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 . It is responsive to the submission dated 10/21/2024. Claims 2-21 are presented for examination, of which, claims 1, 9 and 16 are independent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 11/20/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to at least one computer-readable storage medium claim. However, the "Computer-readable storage medium” defined by specification at paragraph [126] provides only open-ended example of the storage medium (e.g., such as random access memory (RAM), read only memory (ROM), programmable ROM (PROM), firmware, flash memory, etc., ), which does not exclude ineligible signal embodiments.
According to MPEP § 2111.01, examiner is obligated to give the terms or phrases their broadest interpretation definition awarded by one of an ordinary skill in the art unless applicant has provided some indication of the definition of the claimed terms or phrases. Therefore, it is not clear that the claimed "computer -readable storage medium" is non-transitory or not, and Examiner interprets the computer-readable storage medium to include any type of medium which includes a carrier wave medium such as signals. Signals are directed to a non-statutory subject matter.
Thus, each of claim 16-21 of the application are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a non-statutory subject matter.
“A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation ‘non-transitory’ to the claim.” Kappos 1351 OG 212 (Feb. 23, 2010)
Double Patenting
5. 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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this 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/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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
6. Claims 2 and 4-6, 7, 9 and 11-13, 14, 16 and 18-20 and 21 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 7, 8 and 13-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11670041, hereinafter the ’41 patent in view of claims 1-3 of US Patent No. 10157493, hereinafter the ‘93 patent or in the alternative, in view of Grossman et al. (US 20190172247).
Although the claims at issue are not verbatim identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the application’s claims and the patent’s claims appear to be an obvious variation of one another as they have somewhat similar structural and functional features.
For examples, claim 2 of the current application recites:
A computing system comprising: one or more of a graphics processor or a central processing unit; and a memory including a set of instructions, which when executed by the one or more of the graphics processor or the central processing unit, cause the computing system to: identify a number of samples; interpolate the number of samples from a first value to a second value; and shade a first pixel based on the second value.
Claim 1 of the ’41 patent similarly recites:
A computing system comprising: a graphics processor; a central processing unit; and a memory including a set of instructions, which when executed by one or more of the graphics processor or the central processing unit, cause the computing system to: identify a first parameter associated with a first vertex of a primitive, wherein the first parameter indicates a first number of samples to be taken for a first pixel corresponding to the first vertex; identify a second parameter associated with a second vertex of the primitive, wherein the second parameter indicates a second number of samples to be taken for a second pixel corresponding to the second vertex; generate a first coverage mask based on a first anti-aliasing mode associated with the first parameter; shade the first pixel based on the first parameter and the first coverage mask; and shade the second pixel based on the second parameter.
As illustrated above, each claim has similar elements such as the computing system, the graphics processor, the CPU and the memory for storing the instructions. In addition, each claim identifies a number of samples and shades a pixel based on the result of additional processing applies on the number of samples.
The only distinction between the between the instant application claim 2 and claim 1 of the ’41 patent is that the instant application’s claim 2 includes: shading the pixel based on the result of interpolating the number of samples from a first value to a second value.
Claim 1 of the ’41 patent already teaches to determine parameters between samples of a pixel to generate a coverage mask for used to shade associated pixels, based on anti-aliasing detected within the pixel samples parameters. Such a concept is well known in the field of computer graphics processing to encompass sample interpolation, because it involves the finding of unknown data values between sample points to fill in pixels during rasterization and 3D rendering to prevent artifacts in generated images.
In addition, claims 4-6 of the current application, which is a continuation of claim 2, further defines the identified number of samples to be based on a parameter, and that the pixel shading is based on a quantized value of a supported anti-aliasing sample rate, wherein the parameter is associated with pixels corresponding to a vertex of a primitive including the pixel (to be shaded). These stated features are intrinsic elements in the limitations of claim 1 of the ‘41 patent. Thus, the concept of claims 2-6 is an obvious variation of claim 1 of the ’41 patent.
Furthermore, claims 1-3 of the ’93 patent, which is a parent of the ’41 patent, teaches interpolate and quantize the number of samples (see claims 2-3) which were used to generate a coverage mask based on a selected anti-aliasing mode for shading one or more pixels corresponding to the vertex of a primitive (see claim 1).
Thus, the differentiated claimed feature is taught when the logic of the ’93 patent performs the sample interpolation being performed when the coverage mask is generated and the anti-aliasing within the sample rate is detected in claims 1 of the ’41 patent; and together, they contribute to performing interpolating the number of samples from a first value to a second value; and shading a first pixel based on the second value, as claimed.
Alternatively, paras. 40-41 of Grossman teaches a new interpolated shading rate parameter is calculated for use by a rasterization stage of the graphics pipeline to utilize one or more shading rate parameter values to determine how many samples to shade for each corresponding region of a given primitive. Para. 47 of Grossman also teaches: The rasterizer stage 94 clips primitives, prepares primitives for a pixel shader stage 96, and determines how to invoke pixel shaders. Further, as generally indicated at 118, the rasterizer stage 94 performs coarse scan conversions and determines a per-fragment variable shading rate parameter value (e.g., where the fragment may be a tile, a pixel, or a sub-pixel region); and para. 48 of Grossman further discloses the pixel shader stage 96 receives interpolated data for primitives and/or fragments and generates per-pixel data, such as color and sample coverage masks. Additionally, para. 55 of Grossman describes that the rasterizer stage may interpolate and quantize respective values for different sub-tiles or fragments 18 of each primitive 22 to define SRP values per fragment (SRPf) 118. Pixel shader stage 96 then launches respective threads and performs variable rate shading per fragment of one or more primitives 22 based on each respective SRPf 118, thereby shading variable-area color fragments for use in rendering image 24.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the instant applications’ claim to include: interpolate the number of samples from a first value to a second value; and shade a first pixel based on the second value, in the same conventional manner as taught by the ’93 patent and/or the Grossman reference. The advantage to yield the instant claim 2 by combining the ’41 patent’s claim 1 with the ’93 patent or the Grossman reference would have been to provide a more efficient graphics processing in a computer device that allows color sample to be shared across two or more pixels, without a considerable memory and processing power. See abstract and paras. 4-5 of Grossman.
A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed method is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed system from a prior art if the prior art system teaches all the functional limitations of the claim. In the present case, the instant application’s claims are not functionally distinguishable from the claims of the combination of claims found in the ’41 and the ‘93 patents, including the Grossman reference. Further, the extent that the instant application claims are broaden and therefore generic to instant claimed invention, In re Goodman 29 USPQ 2d 2010 CAFC 1993, states that a generic claim cannot be issued without a terminal disclaimer, if a species claim has been previously been claimed in a patent. Therefore, the granting of the current application’s claims 2 and 4-6 would infringe with the claimed invention found in the combined teachings of the claims in the ’41 and ‘93 patents or in view of the Grossman reference.
In reference to claim 7 of the instant application, the limitation of extracting locations of the samples from a lookup table can be read from claim 2 of the ’41 patent. Thus, claim 7 of the application is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting over claim 2 of the ’41 patent.
The granting of claims 9 and 11-13 in the current application would infringe with the claimed invention of claim 7 in the ‘41 patent for reasons similar to the analysis of claims 2, and 4-6, as described above. Thus, claims 9 and 11-13 is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting over claim 7 of the ’41 patent.
Claim 14 the application is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting over claim 8 of the ’41 patent.
The granting of claims 16 and 18-20 in the current application would infringe with the claimed invention of claim 13 in the ‘41 patent for reasons similar to the analysis of claims 2, and 4-6, as described above.
Claim 21 the application is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting over claim 14 of the ’41 patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(a1) as being anticipated by
Grossman et al. (US 20190172247 B1).
Considering claim 1, Grossman discloses a computing system (see item 10 fig. 1) comprising: one or more of a graphics processor (72) or a central processing unit (34); and a memory (56) including a set of instructions (46), which when executed by the one or more of the graphics processor or the central processing unit, cause the computing system to: identify a number of samples (e.g., para. 8 of Grossman discloses the GPU is configured to receive a command to render primitives that compose an image, and to identify a first set of a first number of samples);
interpolate the number of samples from a first value to a second value (e.g., paras. 24-25 and 40-41 of Grossman discloses determining the shading rate for different regions of each primitive by taking into account variability with respect to desired level of detail (LOD) across regions of the image, wherein the described aspects control respective shading rates for different regions of each primitive (and/or of each 2D image) based on a new, interpolated shading rate parameter for use by a rasterization stage of the graphics pipeline. For instance, the rasterization stage utilizes one or more shading rate parameter values to determine how many samples to shade for each corresponding region of a given primitive. Para. 28 of Grossman further teaches the described aspects may include further optimizations to specify the multi- samples that are to be covered by the color value produced. Para. 47 of Grossman also teaches: The rasterizer stage 94 clips primitives, prepares primitives for a pixel shader stage 96, and determines how to invoke pixel shaders. Further, as generally indicated at 118, the rasterizer stage 94 performs coarse scan conversions and determines a per-fragment variable shading rate parameter value (e.g., where the fragment may be a tile, a pixel, or a sub-pixel region); and
shade a first pixel based on the second value (e.g., para. 48 of Grossman discloses The pixel shader stage 96 receives interpolated data for primitives and/or fragments and generates per-pixel data, such as color and sample coverage masks).
As per claim 3, Grossman teaches the first value is a floating-point value (e.g., input floating point value) and the second value is an integer value (e.g., SRP tmax value for vertex primitive). See paras. 76
As per claim 4, Grossman discloses quantize the second value to a supported anti-aliasing sample rate (see paras. 70-71); and shade the pixel based on the supported anti-aliasing sample rate (see para. 71).
As per claim 5, Grossman discloses access a parameter and determine the
number of samples based on the parameter. See paras. 59-61 and 76-78.
As per claim 6, Grossman discloses the parameter is associated with pixels corresponding to a vertex of a primitive, wherein the pixels include the first pixel. See paras. 77-78.
As per claim 7, Grossman discloses extract locations of the samples from a lookup table. See para. 61.
As per claim 8, Grossman discloses combine color samples associated with the samples to generate a final color value. See paras. 77-81 and 88-89, 94-95.
The subject-matters of independent Claims 9 and 16 contain features that correspond in scope with the limitations recited in claim 2, except for the invention category. Accordingly, the same reasonings applied for the rejections of claim 2 also apply to each of independent claims 9 and 16. In addition, Grossman discloses an apparatus (10) comprising: a substrate (34 or 72); logic (56) coupled to the one or more substrates, wherein the logic is implemented in one or more of configurable logic (46, or 64) or fixed-functionality logic hardware (58). Grossman further discloses a computer-readable medium (56) including a set of instructions (46), to be executed by a computing device (10). See fig. 1 and paras. 31-33.
Claims 10-15 and 17-21 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 3-8.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Everitt et al. et al. (US 20100002000) discloses a system and method for dynamically adjusting the pixel sampling rate during primitive shading can improve image quality or increase shading performance. Hybrid antialiasing is performed by selecting a number of shaded samples per pixel fragment. A combination of supersample and multisample antialiasing is used where a cluster of sub-pixel samples (multisamples) is processed for each pass through a fragment shader pipeline. The number of shader passes and multisamples in each cluster can be determined dynamically for each primitive based on rendering state.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESNER SAJOUS whose telephone number is (571) 272-7791. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10:00 TO 7:30 (ET).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 or email the Examiner directly at wesner.sajous@uspto.gov.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Said Broome can be reached on 571-272-2931. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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. 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.
/WESNER SAJOUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
WS
02/21/2026