DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-21 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.
4. The term similarity in claim 1 at line 3, in claim 11 at line 4, and in claim 21 at line 7 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term similarity is not defined by any of the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The Specification states that similarity “used here refers to whether rays have similar origins and directions. That is, rays that have similar origins and similar directions are “similar” rays.” However, this is just a definition that uses the word it is trying to define in its definition and it fails to define a scope for similarity.
5. The term best in claim 1 at line 8, in claim 11 at line 10, and in claim 21 at line 12 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term best is not defined by any of the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In the Specification states that best mean to identify “a best match open bundle of said set of open bundles for the received ray based on the determined levels of similarity.” Therefore, the meaning of best depends on the meaning of similarity, which is not clearly defined. Therefore, the terms similarity and best renders claims 1-21 rejected under 35 USC 112.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
7. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is direct to a software implemented through a system.
8. Claims 1-10 describe a system that includes a bundle builder at claim 1, line 1. Applicants’ specification describes bundle builder as implemented in hardware or software, or a combination thereof. Therefore, bundle builder can be purely software.
9. Thus, while the claim language discloses a system, said language fails to disclose that said apparatus includes one or more hardware components and is not merely software. Thus, as evidenced by Applicant’s specification it appears that said claims, taken as a whole, read on computer program per se. Computer programs are not physical "things." They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not "acts" being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program is a computer element which defines structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and the rest of the computer which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035.
10. Applicants can over this rejection by amendment claim 1 to recite a system comprising a memory and/or processor that stores and/or executes the bundle builder.
11. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is directed to data signals per se. Data signals per se are not statutory as they fail to fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention.
12. Claim 21 describes a computer readable storage medium having stored thereon an integrated circuit definition dataset.
Applicant's specification, fails to explicitly define the scope of computer readable storage medium and integrated circuit definition dataset is no defined as hardware. Thus, in giving the term its plain meaning (see MPEP 2111.01), the claimed computer readable storage medium is considered to include data signals per se. Data signals per se are not statutory as they fail to fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention.
As an additional note, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having executable programming instructions stored thereon is considered statutory as non-transitory computer readable media excludes transitory data signals.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
13. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
14. Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 III provides a flowchart for the subject matter eligibility test for product and process The analysis following the flowchart is as follows:
STEP 1: is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 1 recites a ray tracing system, which is a machine.
STEP 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 1 recites mathematical calculations applied to received data.
Claim 1 recites A ray tracing system comprising a bundle builder configured to: (This limitation corresponds to a generic system.)
receive rays; (This limitation corresponds to collecting data.)
group received rays together based on their similarity to thereby construct bundles of rays to be tested for intersection with a box; (This limitation corresponds to collecting data and then applying mathematical calculations to the data.) maintain a set of open bundles to which new rays can be added; (This limitation corresponds to receiving data and maintaining received data.) and for each of the received rays: (This limitation corresponds to receiving data.) determine a level of similarity of the received ray with each of the open bundles; (This limitation corresponds to applying mathematical calculations to the received data.) identify a best match open bundle of said set of open bundles for the received ray based on the determined levels of similarity; (This limitation corresponds to applying mathematical calculations to the received data.) and if the determined level of similarity for the best match open bundle is above a threshold, (This limitation corresponds to applying mathematical calculations to the received data.) add the received ray to the best match open bundle. (This limitation corresponds to receiving further data.)
STEP 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. The claim fails to recite any additional elements beyond mathematical calculations applied to received data.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. The claim fails to recite any additional elements beyond mathematical calculations applied to received data.
Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 2 The ray tracing system of claim 1, wherein the bundle builder is further configured to, for each of the received rays: if the determined level of similarity for the best match open bundle is below the threshold, create a new bundle and add the received ray to the new bundle. (This limitation corresponds to mathematical manipulation and mental process of bundling together different rays that are decided to belong together into the same bundle.)
Regarding Claim 3, The ray tracing system of claim 1, wherein the threshold is a percent-increase threshold based on a percentage increase in a bounding box for the origins of the bundle. (This limitation corresponds to mathematical manipulation on received data.)
Regarding Claim 4, The ray tracing system of claim 1, wherein the threshold is a percent-increase threshold based on a percentage increase in the difference between the maximum and minimum direction vectors for the bundle if the received ray were to be added to the bundle. (This limitation corresponds to mathematical manipulation on received data.)
Regarding Claim 5, The ray tracing system of claim 1, wherein said received rays which are grouped together to construct bundles: (i) include new rays which have not previously been included in a bundle of rays, but (ii) do not include rays which have previously been included in a bundle of rays. (This limitation corresponds to mental process of grouping rays together.)
Regarding Claim 6, The ray tracing system of claim 1, wherein said received rays which are grouped together to construct bundles include:
new rays which have not previously been included in a bundle of rays, and
rays which have previously been included in a bundle of rays which has been deconstructed. (This limitation corresponds to mental process of grouping rays together.)
Regarding Claim 7, The ray tracing system of claim 1, further comprising a tester module configured to receive a bundle of rays to be tested for intersection with a box. (This limitation corresponds to receiving data.)
Regarding Claim 8, The ray tracing system of claim 1, further comprising:
a first testing block configured to perform a first bundle intersection test to determine whether or not all of the rays of the bundle intersect the box, wherein if the first bundle intersection test determines that all of the rays of the bundle intersect the box, an intersection testing result for the bundle with respect to the box is that all of the rays of the bundle intersect the box. (This limitation corresponds to applying mathematical calculations to data.)
Regarding Claim 9, The ray tracing system of claim 8, further comprising:
a second testing block configured to perform a second bundle intersection test to determine whether or not all of the rays of the bundle miss the box, wherein if the second bundle intersection test determines that all of the rays of the bundle miss the box, the intersection testing result for the bundle with respect to the box is that all of the rays of the bundle miss the box, wherein the second testing block is configured to perform said second bundle intersection test irrespective of the result of the first bundle intersection test performed by the first testing block. (This limitation corresponds to applying mathematical calculations to data.)
Regarding Claim 10, The ray tracing system of claim 9, wherein the tester module is configured to, if the first bundle intersection test does not determine that all of the rays of the bundle intersect the box and if the second bundle intersection test does not determine that all of the rays of the bundle miss the box: split the bundle of rays up into individual rays; and perform intersection tests for the individual rays with respect to the box to determine which of the individual rays intersect the box. (This limitation corresponds to applying mathematical calculations to data.)
MPEP 2106 III provides a flowchart for the subject matter eligibility test for product and process. The analysis following the flowchart is as follows:
STEP 1: is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 11 recites a method, which is a process.
STEP 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 11 recites mathematical calculations applied to received data.
Claim 11 recites A computer-implemented method of performing intersection testing in a ray tracing system, the method comprising: (This limitation corresponds to using a process.)
receiving rays; (This limitation corresponds to receiving data.)
grouping the received rays together based on their similarity to thereby construct bundles of rays to be tested for intersection with the box; (This limitation corresponds to performing mathematical calculations on received data.)
maintaining a set of open bundles to which new rays can be added; (This limitation corresponds to performing a mental process of sorting out the received data.)
and for each of the received rays: (This limitation corresponds to receiving data.)
determining a level of similarity of the received ray with each of the open bundles; (This limitation corresponds to mathematical calculation.) identifying a best match open bundle of said set of open bundles for the receiving a ray based on the determined levels of similarity; and (This limitation corresponds to mathematical calculation.)
if the determined level of similarity for the best match open bundle is above a threshold, (This limitation corresponds to mathematical calculation.) adding the received ray to the best match open bundle. (This limitation corresponds to receiving data.)
STEP 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. The claim fails to recite any additional elements beyond mathematical calculations applied to received data.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. The claim fails to recite any additional elements beyond mathematical calculations applied to received data.
Therefore, claim 11 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 12, The method of claim 11, wherein, for each of the received rays: if the determined level of similarity for the best match open bundle is below the threshold, create a new bundle and add the received ray to the new bundle. (This limitation corresponds to mathematical calculations performed on received data and sorting data.)
Regarding Claim 13, The method of claim 11, wherein the threshold is a percent-increase threshold based on a percentage increase in a bounding box for the origins of the bundle. (This limitation corresponds to mathematical calculation performed on received data.)
Regarding Claim 14, The method of claim 11, wherein the threshold is a percent-increase threshold based on a percentage increase in the difference between the maximum and minimum direction vectors for the bundle if the received ray were to be added to the bundle. (This limitation corresponds to performing mathematical calculation on received data.)
Regarding Claim 15, The method of claim 11, wherein said received rays which are grouped together to construct bundles: (i) include new rays which have not previously been included in a bundle of rays, but (ii) do not include rays which have previously been included in a bundle of rays. (This limitation corresponds to performing mathematical calculation on received data.)
Regarding Claim 16, The method of claim 11, wherein said received rays which are grouped together to construct bundles include: new rays which have not previously been included in a bundle of rays, and rays which have previously been included in a bundle of rays which has been deconstructed. (This limitation corresponds to performing mathematical calculation on received data.)
Regarding Claim 17, The method of claim 11, further comprising receiving, by a tester module, a bundle of rays to be tested for intersection with a box. (This limitation corresponds to performing mathematical calculation on received data.)
Regarding Claim 18, The method of claim 17, further comprising: performing a first bundle intersection test to determine whether or not all of the rays of the bundle intersect the box, wherein if the first bundle intersection test determines that all of the rays of the bundle intersect the box, an intersection testing result for the bundle with respect to the box is that all of the rays of the bundle intersect the box. (This limitation corresponds to performing mathematical calculation on received data.)
Regarding Claim 19, The method of claim 18, further comprising: if the first bundle intersection test does not determine that all of the rays of the bundle intersect the box, using a result of performing a second bundle intersection test, which determines whether or not all of the rays of the bundle miss the box, to determine the intersection testing result for the bundle with respect to the box. (This limitation corresponds to performing mathematical calculation on received data.)
Regarding Claim 20, The method of claim 19, further comprising: if the result of performing the second bundle intersection test indicates that all of the rays of the bundle miss the box, the intersection testing result for the bundle with respect to the box is that all of the rays of the bundle miss the box, wherein the second bundle intersection test is performed irrespective of the result of the first bundle intersection test performed by the first testing block; and wherein if the first bundle intersection test does not determine that all of the rays of the bundle intersect the box and if the result of performing the second bundle intersection test does not indicate that all of the rays of the bundle miss the box, then the method further comprises: splitting the bundle of rays up into individual rays; and performing intersection tests for the individual rays with respect to the box to determine which of the individual rays intersect the box. (This limitation corresponds to performing mathematical calculation on received data.)
MPEP 2106 III provides a flowchart for the subject matter eligibility test for product and process. The analysis following the flowchart is as follows:
STEP 1: is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 21 recites a computer readable storage medium having stored thereon an integrated circuit definition dataset which corresponds to software, which is a process.
STEP 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 21 recites mathematical calculations applied to received data.
Claim 21 recites A computer readable storage medium having stored thereon an integrated circuit definition dataset that, when processed in an integrated circuit manufacturing system, configures the integrated circuit manufacturing system to manufacture a ray tracing system which comprises: (This limitation corresponds to software being executed by hardware.)
a bundle builder configured to: (This corresponds to software being executed on hardware.)
receive rays; (This limitation corresponds to receiving data.)
group received rays together based on their similarity to thereby construct bundles of rays to be tested for intersection with the box; (This limitation corresponds to executing mathematical calculation on received data.)
maintain a set of open bundles to which new rays can be added; (This limitation corresponds to receiving data.)
and for each of the received rays: (This limitation corresponds to receiving data.)
determine a level of similarity of the received ray with each of the open bundles; (This limitation corresponds to executing mathematical calculation on received data.)
identify a best match open bundle of said set of open bundles for the received ray based on the determined levels of similarity; and (This limitation corresponds to executing mathematical calculation on received data.)
if the determined level of similarity for the best match open bundle is above a threshold, add the received ray to the best match open bundle. (This limitation corresponds to executing mathematical calculation on received data.)
STEP 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. The claim fails to recite any additional elements beyond mathematical calculations applied to received data.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. The claim fails to recite any additional elements beyond mathematical calculations applied to received data.
Therefore, claim 21 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Double Patenting
15 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
16. Claims 1-2, 11-12, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,295,509 (patent 509). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are similar. While claim 11 recites a computer-implemented method and clam 21 recites a computer readable storage medium, both are just generic variations of a ray tracing system disclosed by claims 7-9 of patent 509.
17. The following table shows correspondence between the claims of present application with claims of patent 509.
Claims of present application
1
2
11
12
21
Claims of patent 509
7-8
9
7-8
9
7-8
18. The following table shows correspondence between the limitations of claim 1 of present application and claims 7-8 of patent 509.
Claim 1 of present application
Claims 7 and 8 of patent 509
1. A ray tracing system comprising a bundle builder configured to:
receive rays;
group received rays together based on their similarity to thereby construct bundles of rays to be tested for intersection with a box;
7. The ray tracing system of claim 1 further comprising a bundle builder configured to:
receive rays; and
group received rays together based on their similarity to thereby construct bundles of rays to be tested for intersection with the box.
maintain a set of open bundles to which new rays can be added; and for each of the received rays: determine a level of similarity of the received ray with each of the open bundles;
identify a best match open bundle of said set of open bundles for the received ray based on the determined levels of similarity; and if the determined level of similarity for the best match open bundle is above a threshold, add the received ray to the best match open bundle.
8. The ray tracing system of claim 7 wherein the bundle builder is configured to:
maintain a set of open bundles to which new rays can be added; and
for each of the received rays:
determine a level of similarity of the received ray with each of the open bundles;
identify a best match open bundle of said set of open bundles for the received ray based on the determined levels of similarity; and
if the determined level of similarity for the best match open bundle is above a threshold, add the received ray to the best match open bundle.
19. Claims 1-2, 11-12, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,682,160 (patent 160). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are similar. While claim 11 recites a computer-implemented method and clam 21 recites a computer readable storage medium, both are just generic variations of a ray tracing system disclosed by claims 7-9 of patent 160.
20. The following table shows correspondence between the claims of present application with claims of patent 160.
Claims of present application
1
2
11
12
21
Claims of patent 160
7-8
9
7-8
9
7-8
21. The following table shows correspondence between the limitations of claim 1 of present application and claims 7-8 of patent 160.
Claim 1 of present application
Claims 7 and 8 of patent 160
1. A ray tracing system comprising a bundle builder configured to:
receive rays;
group received rays together based on their similarity to thereby construct bundles of rays to be tested for intersection with a box;
7. The ray tracing system of claim 1 further comprising a bundle builder configured to:
receive rays; and
group received rays together based on their similarity to thereby construct bundles of rays to be tested for intersection with the box.
maintain a set of open bundles to which new rays can be added; and for each of the received rays: determine a level of similarity of the received ray with each of the open bundles;
identify a best match open bundle of said set of open bundles for the received ray based on the determined levels of similarity; and if the determined level of similarity for the best match open bundle is above a threshold, add the received ray to the best match open bundle.
8. The ray tracing system of claim 7 wherein the bundle builder is configured to:
maintain a set of open bundles to which new rays can be added; and
for each of the received rays:
determine a level of similarity of the received ray with each of the open bundles;
identify a best match open bundle of said set of open bundles for the received ray based on the determined levels of similarity; and
if the determined level of similarity for the best match open bundle is above a threshold, add the received ray to the best match open bundle.
22. Claims 1-2, 11-12, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,073,505 (patent 505). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are similar. While claim 11 recites a computer-implemented method and clam 21 recites a computer readable storage medium, both are just generic variations of a ray tracing system disclosed by claims 7-9 of patent 505.
23. The following table shows correspondence between the claims of present application with claims of patent 160.
Claims of present application
1
2
11
12
21
Claims of patent 505
7-8
9
7-8
9
7-8
24. The following table shows correspondence between the limitations of claim 1 of present application and claims 7-8 of patent 505.
Claim 1 of present application
Claims 7 and 8 of patent 505
1. A ray tracing system comprising a bundle builder configured to:
receive rays;
group received rays together based on their similarity to thereby construct bundles of rays to be tested for intersection with a box;
7. The ray tracing system of claim 1 further comprising a bundle builder configured to:
receive rays; and
group received rays together based on their similarity to thereby construct bundles of rays to be tested for intersection with the box.
maintain a set of open bundles to which new rays can be added; and for each of the received rays: determine a level of similarity of the received ray with each of the open bundles;
identify a best match open bundle of said set of open bundles for the received ray based on the determined levels of similarity; and if the determined level of similarity for the best match open bundle is above a threshold, add the received ray to the best match open bundle.
8. The ray tracing system of claim 7 wherein the bundle builder is configured to:
maintain a set of open bundles to which new rays can be added; and
for each of the received rays:
determine a level of similarity of the received ray with each of the open bundles;
identify a best match open bundle of said set of open bundles for the received ray based on the determined levels of similarity; and
if the determined level of similarity for the best match open bundle is above a threshold, add the received ray to the best match open bundle.
Allowable Subject Matter
25. Claims 1-21 are allowed over cited references.
26. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claim 1 recites the limitation maintain a set of open bundles to which new rays can be added; and for each of the received rays: determine a level of similarity of the received ray with each of the open bundles; identify a best match open bundle of said set of open bundles for the received ray based on the determined levels of similarity; and if the determined level of similarity for the best match open bundle is above a threshold, add the received ray to the best match open bundle which is neither disclosed nor suggested by the cited references, either singly or in combination.
27. Claims 11 and 21 recite limitation similar to those of claim 1 and are allowed over cited references as well for the same reason claim 1 is allowed.
28. A Non-Final Office Action (dated 4/28/2021) from parent application 16/914,908, now patent 11,295,509 (patent 509), indicates that its claim 12 is allowable. Claim 12 of parent application 16/914,908 recites “The ray tracing system of claim 11 wherein the bundle builder is configured to: maintain a set of open bundles to which new rays can be added; and for each of the received rays: determine a level of similarity of the received ray with each of the open bundles; identify a best match open bundle of said set of open bundles for the received ray based on the determined levels of similarity; and if the determined level of similarity for the best match open bundle is above a threshold, add the received ray to the best match open bundle” which is very similar to the limitation maintain a set of open bundles to which new rays can be added; and for each of the received rays: determine a level of similarity of the received ray with each of the open bundles; identify a best match open bundle of said set of open bundles for the received ray based on the determined levels of similarity; and if the determined level of similarity for the best match open bundle is above a threshold, add the received ray to the best match open bundle of claim 1 of present application. The Non-Final Office Action from the parent application cited to Wald et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2010/006034) and Peterson et al. (2017/0263044) as the closest found references that failed to the limitations of claim 12 of that parent application. Similarly, Wald and Peterson still fails to disclose maintain a set of open bundles to which new rays can be added; and for each of the received rays: determine a level of similarity of the received ray with each of the open bundles; identify a best match open bundle of said set of open bundles for the received ray based on the determined levels of similarity; and if the determined level of similarity for the best match open bundle is above a threshold, add the received ray to the best match open bundle of claim 1 of present application.
29. Likewise, Wald and Peterson both also fail to disclose the limitations of claims 11 and 21 which are similar to the limitations of claim 1.
30. Another cited reference Salsbury et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0096788 A1) discloses group of rays with common origin but fails to disclose maintain a set of open bundles to which new rays can be added; and for each of the received rays: determine a level of similarity of the received ray with each of the open bundles; identify a best match open bundle of said set of open bundles for the received ray based on the determined levels of similarity; and if the determined level of similarity for the best match open bundle is above a threshold, add the received ray to the best match open bundle.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
CONTACT
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK S CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7993. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8-11:30 and 1:30-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kee Tung can be reached at 5712727794. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FRANK S CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611