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 . Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 18 and 19 are independent claims.
Claim Interpretation
Claimed elements in this application that use the word “unit” (or “module”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Claims 18-20 recite the combinations of “basis-calculation unit”, “principal-axes calculation unit”, “filter parameter unit”, “texture filter unit”, and “bypass detection module” which can be construed by those skilled in the art to define structural elements, as defined by the original disclosure at page 45, line 27 to page 49 line 10. Accordingly, these claimed limitations invoke 35 USC 112(f) interpretation to cover the corresponding structures described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalent thereof.
Double Patenting
3. 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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
4. Claims 1, 3-5, 12-16 and 18-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2-4, 11-15 and 17-18, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12190413, hereinafter ’13 patent. Although the claim at issue is not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the claim 1, which are not explicitly recited in the claim 1 of the ’13 patent would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made and/or would have been interpreted equivalent to those limitations recited in the Patent as seen to one of ordinary skill in the art, because they have somewhat similar structural and functional features.
For examples, claim 1 of the ’13 patent recites all the features and steps found in claim 1 of the instant application including a method of performing texture filtering (see col. 36 line 11 of the patent), comprising:
determining an angular displacement between a selected pair of the first and second pairs of screen-space basis vectors and screen-space principal axes of the local approximation of a mapping between screen space and texture space that indicate maximum and minimum scale factors of the mapping (see col. 36 lines 12-23 of the patent);
using the determined angular displacement and the selected pair of screen-space basis vectors to generate texture-space principal axes, the texture-space principal axes comprising a major axis associated with the maximum scale factor of the mapping and a minor axis associated with the minimum scale factor of the mapping (see col. 36 lines 24-30 of the patent); and
filtering a texture using the major and minor axes (see col. 36 line 31 of the patent).
As detailed above, all the steps required for performing the texture filtering of claim 1 in the instant application can all be found in claim 1 of the ‘13 patent. The only distinction between the present application’s claim 1 and claim 1 of the ‘13 patent is that claim 1 of the instant application is a broader version of what is cited in claim 1 of the ‘13 patent. However, there are no structural and functional differences between the claim sets.
Therefore, the artisan skilled in the art at the time the invention was made would have found it obvious to modify the teaching of claim 1 of the instant application as a general teaching for performing texture filtering on images to realize the method of claim 1 of the ‘13 patent.
Claim 18 of the application recites features that are analogous to the features found in claim 1 of said application, except the invention category. In the same manner, claim 17 of the ’13 patent recites analogous features to those of claim 1 of said patent. Thus, claim 18 of the application is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting over claim 17 of the ’13 patent for the same reasons described above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 19 of the application recites features that are analogous to the features found in claim 1 of said application, except the invention category. In the same manner, claim 18 of the ’13 patent recites analogous features to those of claim 1 of said patent. Thus, claim 19 of the application is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting over claim 18 of the ’13 patent for the same reasons described above with respect to claim 1.
While the features of an apparatus or method may be recited either functionally or structurally, claims directed to said apparatus or method must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structures rather than functions. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus or method is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus nor the method from a prior art if the prior art apparatus or method teaches all the structural and functional limitations of the claimed features. In the present case, the instant application’s claims 1, 18 and 19 are not structurally and/or functionally distinguishable from respective claims 1, 17 and 18 of the ‘13 patent. Further, the extent that the instant application claims are broaden and therefore generic to instant claimed invention, In re Goodman 29 USPQ 2d 2010 CAFC 1993, states that a generic claim cannot be issued without a terminal disclaimer, if a species claim has been previously been claimed in a patent. Thus, the granting of the current application’s claims would infringe with the claimed invention found in the ‘13 patent’s claims.
The features in each of claims 3-5 of the instant application are verbatim recited in each of corresponding claims 2-4 of the ’13 patent. As such, the granting of claims 3-5 in the current application would infringe with the claimed invention found in claims 2-4, respectively, of the ‘13 patent.
The features in each of claims 12-16 of the instant application are verbatim recited in each of corresponding claims 11-15 of the ’13 patent. As such, the granting of claims 12-16 of the current application would infringe with the claimed invention found in claims 11-15, respectively, of the ‘13 patent.
5. Claims 1, 3-5, 12-16 and 18-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2-4, 11-15 and 17-18, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 11715243, hereinafter ’43 patent. Although the claim at issue is not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the claim 1, which are not explicitly recited in the claim 1 of the ’43 patent would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made and/or would have been interpreted equivalent to those limitations recited in the Patent as seen to one of ordinary skill in the art, because they have somewhat similar structural and functional features.
For examples, claim 1 of the ’43 patent recites all the features and steps found in claim 1 of the instant application including a method of performing texture filtering (see col. 36 lines 15-16 of the patent), comprising:
determining an angular displacement between a selected pair of the first and second pairs of screen-space basis vectors and screen-space principal axes of the local approximation of a mapping between screen space and texture space that indicate maximum and minimum scale factors of the mapping (see col. 36 lines 17-30 of the patent);
using the determined angular displacement and the selected pair of screen-space basis vectors to generate texture-space principal axes, the texture-space principal axes comprising a major axis associated with the maximum scale factor of the mapping and a minor axis associated with the minimum scale factor of the mapping (see col. 36 lines 31-37 of the patent); and
filtering a texture using the major and minor axes (see col. 36 lines 38-41 of the patent).
As detailed above, all the steps required for performing the texture filtering of claim 1 in the instant application can all be found in device claim 1 of the ‘43 patent. The only distinction between the present application’s claim 1 and claim 1 of the ‘43 patent is that claim 1 of the instant application is a broader version of what is cited in claim 1 of the ‘43 patent. However, there are no structural and functional differences between the claim sets.
Therefore, the artisan skilled in the art at the time the invention was made would have found it obvious to modify the teaching of claim 1 of the instant application as a general teaching for performing texture filtering on images to realize the method of claim 1 of the ‘43 patent.
Claim 18 of the application recites features that are analogous to the features found in claim 1 of said application, except the invention category. In the same manner, claim 17 of the ’43 patent recites analogous features to those of claim 1 of said patent. Thus, claim 18 of the application is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting over claim 17 of the ’43 patent for the same reasons described above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 19 of the application recites features that are analogous to the features found in claim 1 of said application, except the invention category. In the same manner, claim 18 of the ’43 patent recites analogous features to those of claim 1 of said patent. Thus, claim 19 of the application is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting over claim 18 of the ’43 patent for the same reasons described above with respect to claim 1.
While the features of an apparatus or method may be recited either functionally or structurally, claims directed to said apparatus or method must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structures rather than functions. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus or method is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus nor the method from a prior art if the prior art apparatus or method teaches all the structural and functional limitations of the claimed features. In the present case, the instant application’s claims 1, 18 and 19 are not structurally and/or functionally distinguishable from respective claims 1, 17 and 18 of the ‘43 patent. Further, the extent that the instant application claims are broaden and therefore generic to instant claimed invention, In re Goodman 29 USPQ 2d 2010 CAFC 1993, states that a generic claim cannot be issued without a terminal disclaimer, if a species claim has been previously been claimed in a patent. Thus, the granting of the current application’s claims would infringe with the claimed invention found in the ‘43 patent’s claims.
The features in each of claims 3-5 of the instant application are verbatim recited in each of corresponding claims 2-4 of the ’43 patent. As such, the granting of claims 3-5 in the current application would infringe with the claimed invention found in claims 2-4, respectively, of the ‘43 patent.
The features in each of claims 12-16 of the instant application are verbatim recited in each of corresponding claims 11-15 of the ’43 patent. As such, the granting of claims 12-16 of the current application would infringe with the claimed invention found in claims 11-15, respectively, of the ‘43 patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 1-20 would be allowed upon the filling and approval of a Terminal Disclaimer to obviate the obviousness-type double patenting rejections of said claims.
Reasons for Indicating Allowable Subject Matters
7. The best prior art of record, Akenine-Moller et al. (US 20190236831) discloses a method for performing a texture level-of-detail approximation, by estimating the size of a texture footprint. As shown in operation 102, a scene to be rendered is identified, and in operation 104, a ray is projected that passes through a pixel of a screen space, resulting in a first hit point at a geometry element within the scene. In one embodiment, the one or more rendering operations may include one or more texturing operations, such as filtering operations using mip-maps. In another embodiment, the one or more rendering operations may include one or more mipmapping operations that are performed utilizing the texture LOD approximation. See paragraphs 24 and 30 ad 49.
Thus, Akenine-Moller describes performance of texture level-of-detail approximation that depict rendering operations that includes mipmapping operations. However, Akenine-Moller method does not describe determining an angular displacement between a selected pair of the first and second pairs of screen-space basis vectors and screen-space principal axes of the local approximation of the mapping that indicate the maximum and minimum scale factors of the mapping; using
the determined angular displacement and the selected pair of screen-space basis vectors to generate texture-space principal axes, the texture-space principal axes comprising a major axis associated with the maximum scale factor of the mapping and a minor axis associated with the minimum scale factor of the mapping for filtering a texture using the major and minor axes (as recited in claims 1 and 18); wherein the
apparatus comprising a basis-calculation unit that comprises a bypass detection module configured to determine whether at least one of a set of one or more bypass conditions are satisfied; and the apparatus being configured to, if none of the set of bypass conditions are satisfied being further configured to, if at least one of the set of bypass conditions are satisfied, perform a method of filtering comprising: at the basis calculation unit: selecting texture-space basis vectors corresponding to a pair of screen-space basis vectors and setting the selected texture-space vectors as the principal axes; and at the texture filter unit: filtering the texture using the principal axes (as recited in claim 19).
These features distinguish from the cited prior art and thus are considered to be novel in view of the prior art of record. Accordingly, the limitations of claims 1-20 of the current application would be allowed over the prior art if a terminal disclaimer is filled to obviate the obviousness-type double patenting rejections.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. They are as recited in the attached PTO-892 form.
Zwicker et al. (US 6744435) discloses a method produces an image from a set of discrete sample points. The sample points can define a 3D volume or surface. Each discrete sample point is projected to a screen space. A continuous resampling filter for each sample point is generated in screen space. The continuous resampling filter is a combination of a continuous reconstruction function and a continuous filter function for the sample point in screen space. The continuous resampling filter is then applied to each corresponding discrete sample in the screen space to generate a continuous sample for the image. The continuous samples can be rasterized to pixels using any known rasterization process or method.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESNER SAJOUS whose telephone number is is (571) 272-7791. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10:00 TO 7:30 (ET).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 or email the Examiner directly at wesner.sajous@uspto.gov.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Said Broome can be reached on 571-272-2931. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WESNER SAJOUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
WS
06/05/2026
Prosecution Insights