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 page 9, filed 27 July 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and similar claims in substance under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Newhall, Jr. (US 6,489,955 B1).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. (US 2019/0019326 A1) in view of Newhall, Jr. (US 6,489,955 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Clark discloses a system including: a memory interface circuit configured to receive (Paragraph 0118, memory) at least a portion of an acceleration data structure including hierarchical nodes identifying primitives for a virtual scene; (Paragraph 0088, receiving a hierarchical acceleration structure for a scene having nodes with geometry for testing against rays) and hardware circuitry operatively coupled to the memory interface circuit and configured to (Figure 13, computer system): receive a query for a ray; (Paragraph 0088, receiving data defining rays for testing against the acceleration structure) determine intersections between the ray and a plurality of primitives identified in the hierarchical nodes; (Paragraph 0089, performing intersection testing against geometry in the nodes) store in a result buffer for reporting, entries indicating the plurality of primitives the ray is determined to intersect; (Paragraph 0112, storing indications of the number of intersections for the nodes) and report entries stored in the result buffer (Paragraph 0092, results are used for rendering an image).
Clark does not clearly disclose substitute in the result buffer, an entry indicating a primitive the ray is determined to intersect in place of another previously stored entry in the result buffer indicating a different primitive the ray is determined to intersect. Newhall, Jr. discloses retaining intersections of a ray and triangle where subsequent triangles can be tested against the ray and replacing the intersection value with any intersection which has a smaller parametric length along the ray (Column 13, lines 26-40). Newhall, Jr.’s technique of replacing intersection values with any intersection which has a smaller parametric length along a ray would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the storing of intersections for rays tested for intersections in an acceleration structure of Clark and the results would have been predictable in the storing of intersection values that are replaced with any intersection which has a smaller parametric length alone a ray that is tested for intersections in an acceleration structure. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Clark in view of Newhall, Jr. discloses receive, from a processor, the query for the ray (Clark, figure 7, element S704, receiving data defining rays), and in response to the query and after the substituting (Clark, figure 7, element S706, traversing the acceleration structure for intersections where the intersection values can be replaced, Newhall, Jr., column 13, lines 26-40), report, to the processor, the entries stored in the result buffer (Clark, figure 7, element S710, using results for rendering).
Regarding claim 3, Clark in view of Newhall, Jr. discloses determine that a first primitive is intersected by the ray; (Clark, paragraph 0112, storing indications of the number of intersections for the nodes) after determining that the first primitive is intersected and before reporting entries stored in the result buffer, continue traversal of the acceleration data structure without reporting the entries stored in the result buffer including the entry indicating intersection with the first primitive to the processor; (Clark, figure 7, element S706, traversing the acceleration structure for intersections before providing results for rendering) determine, during the continued traversal, that a second primitive is intersected by the ray; and substitute in the result buffer, an entry indicating the second primitive is intersected by the ray in place of the previously stored entry in the result buffer indicating the first primitive is intersected by the ray (Newhall, Jr., column 13, lines 26-40, replacing the intersection value with any intersection which has a smaller parametric length along the ray).
Regarding claim 5, Newhall, Jr. discloses wherein the other previously stored entry in the result buffer identifies a primitive that does not affect visualization of the virtual scene (Newhall, Jr. column 13, lines 26-40, the triangles with the farther parametric lengths are skipped over).
Regarding claim 6, Newhall, Jr. discloses wherein the other previously stored entry in the result buffer indicated a primitive that is parametrically farther from an origin of the ray than at least one of the primitives that are reported (Column 13, lines 26-40, the intersection value with a latest primitive has a smaller parametric length along the ray than a previously stored value).
Regarding claim 9, Clark discloses wherein the entries in the result buffer are reported upon completion of traversal of a portion of the acceleration data structure identified in the query (Clark, figure 7, element S710, using results for rendering after traversal).
Regarding claims 11 and 16, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 1 is applied.
Regarding claims 12 and 17, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 2 is applied.
Regarding claim 14, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 5 is applied.
Claim(s) 7, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. (US 2019/0019326 A1) in view of Newhall, Jr. (US 6,489,955 B1) and further in view of Peterson (US 9,607,426 B1).
Regarding claim 7, Clark in view of Newhall, Jr. discloses all limitations as discussed in claim 1. Clark in view of Newhall, Jr. does not clearly disclose wherein the primitives include opaque primitives and alpha primitives, and the reported entries indicate a single opaque primitive and a plurality of alpha primitives determined to be intersected by the ray. Peterson discloses surfaces that have translucency/opaque information that determines the amount of contribution of rays to samples for shading (Column 12, lines 45-58). Peterson’s surfaces that have translucency/opaque information that culls and determines the contribution of rays to samples for shading would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the determines results of ray intersections with primitives for rendering of Clark in view of Newhall, Jr. and the results would have been predictable in culling and determining the contribution of rays and their intersections for rendering using translucency/opaque information. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 15 and 18, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 7 is applied.
Claim(s) 8 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. (US 2019/0019326 A1) in view of Newhall, Jr. (US 6,489,955 B1) and further in view of Guhring (US 7,423,640 B2).
Regarding claim 8, Clark in view of Newhall, Jr. discloses all limitations as discussed in claim 1. Clark in view of Newhall, Jr. does not clearly disclose wherein the entries are reported upon a preset number of alpha primitives being determined to be intersected by the ray. Guhring discloses terminating ray propagation based on a threshold opacity being reached when integrating transparency values where it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the threshold opacity can be a minimum value that a primitive could have (Column 4, lines 11-32). Guhring’ s technique of terminating ray propagation based on a threshold opacity being reached when integrating transparency values would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the tracing of rays through an acceleration structure for intersection with primitives of Clark in view of Newhall, Jr. and the results would have been predictable in the terminating of ray propagation through an acceleration structure when a primitive has a opacity value. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 19, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 8 is applied.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. (US 2019/0019326 A1) in view of Newhall, Jr. (US 6,489,955 B1) and further in view of Bakalash et al. (US 2019/0378323 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Clark in view of Newhall, Jr. discloses all limitations as discussed in claim 1. Clark in view of Newhall, Jr. does not clearly disclose wherein the entries in the result buffer are reported mid-traversal of a portion of the acceleration data structure identified in the query. Bakalash discloses rendering in multiple passes where early ray segments can be rendered in a first pass before subsequent passes are completed (Paragraph 0094). Bakalash’s technique of rendering in multiple passes would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the tracing of rays through an acceleration structure for rendering of Clark in view of Newhall, Jr. and the results would have been predictable in the tracing of rays through an acceleration structure where early ray segments can be rendered before subsequent passes are completed. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 20, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 10 is applied.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art does not clearly disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the entry in the result buffer is substituted based on a subsequently determined intersected primitive having an earlier memory location than the primitive corresponding to the stored entry, irrespective of respective parametric intersection lengths along the ray.
Regarding claim 13, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 4 is applied.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Greene et al. (US 5,579,455) discloses acceleration of ray tracing and Z-buffering techniques.
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 PHI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3417. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, JASON CHAN can be reached at (571)272-3022. 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.
/PHI HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619
Prosecution Insights