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 1-21 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 of origin and direction 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.)
whereby the bundles of rays are tested for intersection with the box; (This limitation corresponds to applying mathematical calculations to the received data.)
wherein the bundle builder is implemented (i) in hardware, (ii) in software stored in a memory in the ray tracing system, or (iii) as a combination of (i) or (ii). (this is merely storing the mathematical algorithm (data) into generic memory)
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 being implemented (i) in hardware, (ii) in software stored in a memory in the ray tracing system, or (iii) as a combination of (i) and (ii), (this is merely storing algorithm (data) into a generic memory)
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 of origin and direction 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 received 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.)
and testing the bundles of rays for intersection with the box. (This limitation corresponds to mathematical calculation.)
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, further comprising, for each of the received rays: if the determined level of similarity for the best match open bundle is below the threshold, creating a new bundle and adding 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; 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 non-transitory 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 of origin and direction 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.)
whereby the bundles of rays are tested for intersection with the box; (This limitation corresponds to mathematical calculation on received data.)
and wherein the bundle builder is implemented (i) in hardware, (ii) in software stored in a memory in the ray tracing system, or (iii) as a combination of (i) and (ii). (This merely corresponds to storing a mathematical algorithm (data) into a generic memory.)
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.
RE: Double Patenting
8. The double patenting rejection has been withdrawn due to approval of Terminal Disclaimers filed on 7/10/2026.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 1-21 are allowed over cited references.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.”
Response to Arguments
15. Applicant's arguments filed in Remarks on 7/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 8 of the Remarks, Applicants argue similarity of origin and direction makes the parameters clear. Examiner disagrees. Are similar origins/directions the same origins/directions or origins/directions with slightly different values? The word will almost certainly likely results in ambiguity and must be stricken changed. The same reasoning applies to the word best.
16. The amendments to claims 1, 8 and 15 fail to overcome 35 USC 101 rejection for abstract idea. The steps are all either mathematical calculations or data storage. A simple way to overcome this rejection is to recite rendering or displaying results on a display screen, thereby reciting a practical application.
17. Storing a mathematical algorithm into memory might allow the memory to overcome software per se rejections, but it does not automatically overcome abstract idea rejections. This mathematical algorithm in this instance is merely stored on a generic memory. This fails to be significantly more than the abstract idea and fails to be a practical application of the abstract idea. The amended limitations to claims 1, 8, and 21 merely recite more mathematical calculations and/or pertain to data storage, as explained above.
Conclusion
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.
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
Prosecution Insights