DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 6, 3rd-4th paragraphs, filed June 12, 2026, with respect to the claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) of Claims 1 and 4 and the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of Claim 4 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the double patenting rejections have been considered but are moot because new grounds of rejection are made in view of Matjasko (US 20160140754A1).
Applicant submits that the double-patenting rejection of the claims is rendered moot by the present amendment to the claims (p. 6, 2nd paragraph).
In reply, the Examiner points out that new grounds of rejection are made for the double patenting in view of Matjasko.
Applicant's arguments filed June 12, 2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the previously cited references do not teach the newly added limitation in Claim 1 (p. 7-9).
In reply, the Examiner points out that Matjasko teaches in Figs. 2a and 2b, a virtual object 105 coated in a material is shown at two different viewing angles. Although the virtual object 105 displayed in both Figs. 2a and 2b are the same, the different angles of the virtual objects 105 with respect to a simulated lighting condition and/or a viewing angle produce different effects. In Figs. 2A and 2b, there is a difference in reflectance of the visualizations shown in both illustrations [0046]. Matjasko teaches retrieving reflectance and transmittance information for a specific type of glass at different viewing angles [0039]. Thus, there is a first CG image with a first type of glass at an angle, a second CG image with the first type of glass at an angle different from the angle in the first CG image, a third CG image with the first type of glass at an angle, and a fourth CG image with the first type of glass at an angle different from the angle in the third CG image, and so the reflectance of the first type of glass in the third CG image is different from the reflectance of the first type of glass in a fourth CG image [0046, 0039]. Thus, a transmittance of a first type of glass of the one or more types of glass in a first CG image of the multiple CG images and a transmittance of the first type of glass in a second CG image of the multiple CG images, and wherein the reflectance of the first type of glass in a third CG image of the multiple CG images is different from the reflectance of the first type of glass in a fourth CG image of the multiple CG images [0046, 0039]. Matjasko teaches standing in front of a glass building and viewing the building, a visual rendering of that building is displayed that simulates a specified coating on the exterior sides [0072]. Figs. 7c and 7D show a visual rendering of a building, and you can see that the glass windows (116, 117) are on the front face of the building at one angle, and you can see the right wall of the building that is at a different angle. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a glass window on the front face of the building could be the first CG image with a first type of glass at an angle, and a glass window on the right wall of the building could be the second CG image with the first type of glass at an angle different from the angle in the first CG image, and another glass window on the front face of the building could be the third CG image with the first type of glass at an angle, and another glass window on the right wall of the building could be the fourth CG image with the first type of glass at an angle different from the angle in the third CG image. The visual rendering of the building is at a same fixed viewpoint, as shown in Fig. 7c. Thus, the first CG image, the second CG image, the third CG image, and the fourth CG image are generated for a same fixed viewpoint.
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 1-4 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of copending Application No. 18/888,703 in view of Matjasko (US 20160140754A1).
As per Claim 1, the limitations of Claim 1 are covered by the limitations of copending application Claims 1 and 4, as shown in the table below.
However, the copending application claims do not recite wherein the first CG image, the second CG image, the third CG image, and the fourth CG image are generated for the same fixed viewpoint. However, Matjasko teaches standing in front of a glass building and viewing the building, a visual rendering of that building is displayed that simulates a specified coating on the exterior sides [0072]. Figs. 7c and 7D show a visual rendering of a building, and you can see that the glass windows (116, 117) are on the front face of the building at one angle, and you can see the right wall of the building that is at a different angle. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a glass window on the front face of the building could be the first CG image, and a glass window on the right wall of the building could be the second CG image, and another glass window on the front face of the building could be the third CG image, and another glass window on the right wall of the building could be the fourth CG image. The visual rendering of the building is at a same fixed viewpoint, as shown in Fig. 7c. Thus, the first CG image, the second CG image, the third CG image, and the fourth CG image are generated for a same fixed viewpoint.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the copending application claims so that the first CG image, the second CG image, the third CG image, and the fourth CG image are generated for the same fixed viewpoint because Matjasko suggests that this way, a user can see a realistic 3d visual rendering of a building and see realistic renderings of the glass windows on the front face and another wall of the building [0072].
As per Claim 2, the limitations of Claim 2 are essentially covered by the limitations of copending application Claims 1 and 4.
As per Claims 3-4, these claims are each similar in scope to Claim 1, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
18/888,684 (Claim 1)
18/888,703 (Claims 1 and 4)
A building computer graphics image generating device comprising:
device comprising…generating…computer graphics (CG) images of a building (Claim 1)
a ray tracing processor that generates, by using ray tracing, multiple computer graphics (CG) images of a building including one or more types of glass; and
multiple target computer graphics (CG) images of a building including vision glass and spandrel glass (Claim 1)
processing circuitry is further configured to: generate multiple CG images of the building by using ray tracing (Claim 4)
processing circuitry configured to synthesize, by using the multiple CG images, a CG image corresponding to one or more transmittances and one or more reflectances of one or more selected types of glass,
processing circuitry is further configured to… synthesize, by using the multiple CG images, the multiple target CG images corresponding to transmittance and reflectance of selected vision glass and corresponding to transmittance and reflectance of selected spandrel glass; (Claim 4)
wherein the transmittance of a first type of glass of the one or more types of glass in a first CG image of the multiple CG images is different from the transmittance of the first type of glass in a second CG image of the multiple CG images, and
the transmittance of the vision glass or the spandrel glass in each of the at least two CG images being different from the transmittance of the vision glass or the spandrel glass in another one of the at least two CG images; and (Claim 4)
wherein the reflectance of the first type of glass in a third CG image of the multiple CG images is different from the reflectance of the first type of glass in a fourth CG image of the multiple CG images, and
the reflectance of the vision glass or the spandrel glass in each of the at least two CG images being different from the reflectance of the vision glass or the spandrel glass in another one of the at least two CG images. (Claim 4)
wherein the first CG image, the second CG image, the third CG image, and the fourth CG image are generated for a same fixed viewpoint.
Taught by Matjasko
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matjasko (US 20160140754A1), Glaser (US 20150302637A1), and Itami (US 20140204166A1).
As per Claim 1, Matjasko teaches a building computer graphics image generating device comprising: a processor (101) that generates multiple computer graphics (CG) images of a building including one or more types of glass (computer system 101 includes a program module 110, the simulation module 110 is configured to display a simulated environment 104, within the simulated environment 104, a virtual object 105 is displayed according to one or more conditions associated with the simulated environment 104, the virtual object 105 may be an object comprising a pane of coated or uncoated glass, [0032], virtual object 112 comprises a building having front-facing windows 116, 117 that simulate glass panes, [0060]); and processing circuitry configured to synthesize, by using the multiple CG images, a CG image corresponding to one or more transmittances and one or more reflectances of one or more selected types of glass (differences in front and back surfaces of an object may be caused by coatings or other materials that produce effects such as reflectance, transmittance, [0038], object selected can be associated with object characteristics, including various physical properties, identify object data that indicate one or more properties of the selected object, render a virtual object 105 comprising the object characteristics, [0043], virtual object 105 may be rendered with one or more algorithms, the algorithms may take, as input, object characteristics such as reflectance, transmittance with respect to the virtual object, rendering may also be performed using directly measured angular reflectance and transmittance data, measured angular reflectance and transmittance data for various types of glass can be stored and interpolated for all viewing angles, [0044], virtual object 112 comprises a building having front-facing windows 116, 117 that simulate glass panes having a coating or otherwise having physical properties, including optical properties, front-facing window 116 is one type of glass object and the front-facing window 117 is a second type of glass object, the two windows 116, 117 are associated with different object data and produce different visual effects, windows 116 include a reflect pane of glass and the windows 117 include a less reflective pane of glass, [0060]). Matjasko teaches in Figs. 2a and 2b, a virtual object 105 coated in a material is shown at two different viewing angles. Although the virtual object 105 displayed in both Figs. 2a and 2b are the same, the different angles of the virtual objects 105 with respect to a simulated lighting condition and/or a viewing angle produce different effects. In Figs. 2A and 2b, there is a difference in reflectance of the visualizations shown in both illustrations [0046]. Matjasko teaches retrieving reflectance and transmittance information for a specific type of glass at different viewing angles [0039]. Thus, there is a first CG image with a first type of glass at an angle, a second CG image with the first type of glass at an angle different from the angle in the first CG image, a third CG image with the first type of glass at an angle, and a fourth CG image with the first type of glass at an angle different from the angle in the third CG image, and so the reflectance of the first type of glass in the third CG image is different from the reflectance of the first type of glass in a fourth CG image [0046, 0039]. Thus, a transmittance of a first type of glass of the one or more types of glass in a first CG image of the multiple CG images and a transmittance of the first type of glass in a second CG image of the multiple CG images, and wherein the reflectance of the first type of glass in a third CG image of the multiple CG images is different from the reflectance of the first type of glass in a fourth CG image of the multiple CG images [0046, 0039]. Matjasko teaches in Figs. 2a and 2b, a virtual object 105 coated in a material is shown at two different viewing angles. Although the virtual object 105 displayed in both Figs. 2a and 2b are the same, the different angles of the virtual objects 105 with respect to a simulated lighting condition and/or a viewing angle produce different effects. In Figs. 2A and 2b, there is a difference in reflectance of the visualizations shown in both illustrations [0046]. Matjasko teaches retrieving reflectance and transmittance information for a specific type of glass at different viewing angles [0039]. Thus, there is a first CG image with a first type of glass at an angle, a second CG image with the first type of glass at an angle different from the angle in the first CG image, a third CG image with the first type of glass at an angle, and a fourth CG image with the first type of glass at an angle different from the angle in the third CG image, and so the reflectance of the first type of glass in the third CG image is different from the reflectance of the first type of glass in a fourth CG image [0046, 0039]. Thus, a transmittance of a first type of glass of the one or more types of glass in a first CG image of the multiple CG images and a transmittance of the first type of glass in a second CG image of the multiple CG images, and wherein the reflectance of the first type of glass in a third CG image of the multiple CG images is different from the reflectance of the first type of glass in a fourth CG image of the multiple CG images [0046, 0039]. Matjasko teaches standing in front of a glass building and viewing the building, a visual rendering of that building is displayed that simulates a specified coating on the exterior sides [0072]. Figs. 7c and 7D show a visual rendering of a building, and you can see that the glass windows (116, 117) are on the front face of the building at one angle, and you can see the right wall of the building that is at a different angle. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a glass window on the front face of the building could be the first CG image with a first type of glass at an angle, and a glass window on the right wall of the building could be the second CG image with the first type of glass at an angle different from the angle in the first CG image, and another glass window on the front face of the building could be the third CG image with the first type of glass at an angle, and another glass window on the right wall of the building could be the fourth CG image with the first type of glass at an angle different from the angle in the third CG image. The visual rendering of the building is at a same fixed viewpoint, as shown in Fig. 7c. Thus, the first CG image, the second CG image, the third CG image, and the fourth CG image are generated for a same fixed viewpoint.
However, Matjasko does not expressly teach that the processor is a ray tracing processor that generates, by using ray tracing, the multiple CG images. However, Glaser teaches a building computer graphics image generating device comprising: a ray tracing processor that generates, by using ray tracing, multiple CG images of a building (simulation of lighting performance in architectural modeling environments, associating, with a processor-implemented lighting modeling engine, lighting performance properties with a plurality of structural components defined as building geometry of an architectural space model, lighting rendering data computed by the daylighting rendering engine by ray-tracing the architectural space model as a function of the structural components, the lighting performance properties, and the environmental daylighting model at each keytime, and outputting a plurality of images, each graphical representing, for a respective one of the keytimes, a depiction of the architectural space model and a distributed lighting performance metric computed as a function of the lighting rendering data, [0005]) including one or more types of glass (create each element, each having its own unique material assignment (glass), [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matjasko so that the processor is a ray tracing processor that generates, by using ray tracing, the multiple CG images because Glaser suggests that such techniques yield highly realistic results, including reflection [0037].
However, Matjasko and Glaser do not expressly teach wherein the transmittance of the first type of glass in the first CG image is different from the transmittance of the first type of glass in the second CG image. However, Itami teaches the reflectance and transmittance of a glass are different depending on the incident angle of the light [0137]. Since Matjasko teaches retrieving reflectance and transmittance information for a specific type of glass at different viewing angles [0039], and there is a first CG image with a first type of glass at a first angle with a transmittance, a second CG image with the first type of glass at a second angle different from the first angle with a transmittance [0046, 0039], this teaching from Itami can be implemented into the device of Matjasko so that the transmittance of a first type of glass of the one or more types of glass in a first CG image of the multiple CG images is different from the transmittance of the first type of glass in a second CG image of the multiple CG images.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matjasko and Glaser so that the transmittance of the first type of glass in the first CG image is different from the transmittance of the first type of glass in the second CG image as suggested by Itami. It is well-known in the art that the transmittance of glass is different depending on the incident angle of the light.
As per Claim 2, Matjasko teaches images are imported and converted into virtual objects [0034]. Thus, the multiple CG images include four or more CG images (virtual objects) [0034]; and two CG images (116, 117) of the multiple CG images only differ in one or both of the transmittance and the reflectance [0038, 0043, 0044, 0060].
As per Claim 3, Claim 3 is similar in scope to Claim 1, and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
As per Claim 4, Claim 4 is similar in scope to Claim 1, except that Claim 4 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program that, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform the method that the device of Claim 1 performs. Matjasko teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program that, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform the method (the present invention may be implemented on a variety of computing devices, wherein these computing devices include the appropriate computer-readable media for storing and executing computer-readable instructions, [0075]). Thus, Claim 4 is rejected under the same rationale as Claim 1.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONI HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-7785. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6:30pm.
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.
JH
/JONI HSU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights