixel of a virtual screen of the virtual environment to the point on the surface, and reflects from the point on the surface through an occluder to intersect a light source of the virtual environment; determining a first geometry of a three dimensional (3D) shape projected from the light source toward the point in the virtual environment; computing a second geometry based at least in part on the first geometry and a distance between the point and the occluder, the second geometry being of a footprint that corresponds to a first cross-section of the 3D shape;
computing a third geometry based at least in part on the second geometry, the third geometry being of an anisotropic filter kernel that corresponds to a second cross-section of a projection of the footprint along a view vector of the point to the virtual pixel; based at least in part on the third geometry, computing filter weights of the anisotropic filter kernel along at least a first direction and a second direction; and applying the anisotropic filter kernel to a pixel in an image that is representative of the virtual screen, the pixel in the image corresponding to the virtual pixel.
3
1 and 3
4
1 and 5
6
1
7
1 and 3
8
6
9. A system comprising: one or more processor to perform operations including:
casting a ray from a point corresponding to a surface in a virtual environment towards a light source in the virtual environment; computing an intersection of the ray and an occluding element, the occluding element being disposed between the point and the light source along a path of the ray;
based at least on the intersection, determining a filter direction corresponding to a projection of a vector of the light source along the ray to the surface; and rendering an image corresponding to the virtual environment based at least on applying a filter in the filter direction to lighting condition data corresponding to the point.
1. A method comprising:
determining a point on a surface of a virtual environment that is visible to a virtual camera and is in a virtual light path that projects from a virtual pixel of a virtual screen of the virtual environment to the point on the surface, and reflects from the point on the surface through an occluder to intersect a light source of the virtual environment; determining a first geometry of a three dimensional (3D) shape projected from the light source toward the point in the virtual environment; computing a second geometry based at least in part on the first geometry and a distance between the point and the occluder, the second geometry being of a footprint that corresponds to a first cross-section of the 3D shape;
computing a third geometry based at least in part on the second geometry, the third geometry being of an anisotropic filter kernel that corresponds to a second cross-section of a projection of the footprint along a view vector of the point to the virtual pixel; based at least in part on the third geometry, computing filter weights of the anisotropic filter kernel along at least a first direction and a second direction; and applying the anisotropic filter kernel to a pixel in an image that is representative of the virtual screen, the pixel in the image corresponding to the virtual pixel.
11
1 and 3
12
1 and 5
14
1
15
1 and 3
16
6
17. At least one processor comprising:
one or more circuits to render an image based at least on applying a filter in a filter direction corresponding to a projection of a vector of a light source along a ray to a surface, the ray cast from a point corresponding to the surface towards the light source, the filter direction being computed based at least on an intersection of the ray and an occluding element disposed between the point and the light source along a path of the ray.
1. A method comprising:
determining a point on a surface of a virtual environment that is visible to a virtual camera and is in a virtual light path that projects from a virtual pixel of a virtual screen of the virtual environment to the point on the surface, and reflects from the point on the surface through an occluder to intersect a light source of the virtual environment; determining a first geometry of a three dimensional (3D) shape projected from the light source toward the point in the virtual environment; computing a second geometry based at least in part on the first geometry and a distance between the point and the occluder, the second geometry being of a footprint that corresponds to a first cross-section of the 3D shape; computing a third geometry based at least in part on the second geometry, the third geometry being of an anisotropic filter kernel that corresponds to a second cross-section of a projection of the footprint along a view vector of the point to the virtual pixel; based at least in part on the third geometry, computing filter weights of the anisotropic filter kernel along at least a first direction and a second direction; and applying the anisotropic filter kernel to a pixel in an image that is representative of the virtual screen, the pixel in the image corresponding to the virtual pixel.
19
1 and 3
20
1 and 5
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-9, 11, 12, 14-17, 19 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 10,740,954 in view of DeCell et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0260245 A1).
For independent claim 1, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,740,954 does not disclose a first ray and a second ray and does not disclose projection of a vector of a light source. However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in DeCell et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0260245 A1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the use of a primary ray and a second ray so that a vector of a light source is projected along the rays to a surface to appropriately determine a direction of a blending filter so that the blending filter may be applied in the determined direction (par. 9, 211-213, 219, 251 and 259-262) as taught in DeCell et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0260245 A1). Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,740,954 otherwise recites identical limitations of claim 1 as shown in the claim chart above. Thus, claim 1 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,740,954.
For dependent claims 3, 4, and 6-8, claims 1, 3, 5 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 10,740,954 mirror and recite the limitations of claims 3, 4, and 6-8 as set forth in the claim chart above. Thus, claims 3, 4, and 6-8 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from claims 1, 3, 5 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 10,740,954.
For independent claim 9, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,740,954 does not disclose a system comprising one or more processing units and does not disclose projection of a vector of a light source. However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in DeCell et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0260245 A1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the use of a system of one or more processing units to appropriately perform the functions of the system (page 6/par. 167) and to apply the use of a primary ray and a second ray so that a vector of a light source is projected along the rays to a surface to appropriately determine a direction of a blending filter so that the blending filter may be applied in the determined direction (par. 9, 211-213, 219, 251 and 259-262) as taught in DeCell et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0260245 A1). Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,740,954 otherwise recites identical limitations of claim 9 as shown in the claim chart above. Thus, claim 9 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,740,954.
For dependent claims 11, 12 and 14-16, claims 1, 3, 5 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 10,740,954 mirror and recite the limitations of claims 11, 12 and 14-16 as set forth in the claim chart above. Thus, claims 11, 12 and 14-16 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from claims 1, 3, 5 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 10,740,954.
For independent claim 17, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,740,954 does not disclose a processor comprising one or more circuits and does not disclose projection of a vector of a light source. However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in DeCell et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0260245 A1). It would have been further obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the use of a processor embodied on an integrated circuit to appropriately perform the functions of a processing system (page 6/par. 167) and to apply the use of a primary ray and a second ray so that a vector of a light source is projected along the rays to a surface to appropriately determine a direction of a blending filter so that the blending filter may be applied in the determined direction (par. 9, 211-213, 219, 251 and 259-262) as taught in DeCell et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0260245 A1). Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,740,954 otherwise recites identical limitations of claim 17 as shown in the claim chart above. Thus, claim 17 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,740,954.
For dependent claims 19-20, claims 1, 3 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 10,740,954 mirror and recite the limitations of claims 19-20 as set forth in the claim chart above. Thus, claims 19-20 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from claims 1, 3 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 10,740,954.
Claims 1, 3, 6-9, 11, 14-17 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,822 in view of DeCell et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0260245 A1).
The following is a claim comparison of claims 1, 3, 6-9, 11, 14-17 and 19 of the instant application and claims 1, 4 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,822.
Application No. 18/746,536
U.S. Patent No. 12,026,822
1. A method comprising:
determining a point corresponding to a surface in a virtual environment based at least on an interaction of a first ray with the point in the virtual environment; casting a second ray from the point towards a light source in the virtual environment;
computing an intersection of the second ray and an occluding element, the occluding element being disposed between the point and the light source along a path of the second ray;
based at least on the intersection, projecting a vector of the light source along the ray to the surface to determine a filter direction; and
rendering an image corresponding to the virtual environment based at least on applying a filter in the filter direction to lighting condition data corresponding to the point.
1. A method comprising:
determining a point corresponding to a surface in a virtual environment based at least on an interaction of a ray with the point in the virtual environment;
computing an intersection between an occluder of a light source and a three dimensional (3D) shape projecting from the point towards the light source in the virtual environment;
computing for a filter and based at least on the intersection, a filter geometry that corresponds to a cross-section of a projection of the intersection along a view vector; and
rendering an image corresponding to the virtual environment based at least on applying the filter to lighting condition data corresponding to the point.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the filter geometry defines a first width of the filter along a first filter direction, and the applying of the filter uses the first width along the first filter direction and a second width along a second filter direction, the second width having a different magnitude than the first width.
3
1, 4 and 6
6
1
7
1, 4 and 6
8
6
9. A system comprising: one or more processor to perform operations including:
casting a ray from a point corresponding to a surface in a virtual environment towards a light source in the virtual environment;
computing an intersection of the ray and an occluding element, the occluding element being disposed between the point and the light source along a path of the ray;
based at least on the intersection, determining a filter direction corresponding to a projection of a vector of the light source along the ray to the surface; and
rendering an image corresponding to the virtual environment based at least on applying a filter in the filter direction to lighting condition data corresponding to the point.
1. A method comprising:
determining a point corresponding to a surface in a virtual environment based at least on an interaction of a ray with the point in the virtual environment;
computing an intersection between an occluder of a light source and a three dimensional (3D) shape projecting from the point towards the light source in the virtual environment;
computing for a filter and based at least on the intersection, a filter geometry that corresponds to a cross-section of a projection of the intersection along a view vector; and
rendering an image corresponding to the virtual environment based at least on applying the filter to lighting condition data corresponding to the point.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the filter geometry defines a first width of the filter along a first filter direction, and the applying of the filter uses the first width along the first filter direction and a second width along a second filter direction, the second width having a different magnitude than the first width.
11
1, 4 and 6
14
1
15
1, 4 and 6
16
6
17. At least one processor comprising:
one or more circuits to render an image based at least on applying a filter in a filter direction corresponding to a projection of a vector of a light source along a ray to a surface, the ray cast from a point corresponding to the surface towards the light source, the filter direction being computed based at least on an intersection of the ray and an occluding element disposed between the point and the light source along a path of the ray.
1. A method comprising:
determining a point corresponding to a surface in a virtual environment based at least on an interaction of a ray with the point in the virtual environment; computing an intersection between an occluder of a light source and a three dimensional (3D) shape projecting from the point towards the light source in the virtual environment; computing for a filter and based at least on the intersection, a filter geometry that corresponds to a cross-section of a projection of the intersection along a view vector; and
rendering an image corresponding to the virtual environment based at least on applying the filter to lighting condition data corresponding to the point.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the filter geometry defines a first width of the filter along a first filter direction, and the applying of the filter uses the first width along the first filter direction and a second width along a second filter direction, the second width having a different magnitude than the first width.
19
1, 4 and 6
Claims 1, 3, 6-9, 11, 14-17 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,822 in view of DeCell et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0260245 A1).
For independent claim 1, claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,822 do not disclose a first ray and a second ray and do not disclose projection of a vector of a light source. However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in DeCell et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0260245 A1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the use of a primary ray and a second ray so that a vector of a light source is projected along the rays to a surface to appropriately determine a direction of a blending filter so that the blending filter may be applied in the determined direction (par. 9, 211-213, 219, 251 and 259-262) as taught in DeCell et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0260245 A1). Claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,822 otherwise recite identical limitations of claim 1 as shown in the claim chart above. Thus, claim 1 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,822.
For dependent claims 3 and 6-8, claims 1, 4 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,822 mirror and recite the limitations of claims 3 and 6-8 as set forth in the claim chart above. Thus, claims 3, 4, and 6-8 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from claims 1, 4 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,822.
For independent claim 9, claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,822 do not disclose a system comprising one or more processing units and do not disclose projection of a vector of a light source. However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in DeCell et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0260245 A1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the use of a system of one or more processing units to appropriately perform the functions of the system (page 6/par. 167) and to apply the use of a primary ray and a second ray so that a vector of a light source is projected along the rays to a surface to appropriately determine a direction of a blending filter so that the blending filter may be applied in the determined direction (par. 9, 211-213, 219, 251 and 259-262) as taught in DeCell et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0260245 A1). Claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,822 otherwise recite identical limitations of claim 9 as shown in the claim chart above. Thus, claim 9 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,822.
For dependent claims 11 and 14-16, claims 1, 4 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,822 mirror and recite the limitations of claims 11 and 14-16 as set forth in the claim chart above. Thus, claims 11 and 14-16 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from claims 1, 4 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,822.
For independent claim 17, claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,822 does not disclose a processor comprising one or more circuits and does not disclose projection of a vector of a light source. However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in DeCell et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0260245 A1). It would have been further obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the use of a processor embodied on an integrated circuit to appropriately perform the functions of a processing system (page 6/par. 167) and to apply the use of a primary ray and a second ray so that a vector of a light source is projected along the rays to a surface to appropriately determine a direction of a blending filter so that the blending filter may be applied in the determined direction (par. 9, 211-213, 219, 251 and 259-262) as taught in DeCell et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0260245 A1). Claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,822 otherwise recites identical limitations of claim 17 as shown in the claim chart above. Thus, claim 17 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,822.
For dependent claim 19, claim 1, 4 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,822 mirror and recite the limitations of claim 19 as set forth in the claim chart above. Thus, claim 19 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from claims 1, 4 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,822.
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, 7, 9, 10, 15, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehta et al., Axis-Aligned Filtering for Interactive Sampled Soft Shadows, ACM Transactions on Graphics, Vol. 31, No. 6, Article 163, November 2012 (hereinafter “Mehta”) in view of DeCell et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0260245 A1, hereinafter “DeCell”) (all references made of record of the IDS submitted 11/01/2024).
For claim 1, Mehta discloses a method comprising: determining a point corresponding to a surface in a virtual environment based at least on an interaction of a ray with the point in the virtual environment (disclosing a method for determining a point on a surface in a virtual environment based on an interaction of a ray with the point in the virtual environment (pages 1-2/Fig. 2)); casting a ray from the point towards a light source in the virtual environment (disclosing the ray is cast from the point to a light source in the virtual environment (pages 1-2/Fig. 2)); computing an intersection of the ray and an occluding element, the occluding element being disposed between the point and the light source along a path of the ray (disclosing computation of an intersection of the ray and an occluder as an occluding element where the occluder is disposed between the point and the light source along a path of the ray (pages 1-2/Fig. 2)); and rendering an image corresponding to the virtual environment based at least on applying a filter to lighting condition data corresponding to the point (disclosing an axis-aligned filter is applied to pixels of an image of the virtual environment to adjust rendering of soft shadows as lighting conditions corresponding to the point in the virtual environment (pages 7-9/Figs. 8-10)).
Mehta does not disclose a first ray and a second ray interacting between a point and a light source in a virtual environment and does not disclose projecting a vector of the light source along a ray to a surface to determine a filter direction.
However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in DeCell.
DeCell similarly discloses a method of calculating and rendering soft shadows in virtual environments (page 1/par. 6). DeCell likewise discloses an interaction of a primary ray and a secondary ray interacting between a point on a surface where the primary and secondary rays are cast from the point to the light source (par. 9 and 211-213). DeCell likewise discloses a determination of an intersection between the rays and an occlusion as an occluding element (Fig. 9; par. 251) so that a vector of the light source is projected along the rays to the surface to determine a direction of a blending filter so that the blending filter may be applied in the determined direction (par. 219, 251 and 259-262). It follows Mehta may be accordingly modified by the teachings of DeCell to implement a first ray and a second ray for interacting between its point and its light source and to project a vector of its light source to determine a filter direction for applying its filter based on its intersection.
A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Mehta with the teachings of DeCell. DeCell is analogous art in dealing with a system and method for calculating and rendering soft shadows in virtual environments (page 1/par. 6). DeCell discloses its determination of a filter direction is advantageous in ensuring a filter is appropriately projected into screen space to improve rendering quality (par. 275-276). Consequently, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of DeCell into Mehta for ensuring a filter is appropriately projected into screen space to improve rendering quality. 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, Mehta as modified by DeCell discloses wherein the projecting the vector of the light source determines a world space version of the filter direction, and the method further comprises: projecting the world space version of the filter direction along a view vector to determine a screen space version of the filter direction, wherein the applying of the filter uses the screen space version of the filter direction (DeCell similarly discloses a method of calculating and rendering soft shadows in virtual environments (page 1/par. 6); DeCell likewise discloses a determination of an intersection between the rays and an occlusion as an occluding element (Fig. 9; par. 251) so that a vector of the light source is projected along the rays to the surface to determine a direction of a blending filter so that the blending filter may be applied in the determined direction (par. 219, 251 and 259-262); DeCell further explains the blending filter is determined in world space and the blending filter is projected along a view vector as a view projection to determine the blending filter in screen space so that the blending filter is applied in the determined direction in screen space (par. 10, 14, 213 and 276); and it follows Mehta may be accordingly modified by the teachings of DeCell to determine a filter direction for applying its filter).
For claim 7, depending on claim 1, Mehta as modified by DeCell discloses wherein the projecting is based at least on a normal vector of the surface at the point in the virtual environment (DeCell similarly discloses a method of calculating and rendering soft shadows in virtual environments (page 1/par. 6); DeCell likewise discloses a determination of an intersection between the rays and an occlusion as an occluding element (Fig. 9; par. 251) so that a vector of the light source is projected along the rays to the surface to determine a direction of a blending filter so that the blending filter may be applied in the determined direction (par. 219, 251 and 259-262) where the projection is based on a normal vector of the surface (par. 264) and it follows Mehta may be accordingly modified by the teachings of DeCell to determine a filter direction for applying its filter where the projection is based on a normal vector of its surface at its point in its virtual environment).
For claim 9, Mehta as modified by DeCell discloses a system comprising: one or more processor (DeCell similarly discloses a method of calculating and rendering soft shadows in virtual environments (page 1/par. 6); DeCell explains its method by be implemented in a computer system including a processor to perform the functions of the system (par. 280-281); and it follows Mehta may be accordingly modified with the teachings of DeCell to implement its method with a system to appropriately carry out its method) to perform operations including: casting a ray from a point corresponding to a surface in a virtual environment towards a light source in the virtual environment (Mehta discloses a ray is cast from a point of a surface to a light source in the virtual environment (pages 1-2/Fig. 2)); computing an intersection of the ray and an occluding element, the occluding element being disposed between the point and the light source along a path of the ray (Mehta discloses computation of an intersection of the ray and an occluder as an occluding element where the occluder is disposed between the point and the light source along a path of the ray (pages 1-2/Fig. 2)); based at least on the intersection, determining a filter direction corresponding to a projection of a vector of the light source along the ray to the surface (DeCell similarly discloses a method of calculating and rendering soft shadows in virtual environments (page 1/par. 6); DeCell likewise discloses a determination of an intersection between rays and an occlusion as an occluding element (Fig. 9; par. 251) so that a vector of the light source is projected along the rays to the surface to determine a direction of a blending filter so that the blending filter may be applied in the determined direction (par. 219, 251 and 259-262); and it follows Mehta may be accordingly modified by the teachings of DeCell to project a vector of its light source to determine a filter direction for applying its filter based on its intersection); and rendering an image corresponding to the virtual environment based at least on applying a filter in the filter direction to lighting condition data corresponding to the point (Mehta discloses an axis-aligned filter is applied to pixels of an image of the virtual environment to adjust rendering of soft shadows as lighting conditions corresponding to the point in the virtual environment (pages 7-9/Figs. 8-10); DeCell similarly discloses a method of calculating and rendering soft shadows in virtual environments (page 1/par. 6); DeCell likewise discloses a determination of an intersection between rays and an occlusion as an occluding element (Fig. 9; par. 251) so that a vector of the light source is projected along the rays to the surface to determine a direction of a blending filter so that the blending filter may be applied in the determined direction (par. 219, 251 and 259-262); and it follows Mehta may be accordingly modified by the teachings of DeCell to project a vector of its light source to determine a filter direction for applying its filter).
For claim 10, depending on claim 9, Mehta as modified by DeCell discloses wherein the projection determines a world space version of the filter direction, and the determining the filter direction further comprises: projecting the world space version of the filter direction to screen space to determine a screen space version of the filter direction, wherein the applying of the filter uses the screen space version of the filter direction (DeCell similarly discloses a method of calculating and rendering soft shadows in virtual environments (page 1/par. 6); DeCell likewise discloses a determination of an intersection between the rays and an occlusion as an occluding element (Fig. 9; par. 251) so that a vector of the light source is projected along the rays to the surface to determine a direction of a blending filter so that the blending filter may be applied in the determined direction (par. 219, 251 and 259-262); DeCell further explains the blending filter is determined in world space and the blending filter is projected along a view vector as a view projection to determine the blending filter in screen space so that the blending filter is applied in the determined direction in screen space (par. 10, 14, 213 and 276); and it follows Mehta may be accordingly modified by the teachings of DeCell to determine a filter direction for applying its filter).
For claim 15, depending on claim 9, Mehta as modified by DeCell discloses wherein the projection is based at least on a normal vector of the surface at the point (DeCell similarly discloses a method of calculating and rendering soft shadows in virtual environments (page 1/par. 6); DeCell likewise discloses a determination of an intersection between the rays and an occlusion as an occluding element (Fig. 9; par. 251) so that a vector of the light source is projected along the rays to the surface to determine a direction of a blending filter so that the blending filter may be applied in the determined direction (par. 219, 251 and 259-262) where the projection is based on a normal vector of the surface (par. 264) and it follows Mehta may be accordingly modified by the teachings of DeCell to determine a filter direction for applying its filter where the projection is based on a normal vector of its surface at its point in its virtual environment).
For claim 17, Mehta as modified by DeCell discloses at least one processor (DeCell similarly discloses a method of calculating and rendering soft shadows in virtual environments (page 1/par. 6); DeCell explains its method by be implemented in a computer system including a processor to perform the functions of the system (par. 280-281); and it follows Mehta may be accordingly modified with the teachings of DeCell to implement its method with a processor to appropriately carry out its method) comprising: one or more circuits to render an image based at least on applying a filter in a filter direction corresponding to a projection of a vector of a light source along a ray to a surface (Mehta discloses an axis-aligned filter is applied to pixels of an image of the virtual environment to adjust rendering of soft shadows as lighting conditions corresponding to the point in the virtual environment (pages 7-9/Figs. 8-10); DeCell similarly discloses a method of calculating and rendering soft shadows in virtual environments (page 1/par. 6); DeCell explains its method by be implemented in a computer system including a processor as a circuit to perform the functions of the system (par. 280-281); DeCell likewise discloses a determination of an intersection between rays and an occlusion as an occluding element (Fig. 9; par. 251) so that a vector of the light source is projected along the rays to the surface to determine a direction of a blending filter so that the blending filter may be applied in the determined direction (par. 219, 251 and 259-262); and it follows Mehta may be accordingly modified by the teachings of DeCell to project a vector of a light source along a ray to a surface to determine a filter direction for applying its filter), the ray cast from a point corresponding to the surface towards the light source (Mehta discloses a ray is cast from a point of a surface to a light source in the virtual environment (pages 1-2/Fig. 2)), the filter direction being computed based at least on an intersection of the ray and an occluding element disposed between the point and the light source along a path of the ray (Mehta discloses computation of an intersection of the ray and an occluder as an occluding element where the occluder is disposed between the point and the light source along a path of the ray (pages 1-2/Fig. 2); DeCell similarly discloses a method of calculating and rendering soft shadows in virtual environments (page 1/par. 6); DeCell likewise discloses a determination of an intersection between rays and an occlusion as an occluding element (Fig. 9; par. 251) so that a vector of the light source is projected along the rays to the surface to determine a direction of a blending filter so that the blending filter may be applied in the determined direction (par. 219, 251 and 259-262); and it follows Mehta may be accordingly modified by the teachings of DeCell to project a vector of its light source to determine a filter direction for applying its filter based on its intersection).
For claim 18, depending on claim 17, Mehta as modified by DeCell discloses wherein the projection determines a world space version of the filter direction, and the filter direction is further determined based at least on: projecting the world space version of the filter direction to screen space to determine a screen space version of the filter direction, wherein the applying of the filter uses the screen space version of the filter direction (DeCell similarly discloses a method of calculating and rendering soft shadows in virtual environments (page 1/par. 6); DeCell likewise discloses a determination of an intersection between the rays and an occlusion as an occluding element (Fig. 9; par. 251) so that a vector of the light source is projected along the rays to the surface to determine a direction of a blending filter so that the blending filter may be applied in the determined direction (par. 219, 251 and 259-262); DeCell further explains the blending filter is determined in world space and the blending filter is projected along a view vector as a view projection to determine the blending filter in screen space so that the blending filter is applied in the determined direction in screen space (par. 10, 14, 213 and 276); and it follows Mehta may be accordingly modified by the teachings of DeCell to determine a filter direction for applying its filter).
Claim(s) 4, 12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehta in view of DeCell further in view of Watanabe et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0273686 A1, hereinafter “Watanabe”).
For claim 4, depending on claim 1, Mehta as modified by DeCell does not disclose determining one or more filter weights for the filter based at least on applying one or more distribution functions to the filter based at least on a filter direction.
However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Watanabe.
Watanabe similarly discloses a system and method for filtering images with a filter (par. 2 and 8). Watanabe explains its system determines weighting coefficients as filter weights for the filter based on applying Gaussian distribution functions for applying the filter at a filter direction (par. 472 and 587). It follows Mehta and DeCell may be accordingly modified by the teachings of Watanabe to determine filter weights for its filter based on applying distribution functions to its filter based on its filter direction.
A PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Mehta and DeCell with the teachings of Watanabe. Watanabe is analogous art in dealing with a system and method for filtering images with a filter (par. 2 and 8). Watanabe discloses its determination of filter weights is advantageous in applying smoothing with a filter to improve image quality (par. 472 and 587). Consequently, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of Watanabe into Mehta and DeCell for applying smoothing with a filter to improve image quality. Therefore, claim 4 is rendered obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For claim 12, depending on claim 9, Mehta as modified by DeCell and Watanabe discloses wherein the applying the filter includes determining one or more filter weights for the filter based at least on applying one or more distribution functions to the filter based at least on the filter direction (Watanabe similarly discloses a system and method for filtering images with a filter (par. 2 and 8); Watanabe explains its system determines weighting coefficients as filter weights for the filter based on applying Gaussian distribution functions for applying the filter at a filter direction (par. 472 and 587); and it follows Mehta and DeCell may be accordingly modified by the teachings of Watanabe to determine filter weights for its filter based on applying distribution functions to its filter based on its filter direction).
For claim 20, depending on claim 17, Mehta as modified by DeCell and Watanabe discloses wherein the applying the filter includes determining one or more filter weights for the filter based at least on applying one or more distribution functions to the filter based at least on the filter direction (Watanabe similarly discloses a system and method for filtering images with a filter (par. 2 and 8); Watanabe explains its system determines weighting coefficients as filter weights for the filter based on applying Gaussian distribution functions for applying the filter at a filter direction (par. 472 and 587); and it follows Mehta and DeCell may be accordingly modified by the teachings of Watanabe to determine filter weights for its filter based on applying distribution functions to its filter based on its filter direction).
Claim(s) 5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehta in view of DeCell further in view of Miller (U.S. Patent 7,675,518 B1).
For claim 5, depending on claim 1, Mehta as modified by DeCell does not disclose a separable filter having one or first sub-matrices and one or more second sub-matrices.
However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Miller.
Miller similarly discloses a system and method for filtering images (col. 2/lines 16-27). Miller explains a filter may be a separable filter to implement multiple filters where each filter may be associated with a respective matrix set as sub-matrices associated with filter directions (col. 5/lines 32-67 and col. 6/lines 1-5). It follows Mehta and DeCell may be accordingly modified by the teachings of Miller to implements its filter as a separable filter having first sub-matrices corresponding to its filter direction and second sub-matrices corresponding to a second filter direction.
A PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Mehta and DeCell with the teachings of Miller. Miller is analogous art in dealing with a system and method for filtering images (col. 2/lines 16-27). Miller discloses its use of a separable filter is advantageous in implementing multiple fast filters to improve the speed of convolution in image processing (col. 5/lines 32-53). Consequently, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of Miller into Mehta and DeCell for implementing multiple fast filters to improve the speed of convolution in image processing. Therefore, claim 5 is rendered obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For claim 13, depending on claim 9, Mehta as modified by DeCell and Miller discloses wherein the filter includes a separable filter having one or first sub-matrices corresponding to the filter direction and one or more second sub-matrices corresponding to a second filter direction (Miller similarly discloses a system and method for filtering images (col. 2/lines 16-27); Miller explains a filter may be a separable filter to implement multiple filters where each filter may be associated with a respective matrix set as sub-matrices associated with filter directions (col. 5/lines 32-67 and col. 6/lines 1-5); and it follows Mehta and DeCell may be accordingly modified by the teachings of Miller to implements its filter as a separable filter having first sub-matrices corresponding to its filter direction and second sub-matrices corresponding to a second filter direction).
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehta in view of DeCell further in view of Liktor et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0379763 A1, hereinafter “Liktor”) (made of record of the IDS submitted 11/01/2024).
For claim 8, depending on claim 1, Mehta as modified by DeCell does not disclose a filter direction extends along a first width of a filter that is different that a second width of the filter.
However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Liktor.
Liktor similarly discloses a system and method to perform filtering in shading pixels for rendering and display of shadows (page 9/par. 108-112 and 116). Liktor explains its filter may be an anisotropic filter arranged as an ellipse so that the filter extends farther in a first direction as a first width corresponding to a major axis of the ellipse than a second direction as a second width corresponding to a minor axis of the ellipse (Fig. 14; page 11/par. 146). It follows Mehta and DeCell may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Liktor to implement its filter as an elliptical anisotropic filter with its filter direction extending along a first width of a filter that is different that a second width of the filter.
A PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Mehta and DeCell with the teachings of Liktor. Liktor is analogous art in dealing with a system and method to perform filtering in shading pixels for rendering and display of shadows (page 9/par. 108-112 and 116). Liktor discloses its use of an elliptical anisotropic filter is advantageous in facilitating high quality shading of an image for display (page 11/par. 146). Consequently, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of Liktor into Mehta and DeCell for facilitating high quality shading of an image for display. Therefore, claim 8 is rendered obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For claim 16, depending on claim 9, Mehta as modified by DeCell and Liktor discloses wherein the filter direction extends along a first width of the filter that is different than a second width of the filter (Liktor similarly discloses a system and method to perform filtering in shading pixels for rendering and display of shadows (page 9/par. 108-112 and 116); Liktor explains its filter may be an anisotropic filter arranged as an ellipse so that the filter extends farther in a first direction as a first width corresponding to a major axis of the ellipse than a second direction as a second width corresponding to a minor axis of the ellipse (Fig. 14; page 11/par. 146); and it follows Mehta and DeCell may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Liktor to implement its filter as an elliptical anisotropic filter with its filter direction extending along a first width of a filter that is different that a second width of the filter).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, 11 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and rewritten to address the 35 U.S.C. 112 Rejection raised above in the Detailed Action, any claim objections discussed above, and upon submission of suitable terminal disclaimers.
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and rewritten to address any claim objections discussed above, 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