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
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 24th April, 2026. Claims 1, 10, and 19 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remain rejected in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to Claims 1, 10, and 19 filed on 24th April, 2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, regarding that the prior art does not teach the limitation(s): "determining a cone characterization value for target geometry based on the cone angle value and on a ray tracing operation, wherein the cone characterization value represents a footprint of a cone having the cone angle value on the target geometry" has been fully considered, but are moot because of new grounds for rejection. It has now been taught by the combination of Muthler and Akenine.
Regarding arguments to Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20, they directly/indirectly depend on independent Claims 1, 10, and 19 respectively. Applicant does not argue anything other than independent Claims 1, 10, and 19. The limitations in those claims, in conjunction with combination, was previously established as explained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 10-11, 13-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muthler et al. (US 20210390758 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Muthler, in view of Akenine-Moller et al. (US 20210350607 A1), hereinafter referenced as Akenine.
Regarding Claim 1, Muthler discloses a method (Muthler, [0069]: teaches process 400 <read on method> being performed in a real-time ray tracing graphics system 700 as shown in FIG. 7) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
354
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
obtaining a cone angle value (Muthler, [0203]: teaches a cosine angle of a cone <read on cone angle value> being used, where the cosine angle is part of a relationship between Ray-Op A and B parameters);
determining a cone characterization value for target geometry based on the cone angle value and on a ray tracing operation (Muthler, [0203]: teaches a cosine of an angle of a cone being used for intersection tests <read on ray tracing operation>, where certain Ray-Ops <read on cone characterization value>, such as
F
L
T
T
M
I
N
and
F
L
T
M
A
X
, are used for geometric level-of-detail (LOD) selection to balance computation cost and fidelity; [0199]: teaches a Ray-Op test being an arithmetic or logical computation that results in a true/false output, where these tests provide highly flexible techniques "by which rays can change the default ray tracing behavior of the TTU 738 on an individual or group basis"; [0160]: teaches Ray-Op flags being set for instances of an object <read on target geometry>; Note: it should be mentioned that a "cone characterization value" is described in the specification as an indication of how much computation to expend in further calculations, which is being interpreted broadly), wherein
[[the cone characterization value represents a footprint of a cone having the cone angle value on the target geometry; and]]
performing rendering operations based on the cone characterization value (Muthler, [0087]: teaches "the ray intersection information returned from the traversal coprocessor is used for rendering <read on rendering operations> the scene"; [0235]: teaches "based on the results of the ray tracing, the pixel values stored in the buffer may be modified," where the ray tracing results are Ray-Op test results <read on cone characterization value>).
However, Muthler does not expressly disclose
the cone characterization value represents a footprint of a cone having the cone angle value on the target geometry.
Akenine discloses
the cone characterization value represents a footprint of a cone having the cone angle value on the target geometry (Akenine, [0064]: teaches the angle of ray cone 400 shrinking after hitting object 410; [0065]: teaches performing a texture lookup at hit point 424 on object 414 <read on target geometry> based on the footprint of cone 400 and the normal at hit-point 424 as shown in FIG. 4; [0094]: teaches determining a level-of-detail (LOD) parameter value based on the width of the ray cone to perform LOD-based texture filtering operations).
PNG
media_image2.png
328
315
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Akenine is analogous art with respect to Muthler because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely performing LOD-based ray tracing. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement an LOD-based texture filtering operation for ray tracing operations as taught by Akenine into the teaching of Muthler. The suggestion for doing so would allow the system to use, in parallel, geometric LOD-based rendering, thereby synchronizing texture and geometry detail based on ray tracing properties and improving overall results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Akenine with Muthler.
Regarding Claim 10, it recites the limitations that are similar in scope to Claim 1, but in a system. As shown in the rejection, the combination of Muthler and Akenine discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Additionally, Muthler discloses a system (Muthler, [0069]: teaches process 400 being performed in a real-time ray tracing graphics system 700 as shown in FIG. 7) comprising:
a memory configured to store data and instructions for ray tracing operations (Muthler, [0112]: teaches system 700 including processor 720, GPU 730, memory 740, and display 750; [0114]: teaches processor 720 issuing instructions for GPU 730 to generate images <read on ray tracing operations> using 3D data stored in memory 740); and
a processor configured to perform ray tracing operations using the data and instructions (Muthler, [0114]: teaches processor 720 issuing instructions for GPU 730 to generate images <read on ray tracing operations> using 3D data stored in memory 740), by:…
Thus, Claim 10 is met by Muthler according to the mapping presented in the rejection of Claim 1, given the method corresponds to a system.
Regarding Claim 19, it recites the limitations that are similar in scope to Claim 1, but in a non-transitory computer-readable medium. As shown in the rejection, the combination of Muthler and Akenine discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Additionally, Muthler discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations (Muthler, [0112]: teaches system 700 including processor 720, GPU 730, memory 740 <read on non-transitory computer-readable medium>, and display 750; [0114]: teaches processor 720 issuing instructions for GPU 730 to generate images <read on operations> using 3D data stored in memory 740) comprising:…
Thus, Claim 19 is met by Muthler according to the mapping presented in the rejection of Claim 1, given the method corresponds to a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
Regarding Claims 2, 11, and 20, the combination of Muthler and Akenine discloses the method, the system, and the non-transitory computer-readable medium of Claims 1, 10, and 19 respectively. Additionally, Muthler further discloses wherein
the cone angle value is specified by an application or a shader program (Muthler, [0203]: teaches Ray-Op tests containing parameters and opcodes arranged in logical and/or arithmetic relationships; [0199]: teaches Ray-Op A and B parameters being configured and/or preprogrammed <read on application> in hardware).
Regarding Claims 4 and 13, the combination of Muthler and Akenine discloses the method and the system of Claims 1 and 11 respectively. Additionally, Muthler further discloses wherein the rendering operations comprise
selecting a level of detail for geometry (Muthler, [0203]: teaches "since
F
L
T
T
M
I
N
and
F
L
T
T
M
A
X
tests operate on the bounding box
t
m
i
n
and bounding box
t
m
a
x
values which may be geometric values computed in the intersection test, these Ray-Ops may be used for geometric level-of-detail").
Regarding Claims 5 and 14, the combination of Muthler and Akenine discloses the method and the system of Claims 4 and 13 respectively. Additionally, Muthler further discloses wherein the rendering operations comprise
selecting a level of detail for geometry (Muthler, [0203]: teaches opcodes, such as
F
L
T
T
M
I
N
L
E
S
S
and
F
L
T
T
M
A
X
L
E
S
S
, "provides for comparing a value computed during the ray/acceleration data structure intersection test scaled by one geometric attribute associated with the ray <read on size of BV> and biased by another geometric attribute associated with the ray to at least one geometric parameter associated with the at least one node," where the opcodes are a part of Ray-Op parameters <read on cone characterization value>).
Regarding Claims 6 and 15, the combination of Muthler and Akenine discloses the method and the system of Claims 4 and 13 respectively. Additionally, Muthler further discloses wherein the level of detail selected is based on
comparison information stored in a bounding volume hierarchy (Muthler, [0187]: teaches a node data structure 1622, which is a part of a bounding volume hierarchy, holding Ray-Op related information for a bounding volume, where flags are stored; [0067]: teaches setting FRA flags <read on comparison information> for selecting appropriate LODs).
Regarding Claims 7 and 16, the combination of Muthler and Akenine discloses the method and the system of Claims 6 and 15 respectively. Additionally, Muthler further discloses wherein
the comparison information is stored in a sequence of one or more child descriptors (Muthler, [0099]: teaches a tree data structure, such as a BLAS, that includes a plurality of nodes arranged in a hierarchy, where "the root node N1 may identify the vertices of the bounding volume N1 and children nodes <read on child descriptor> of the root node"),
each marked as being a child descriptor containing level of detail information (Muthler, [0085]: teaches an example situation of selecting a child node <read on child descriptor> according to a predetermined criteria, such as a child node containing an LOD <read on LOD information> that is also the first occurring child node according to a predetermined ordering, for culling or traversal) and
a bounding volume for the sequence is stored in a parent of the sequence (Muthler, FIG. 2B teaches a plurality of LODs being stored in a BLAS tree data structure, where models of the geometry (i.e., a car geometry) <read on bounding volume> are rooted at the root <read on parent of sequence> node).
PNG
media_image3.png
401
600
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 3, 8, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muthler et al. (US 20210390758 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Muthler, in view of Akenine-Moller et al. (US 20210350607 A1), hereinafter referenced as Akenine as applied to Claims 1 and 10 above respectively, and further in view of Ozdas et al. (US 20140333623 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Ozdas.
Regarding Claims 3 and 12, the combination of Muthler and Akenine discloses the method and the system of Claims 1 and 10 respectively. The combination of Muthler and Akenine does not expressly disclose the limitations of Claims 3 and 12; however, Ozdas discloses wherein the cone characterization value is based on
a size of a base of a cone having an axis extending from an origin of a ray to a point of intersection of the ray with a bounding volume (Ozdas, [0051]: teaches a conic projection that includes a cross-section 142 <read on size of cone base> as shown in FIGS. 5 and 6; FIG. 5 teaches the conic projection originating from a single point, where the conic projection then intersects with volume elements of a bounding volume).
PNG
media_image4.png
381
401
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ozdas is analogous art with respect to Muthler, in view of Akenine because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely performing efficient ray tracing operations. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement a conic projection for ray intersection testing as taught by Ozdas into the teaching of Muthler, in view of Akenine. The suggestion for doing so would allow for a single conic projection to be used as opposed to using a plurality of individual rays, thereby saving on ray tracing performance and yielding predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ozdas with Muthler, in view of Akenine.
Regarding Claims 8 and 17, the combination of Muthler and Akenine discloses the method and the system of Claims 1 and 10 respectively. The combination of Muthler and Akenine does not expressly disclose the limitations of Claims 8 and 17; however, Ozdas discloses wherein the rendering operations comprise
selecting a shader to execute based on the cone characterization value (Ozdas, [0065]: teaches an array of shader codes within a general purpose processing cluster 475, where each shader code portion is instantiated <read on selecting shader> in response to an identified intersection between a ray and a surface <read on cone characterization value>).
Ozdas is analogous art with respect to Muthler, in view of Akenine because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely performing efficient ray tracing operations. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement a general purpose processing cluster that includes a plurality of shader code sections as taught by Ozdas into the teaching of Muthler, in view of Akenine. The suggestion for doing so would allow each shader code to calculate portions of the BVH, such as lighting data from light energy records, thereby improving overall ray tracing rendering efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ozdas with Muthler, in view of Akenine.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muthler et al. (US 20210390758 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Muthler, in view of Akenine-Moller et al. (US 20210350607 A1), hereinafter referenced as Akenine as applied to Claims 1 and 10 above respectively, and further in view of Grossman et al. (US 20120038657 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Grossman.
Regarding Claims 9 and 18, the combination of Muthler and Akenine discloses the method and the system of Claims 1 and 10 respectively. The combination of Muthler and Akenine does not expressly disclose the limitations of Claims 9 and 18; however, Grossman discloses wherein the rendering operations comprise
selecting a texture level of detail based on the cone characterization value (Grossman, [0026]: teaches using one or more tables to determine what texture LOD (if any) is available for each tile; [0050]: teaches shader 154 selecting suitable values for a texture LOD threshold <read on cone characterization value> based on knowledge of the most detailed LOD that is stored in texture memory 112 for each tile; Note: it should be mentioned that the texture LOD threshold is being broadly interpreted as a type of flag check).
Grossman is analogous art with respect to Muthler, in view of Akenine because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely graphics rendering pipelines. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to calculate an LOD threshold to handle texture LOD loading and rendering as taught by Grossman into the teaching of Muthler, in view of Akenine. The suggestion for doing so would allow the system to check for valid LOD values, thereby allowing the shader to perform dynamic adjustments to the LOD threshold based on performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Grossman with Muthler, in view of Akenine.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
McGuire et al. (US 20140375659 A1) discloses a system that performs lighting calculation with cone tracing; and
Yu (US 20160148415 A1) discloses using a cone of rays to trace through the aperture of the image scene.
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 KARL TRUONG whose telephone number is (703)756-5915. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30 AM - 7:30 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, Kent Chang can be reached at (571) 272-7667. 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.
/K.D.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2614
/YuJang Tswei/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2614
Prosecution Insights