CTNF 18/949,417 CTNF 85674 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-11, 13, 14 and 16-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: For claim 1, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner: A method for performing rendering operations, the method comprising: decompressing a compressed topology block to obtain vertex indices for [[a]] at least one triangle of a set of triangles, wherein the decompressing includes: determining a highest index for the at least one triangle based on the compressed topology block, determining a lowest index for the at least one triangle based on the compressed topology block, and determining all indices for the at least one triangle based on the highest index, the lowest index, and a code history of the compressed topology block; and rendering the at least one triangle based on the vertex indices. For claim 2, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner: The method of claim 1, wherein determining the highest index includes determining a number of new indices introduced with each triangle up to the at least one triangle. For claim 4, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner: The method of claim 2, wherein determining the highest index includes calculating a sum of the number of new indices introduced, up to the at least one triangle. For claim 5, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner: The method of claim 1, wherein determining the highest index comprises summing an index of the at least one triangle with double a number of reset triangles up to the at least one triangle. For claim 7, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner: The method of claim 6, wherein the bias is based on whether a code change[[s]] occurs. For claim 8, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner: The method of claim 7, wherein a determination of whether the code change occurs is between adjacent triangles in the set of triangles , skipping triangles immediately before a backtrack triangle. For claim 9, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner: The method of claim 1, wherein rendering the at least one triangle includes obtaining vertex information based on indices of the at least one triangle. For claim 10, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner: A system for performing rendering operations, the system comprising: a memory configured to store a compressed topology block; and a processor configured to perform operations comprising: decompressing the compressed topology block to obtain vertex indices for [[a]] at least one triangle of a set of triangles, wherein the decompressing includes: determining a highest index for the at least one triangle based on the compressed topology block, determining a lowest index for the at least one triangle based on the compressed topology block, and determining all indices for the at least one triangle based on the highest index, the lowest index, and a code history of the compressed topology block; and rendering the at least one triangle based on the vertex indices. For claim 11, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner: The system of claim 10, wherein determining the highest index includes determining a number of new indices introduced with each triangle up to the at least one triangle. For claim 13, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner: The system of claim 11, wherein determining the highest index includes calculating a sum of the number of new indices introduced, up to the at least one triangle. For claim 14, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner: The system of claim 10, wherein determining the highest index comprises summing an index of the at least one triangle with double a number of reset triangles up to the at least one triangle. For claim 16, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner: The system of claim 15, wherein the bias is based on whether a code change[[s]] occurs. For claim 17, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner: The system of claim 16, wherein a determination of whether the code change occurs is between adjacent triangles in the set of triangles , skipping triangles immediately before a backtrack triangle. For claim 18, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner: The system of claim 10, wherein rendering the at least one triangle includes obtaining vertex information based on indices of the at least one triangle. For claim 19, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner: A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising: decompressing a compressed topology block to obtain vertex indices for [[a]] at least one triangle of a set of triangles, wherein the decompressing includes: determining a highest index for the at least one triangle based on the compressed topology block, determining a lowest index for the at least one triangle based on the compressed topology block, and determining all indices for the at least one triangle based on the highest index, the lowest index, and a code history of the compressed topology block; and rendering the at least one triangle based on the vertex indices. For claim 20, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner: The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19, wherein determining the highest index includes determining a number of new indices introduced with each triangle up to the at least one triangle . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 2-4, 11-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. For dependent claim 2, parent claim 1 establishes “a triangle” and claim 2 goes on to establish “each triangle”. Claim 2 goes on to recite the phrase “the triangle” and it is unclear and ambiguous to which of “triangle” and “each triangle” is being referenced by the phrase “the triangle”. Examiner has suggested amendments in the claim objections discussed above to resolve the ambiguities. For dependent claims 3-4, these claims depend from claim 2 and inherit the deficiencies of claim 2. Therefore, claims 3-4 are likewise indefinite. For dependent claim 11, parent claim 10 establishes “a triangle” and claim 11 goes on to establish “each triangle”. Claim 11 goes on to recite the phrase “the triangle” and it is unclear and ambiguous to which of “triangle” and “each triangle” is being referenced by the phrase “the triangle”. Examiner has suggested amendments in the claim objections discussed above to resolve the ambiguities. For dependent claims 12-13, these claims depend from claim 11 and inherit the deficiencies of claim 11. Therefore, claims 12-13 are likewise indefinite. For dependent claim 20, parent claim 19 establishes “a triangle” and claim 20 goes on to establish “each triangle”. Claim 20 goes on to recite the phrase “the triangle” and it is unclear and ambiguous to which of “triangle” and “each triangle” is being referenced by the phrase “the triangle”. Examiner has suggested amendments in the claim objections discussed above to resolve the ambiguities. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-4, 9-13 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Meyer et al., Data-Parallel Decompression of Triangle Mesh Topology , Computer Graphics Forum, vol. 31, no. 8, October 2012 (hereinafter “Meyer”) . For claim 1, Meyer discloses a method for performing rendering operations (disclosing a method to perform rendering (pages 2541-2542/Fig. 1)) , the method comprising: decompressing a compressed topology block to obtain vertex indices for a triangle of a set of triangles (disclosing an algorithm to decompress a compressed topology block in vertex array V to obtain vertex indices in explicit representation T for a triangle in a triangle strip as a set of triangles (pages 2544-2546/Figs. 3-4)) , wherein the decompressing includes: determining a highest index for the triangle based on the compressed topology block (disclosing determination of a highest index for the triangle based on the compressed technology block, for example, determining the highest index as “2” for a blue triangle in vertex array V (pages 2544-2546/Figs. 3-4)) , determining a lowest index for the triangle based on the compressed topology block (disclosing determination of a lowest index for the triangle based on the compressed technology block, for example, determining the lowest index as “0” for the blue triangle in vertex array V (pages 2544-2546/Figs. 3-4)) , and determining all indices for the triangle based on the highest index, the lowest index, and a code history of the compressed topology block (disclosing determination of all indices for the triangle based on the highest index, the lowest index and a code history as indicated by a block in a corresponding strip-code array, for example determining all indices of “0”, “1” and “2” for the blue triangle in vertex array V based on the highest index “2”, the lowest index “0” and a corresponding block with code “R” in a corresponding stripe-code array C (pages 2544-2546/Figs. 3-4)) ; and rendering the triangle based on the vertex indices (disclosing rendering of the triangle based on the vertex indices (page 2546/Fig. 4 and page 2549)) . For claim 2, depending on claim 1, Meyer discloses wherein determining the highest index includes determining a number of new indices introduced with each triangle up to the triangle (disclosing determination of incremental vertices for with a corresponding number of new indices to be added with each triangle for a triangle in the triangle strip (pages 2545-2547/Fig. 3)) . For claim 3, depending on claim 2, Meyer discloses wherein each triangle that comprises a reset triangle introduces three new indices and each other triangle introduces one new index (disclosing a triangle to be introduced may be a restart (reset) triangle to introduce three new indices for the three vertices of the restart triangle and each other triangle may introduce one new index (pages 2545-2547/Fig. 3)) . For claim 4, depending on claim 2, Meyer discloses wherein determining the highest index includes calculating a sum of the number of new indices introduced, up to the triangle (disclosing the performance of a max-can and a sum of the number of new indices introduced to determine the highest index for a triangle in the triangle strip (pages 2544-2545/Fig. 3)) . For claim 9, depending on claim 1, Meyer discloses wherein rendering the triangle includes obtaining vertex information based on indices of the triangle (disclosing the indices of the triangle are used to obtain vertex attributes such as positions, normal and colors for rendering the triangle (pages 2541 and 2550-2551)) . For claim 10, Meyer discloses a system (disclosing a system (page 2550)) comprising: a memory configured to store a compressed topology block (disclosing memory for storing a compressed topology block (page 2545/Fig. 3 and page 2550)) ; and a processor (disclosing a graphics processing unit (GPU) as a processor to perform the functions of the system (page 2550)) configured to perform operations comprising the method of claim 1 (see above as to claim 1) . For claim 11, depending on claim 10, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 10 and claim 2. It follows claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 10 and claim 2. For claim 12, depending on claim 11, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 11 and claim 3. It follows claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 11 and claim 3. For claim 13, depending on claim 11, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 11 and claim 4. It follows claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 11 and claim 4. For claim 18, depending on claim 10, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 10 and claim 9. It follows claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 10 and claim 9. For claim 19, Meyer discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor (disclosing memory for storing instructions for execution by a graphics processing unit (GPU) as a processor to perform the functions of a system (page 2550)) to perform operations comprising the method of claim 1 (see above as to claim 1) . For claim 20, depending on claim 19, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 19 and claim 2. It follows claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 19 and claim 2 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 6, 7, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Touma et al. (U.S. Patent 8,493,381, hereinafter “Touma”) . For claim 6, depending on claim 1, Meyer does not disclose determining an index includes subtracting a basis from another index. However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Touma. Touma similarly discloses a system and method for compressing geometry (col. 1/lines 25-41). Touma explains its system may determine an index by subtracting an offset as a basis from another index (col. 11/lines 3-11). It follows Meyer may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Touma to determine its lowest index by subtracting an offset as a bias from its highest index. A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Meyer with the teachings of Touma. Touma is analogous art in dealing with a system and method for compressing geometry (col. 1/lines 25-41). Touma discloses its use of subtraction with an offset is advantageous in determining indices for appropriately decompressing compressed geometry data (col. 10/lines 50-60; and col. 11/lines 3-11). Consequently, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of Touma into Meyer for determining indices for appropriately decompressing compressed geometry data. Therefore, claim 6 is rendered obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For claim 7, depending on claim 6, Meyer as modified by Touma discloses wherein the bias is based on whether a code changes occurs (Meyer discloses determining a code change occurs in the strip-code array C for determining the indices of a triangle (page 2545/Fig. 3); Touma similarly discloses a system and method for compressing geometry (col. 1/lines 25-41); Touma explains its system may determine an index by subtracting an offset as a basis from another index (col. 11/lines 3-11); and it follows Meyer may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Touma to determine its lowest index by subtracting an offset as a bias from its highest index where the bias is based on whether a code change occurs) . For claim 15, depending on claim 10, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 10 and claim 6. It follows claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 10 and claim 6. For claim 16, depending on claim 15, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 15 and claim 7. It follows claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 15 and claim 7. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5, 8, 14 and 17 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, and to address any claim objections raised above in the Detailed Action. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES TSENG whose telephone number is (571)270-3857. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5. 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, Xiao Wu can be reached at (571) 272-7761. 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. /CHARLES TSENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/949,417 Page 2 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/949,417 Page 3 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/949,417 Page 4 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/949,417 Page 5 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/949,417 Page 6 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/949,417 Page 7 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/949,417 Page 8 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/949,417 Page 9 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/949,417 Page 10 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/949,417 Page 11 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/949,417 Page 12 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/949,417 Page 13 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/949,417 Page 14 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/949,417 Page 15 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/949,417 Page 16 Art Unit: 2613
Prosecution Insights