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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,067,667. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims recite each limitation (or a trivial variation) of the current claims. Note that in computer graphics, claims that implement the same techniques/steps but that are directed to different statutory categories (e.g. a method, a system, a processor, a computer-readable medium) are generally considered to be trivial variations of each other.
The following table illustrates a mapping of the conflicting claims:
Current Application
1-4
5
6
7
8
9-12
13
14
15
16
17-20
U.S. Patent
1
2
3
5
10
11
15
14
5
10
17
The following table illustrates a sample mapping of the limitations of claim 1 of the current application when compared against the pertinent limitations of claim 1 of the patent. The remaining claims can be mapped in a similar manner.
Current Application
U.S. Patent (selected limitations)
1. A method comprising:
1. A method comprising:
obtaining directional radiance information corresponding to interactions of a plurality of rays within a virtual environment;
within a virtual environment … the directional radiances of the second interactions of the one or more simulated light transport paths
determining, using the directional radiance information, a ray direction for a light transport path based at least on a similarity between an interaction of the light transport path and the interactions of the plurality of rays within the virtual environment;
based at least on a similarity between the direction of the directional radiance of the ray of the first interaction and one or more directions corresponding to the directional radiances of the second interactions of the one or more simulated light transport paths; computing a direction of an outgoing ray
casting a ray of the light transport path from the interaction using the ray direction;
based at least on the computing of the direction, casting the outgoing ray
simulating radiance propagated from a light source over the light transport path using the ray; and rendering a ray-traced image using the radiance.
generating a rendered frame … using the computed directional radiance to compute radiance of the simulated light transport path.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dahm et al. (US 2018/0018814; hereinafter “Dahm”).
Regarding claim 1, Dahm discloses A method comprising: obtaining directional radiance information corresponding to interactions of a plurality of rays within a virtual environment (“importance values are each initialized to a value of one and then updated as rays are traced,” para. 23; “the importance values effectively approximate the incident radiance for each incident sample … as the importance values stored in the data structure are updated, the directions that contribute to radiance (and pixel shading) are reinforced,” para. 26; the “importance values” teach the claimed “directional radiance information”); determining, using the directional radiance information, a ray direction for a light transport path based at least on a similarity between an interaction of the light transport path and the interactions of the plurality of rays within the virtual environment (“a next direction of the first ray is selected according to a distribution of the importance values at the hitpoint,” para. 25; “the nearest-neighbor may be used … Identifying a nearest intersection may include checking other attributes, such as surface normals, for similarity,” para. 35); casting a ray of the light transport path from the interaction using the ray direction (“the ray is traced through the 3D scene starting from the hitpoint towards the next direction,” para. 44); simulating radiance propagated from a light source over the light transport path using the ray; and rendering a ray-traced image using the radiance (“a contribution of radiance of the light source scaled by the throughput is accumulated into a first pixel that is intersected by the ray. In one embodiment, the contribution is used to shade a pixel corresponding to the first ray,” para. 42).
Regarding claim 2, Dahm discloses wherein the determining of the ray direction (“a next direction of the first ray is selected according to a distribution of the importance values,” para. 25) is based at least on an aggregate directional radiance corresponding to the interactions of the plurality of rays (“importance values are each initialized to a value of one and then updated as rays are traced,” para. 23; “the importance values effectively approximate the incident radiance for each incident sample … as the importance values stored in the data structure are updated, the directions that contribute to radiance (and pixel shading) are reinforced,” para. 26).
Regarding claim 3, Dahm discloses wherein the determining of the ray direction is based at least on evaluating a similarity between directional radiance of an incident ray of the interaction and the directional radiances of the interactions of the plurality of rays within the virtual environment (“a next direction of the first ray is selected according to a distribution of the importance values at the hitpoint,” para. 25; “the nearest-neighbor may be used … Identifying a nearest intersection may include checking other attributes, such as surface normals, for similarity,” para. 35).
Regarding claim 4, Dahm discloses wherein the interactions of the plurality of rays correspond to one or more light transport paths extending from a viewpoint to the light source (“A light transport path may be defined starting at a camera and ending at a light source,” para. 21).
Regarding claim 5, Dahm discloses wherein the directional radiance information comprises outgoing directional radiances corresponding to the interactions of the plurality of rays within the virtual environment (“the emitted radiance incident seen at the position coming from the next direction,” para. 21).
Regarding claim 8, Dahm discloses wherein the light transport path is iteratively generated based at least on tracing a plurality of rays over a plurality of frames and simulating a transport of radiance from the light source over the plurality of frames (“the importance values may be updated throughout a series of rendered images in an animation,” para. 38).
Regarding claim 9, Dahm discloses A system comprising: one or more processors to perform operations (general processing cluster 350 of Fig. 4A) including: evaluating a similarity between an interaction of a light transport path within a virtual environment and interactions of a plurality of rays within the virtual environment (“importance values are each initialized to a value of one and then updated as rays are traced,” para. 23; “Locating a closest point may include locating a closest point with a similar normal in order not to use importance values from locations that are too different in terms of geometry,” para. 56); based at least on the similarity, generating one or more portions of the light transport path using directional radiance information of the interactions (“a next direction of the first ray is selected according to a distribution of the importance values at the hitpoint,” para. 25; “the nearest-neighbor may be used … Identifying a nearest intersection may include checking other attributes, such as surface normals, for similarity,” para. 35); simulating radiance propagated from a light source over the light transport path; and rendering a ray-traced image using the radiance (“a contribution of radiance of the light source scaled by the throughput is accumulated into a first pixel that is intersected by the ray. In one embodiment, the contribution is used to shade a pixel corresponding to the first ray,” para. 42).
Regarding claim 10, Dahm discloses determining a ray direction for a ray of the light transport path based at least on the similarity (“a next direction of the first ray is selected according to a distribution of the importance values at the hitpoint,” para. 25; “the nearest-neighbor may be used … Identifying a nearest intersection may include checking other attributes, such as surface normals, for similarity,” para. 35), wherein the generating includes casting the ray from an interaction point corresponding to the interaction using the ray direction (“the ray is traced through the 3D scene starting from the hitpoint towards the next direction,” para. 44).
Regarding claim 11, Dahm discloses wherein the generating is based at least on an aggregate directional radiance of the directional radiance information (“importance values are each initialized to a value of one and then updated as rays are traced,” para. 23; “the importance values effectively approximate the incident radiance for each incident sample … as the importance values stored in the data structure are updated, the directions that contribute to radiance (and pixel shading) are reinforced,” para. 26).
Regarding claims 12, 13, and 16, they are rejected using the same citations and rationales described in the rejections of claims 4, 5, and 8, respectively.
Regarding claim 17, Dahm discloses At least one processor comprising: one or more circuits (general processing cluster 350 of Fig. 4A) to simulate radiance propagated from a light source in a virtual environment over a light transport path and to render a sequence of frames depicting the virtual environment (“a contribution of radiance of the light source scaled by the throughput is accumulated into a first pixel that is intersected by the ray. In one embodiment, the contribution is used to shade a pixel corresponding to the first ray,” para. 42; “the importance values may be updated throughout a series of rendered images in an animation,” para. 38), wherein to simulate the radiance propagated from the light source, a ray is cast from an interaction of the light transport path using a ray direction determined based at least on a similarity between the interaction of the light transport path and directional radiance information of interactions of rays within the virtual environment (“a next direction of the first ray is selected according to a distribution of the importance values at the hitpoint,” para. 25; “the nearest-neighbor may be used … Identifying a nearest intersection may include checking other attributes, such as surface normals, for similarity,” para. 35; “the importance values effectively approximate the incident radiance for each incident sample … as the importance values stored in the data structure are updated, the directions that contribute to radiance (and pixel shading) are reinforced,” para. 26).
Regarding claims 18-20, they are rejected using the same citations and rationales described in the rejections of claims 2-4, respectively.
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 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahm in view of Lafortune et al. (“A 5D Tree to Reduce the Variance of Monte Carlo Ray Tracing”; hereinafter “Lafortune”).
Regarding claim 6, Dahm discloses wherein the simulating the radiance comprises determining a contribution of the interaction to the radiance using an aggregate directional radiance corresponding to the directional radiance information (“importance values are each initialized to a value of one and then updated as rays are traced,” para. 23; “the importance values effectively approximate the incident radiance for each incident sample … as the importance values stored in the data structure are updated, the directions that contribute to radiance (and pixel shading) are reinforced,” para. 26).
Dahm does not disclose the claimed control variate.
In the same art of ray tracing, Lafortune teaches using aggregate directional radiance as a control variate (“Computed values for incoming radiance are stored in this tree ... these cached values can be used to improve importance sampling and control variates,” pg. 1, sec. 1, para. 4).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Lafortune to Dahm. The motivation would have been to “reduce the variance” (Lafortune, abstract).
Regarding claim 14, it is rejected using the same citations and rationales described in the rejection of claim 6.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahm in view of Binder et al. (“Fast Path Space Filtering by Jittered Spatial Hashing”; hereinafter “Binder”).
Regarding claim 7, Dahm discloses wherein the ray direction is determined using the directional radiance information (“a next direction of the first ray is selected according to a distribution of the importance values at the hitpoint,” para. 25).
Dahm does not disclose based at least on applying a hash function, the hash function having a dimension that corresponds to a position of the interaction and a direction of directional radiance associated with the interaction.
In the same art of ray tracing, Binder teaches applying a hash function, the hash function having a dimension that corresponds to a position of the interaction and a direction of directional radiance associated with the interaction (“After a set of light transport paths has been traced, a hash key is constructed ... This hash key consists of all information required to classify 'nearby' vertices. Besides quantized world space position ... Other possible information includes the incoming direction,” pg. 1, sec. 2, para. 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Binder to the directional radiance lookup of Dahm. The motivation would have been to “dramatically improve the visual quality by sharing information” (Binder, abstract).
Regarding claim 15, it is rejected using the same citations and rationales described in the rejection of claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan McCulley whose telephone number is (571)270-3754. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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 (571) 272-7794. 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.
/RYAN MCCULLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611