CTNF 18/971,781 CTNF 88481 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. Specification 07-29-04 The disclosure is objected to because it contains embedded hyperlinks in paragraphs 15, 67, and 84. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01. Claim Objections The claims are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 5 and 11 recite “and instance,” which appears to contain a typographical error. Claim 7 recites “received from received from,” which appears to contain a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1, 6, 7, and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 6, 7, 13, and 14, respectively , of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,252 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims (including the limitations from their parent claims) recite each limitation, or a trivial variation, of the current claims . The following table illustrates a sample mapping of the limitations of claim 1 of the current application when compared against the pertinent limitations of claim 6 (including the limitations of parent claim 1) of the patent. The remaining claims can be mapped in a similar manner. Current Application Patent 1. A ray tracing acceleration hardware device comprising: memory configured to store at least portions of an acceleration data structure (AS); ray storage configured to store data representing a ray to traverse the AS, 1. A ray tracing acceleration hardware device comprising: memory configured to store at least portions of an acceleration data structure (AS); ray storage configured to store data representing a ray to traverse the AS, wherein the at least portions of the AS and the data are received from a processor; traversal circuitry configured to traverse the AS according to the ray, the traversing including, at a node of the AS: wherein the at least portions of the AS and the data are received from a processor; traversal circuitry configured to traverse the AS according to the ray, traversing including, at a node of the AS: determining whether a first test is failed, wherein the first test is failed when the node is at least one of (a) an instance node, (b) subject to triangle splitting, and (c) includes geometry indicated to be sent to the processor; (claim 6) determining whether a first test is failed, wherein the first test is failed when the node is at least one of (a) an instance node, (b) subject to triangle splitting, and (c) includes geometry indicated to be sent to the processor; when the first test is failed, a point culling indicator corresponding to the node is set in the portions of the AS, and it is determined that a bounding box corresponding to the node degenerates to a point, culling the node; (claim 6) when the point culling indicator corresponding to the node is set in the portions of the AS, the first test is failed and it is determined that the bounding box degenerates to a point, culling the node; and when the first test is successful, the point culling indicator corresponding to the node is not set in the portions of the AS, or it is determined that the bounding box does not degenerate to a point, continuing traversing of the node. (claim 6) and when the point culling indicator corresponding to the node is not set in the portions of the AS, the first test is successful or it is determined that the bounding box does not degenerate to a point, continuing traversing of the node . Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-12 are free from the prior art, and would be allowable if any double patenting rejections set forth in this Office action are overcome. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In the context of the claimed ray tracing hardware/method including testing a ray against bounding boxes of nodes in the claimed acceleration data structure, the known prior art does not teach or render obvious determining whether a first test is failed, wherein the first test is failed when the node is at least one of (a) an instance node, (b) subject to triangle splitting, and (c) includes geometry indicated to be sent to the processor; when the first test is failed, a point culling indicator corresponding to the node is set in the portions of the AS, and it is determined that a bounding box corresponding to the node degenerates to a point, culling the node; and when the first test is successful, the point culling indicator corresponding to the node is not set in the portions of the AS, or it is determined that the bounding box does not degenerate to a point, continuing traversing of the node . The closest prior art includes Muthler et al. (US 2020/0050550) and Laine et al. (US 2020/0051315), which teach changing ray traversal behavior according to a size of a bounding volume in relation to a distance from an origin of a ray (Muthler, para. 146; Laine, paras. 137 and 187). However, these references do not contain sufficient details in relation to the specificity of the claim language as to how the traversal behavior is changed and they do not specifically reference a bounding box degenerating to a point. Therefore, they do not teach the scope of the current claims. 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 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. /RYAN MCCULLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/971,781 Page 2 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/971,781 Page 3 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/971,781 Page 4 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/971,781 Page 5 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/971,781 Page 6 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/971,781 Page 7 Art Unit: 2611 Application/Control Number: 18/971,781 Page 8 Art Unit: 2611
Prosecution Insights