DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 9-15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,275,492. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claims merely broaden the scope of the patented claims, i.e. the patented claims teach each of the limitations of the current claims (or a trivial variation), and therefore the patented claims anticipate the current claims.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,614,622. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claims merely broaden the scope of the patented claims, i.e. the patented claims teach each of the limitations of the current claims (or a trivial variation), and therefore the patented claims anticipate the current claims.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,393,165. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claims merely broaden the scope of the patented claims, i.e. the patented claims teach each of the limitations of the current claims (or a trivial variation), and therefore the patented claims anticipate the current claims.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,159,347. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claims merely broaden the scope of the patented claims, i.e. the patented claims teach each of the limitations of the current claims (or a trivial variation), and therefore the patented claims anticipate the current claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Foran et al. (US 5,684,939; hereinafter “Foran”).
Regarding claim 1, Foran discloses A method for processing a plurality of sample points of a computer graphics image (“a color value stored in the image memory to be assigned to the supersamples in a region,” abstract), the method comprising (see Fig. 10): processing a primitive which does not overlap all the sample points of the plurality of sample points (“If a new polygon covers a subset of the sample locations,” col. 13, lines 5-10) by writing to a memory (“stores a separate color value for each sample,” col. 13, lines 10-15), when the only sample points not located within the primitive are sample points for which a value of a previous primitive has been stored (the claimed “when” limitation does not have a corresponding counterfactual in the claim; the writing to memory of Foran happens in both the claimed “when” circumstances and other circumstances, and therefore it teaches this claim limitation), a value of the primitive for each sample point located within the primitive (“stores a separate color value for each sample,” col. 13, lines 10-15) for which the value of the previous primitive is not stored (the claimed “for which” limitation does not have a corresponding counterfactual in the claim, where a different action is required for other sample point locations; the value of the primitive in Foran is stored for all sample points covered by that primitive, whether or not a value of a previous primitive is stored there), wherein at least one of the sample points located within the primitive is also located within the previous primitive (the states S3 and S5 of Fig. 10 illustrate that a newly-received primitive overlaps with the previous primitive).
Regarding claim 2, Foran discloses wherein the previous primitive is processed, by: storing in the memory, when all the sample points are located within said previous primitive, a value for the previous primitive for a smaller number of the sample points than the total number of the sample points, and storing data indicating that all the sample points are located within the previous primitive (“the mode identifier so as to determine whether the pixel to be displayed is Uncovered by a polygon, or entirely or partially covered by one or more polygons … allows a pixel's color information to be kept in an abbreviated form where a single color value is maintained,” col. 10, lines 45-55).
Regarding claim 3, Foran discloses wherein the smaller number of the sample points is one (“allows a pixel's color information to be kept in an abbreviated form where a single color value is maintained,” col. 10, lines 45-55).
Regarding claim 4, Foran discloses wherein the value for the previous primitive and the value for the primitive comprises a colour value (“the color value for all sample locations,” col. 12, lines 35-40).
Regarding claim 5, Foran discloses wherein the data indicating that all the sample points are located within the previous primitive comprises a flag (“mode identifier,” col. 10, lines 45-55).
Regarding claim 7, it is rejected using the same citations and rationales described in the rejection of claim 1, with the additional limitations of a memory; a processor unit (see Foran, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, it is rejected using the same citations and rationales described in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 9, Foran discloses wherein the processor unit comprises one or more programmable processors (“display generating software application programs,” col. 13, lines 55-60; “at least one image processor,” abstract).
Regarding claim 10, Foran discloses wherein the processor unit comprises an input processor (“The geometry subsystem receives … graphical data,” col. 3, lines 40-45), an output processor (“The content of this memory is then read out to the display subsystem and converted into display signals for output to the display,” col. 5, lines 15-20) and a multisample processor (“a 16-bit supersample coverage mask is derived by the scan conversion subsystem,” col. 4, lines 5-10).
Regarding claims 11-13, they are rejected using the same citations and rationales described in the rejections of claims 3-5, respectively.
Regarding claim 15, it is rejected using the same citations and rationales described in the rejection of claim 1, with the additional limitation of A non-transitory storage medium having stored thereon computer readable instructions that, when executed at a computer system, cause the computer system to process (“a graphics subsystem, interconnected between a host processor of an appropriate computer system,” Foran, col. 3, lines 20-25).
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 Foran in view of King et al. (US 7,479,965; hereinafter “King”).
Regarding claim 6, Foran does not disclose wherein the flag comprises a single bit, because the mode bit of Foran is 2 bits, which allows for the 5 different states described in Table 4. Foran discloses that “any arbitrary level of complexity could have been chosen” (col. 11, lines 10-15), meaning more or fewer mode bits can be used.
In the same art of multisample anti-aliasing, King teaches wherein the flag comprises a single bit (“This bit indicates whether the needed data is stored in a compressed or uncompressed format,” col. 9, lines 40-45).
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 King to Foran. The motivation would have been for “improving the efficiency of various circuits and methods used by a graphics processor integrated circuit” (King, col. 1, lines 10-15).
Regarding claim 14, it is rejected using the same citations and rationales described in the rejection of claim 6.
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 on (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
Prosecution Insights