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 .
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 §§ 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/patent/patents-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 www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Against Patent 12,217,353
Claims 1-8, 10-18, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8, 8, 8, 8, 9, 8+11, 8+10, 8+11, 8+14, 8, 8, 8, 8, 9, 8+11, 8+10, 8+11, and 8 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,217,353. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, the claims of the instant application are obvious variant of the corresponding ones of the US Patent No. 12,217,353. Furthermore, the scopes of the claims on the instant application are also met and encompassed by the corresponding ones of the Patent No. 12,217,353.
The apparent difference between the conflicting claims mainly arises from the style of limitation recitation and relative placement of conflicting elements within the claims’ body.
In few cases, subject matters of more than one claims are added from the Patent to yield the conflicting claim of the instant application. Combining claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to yield subject matter of the conflicting claim in the instant application, because, both the patent and the instant application pertains to same/similar invention.
Method claims 10-18, of the instant application is shown conflicting to respective apparatus claims of the Patent. This is considered an obvious analysis to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), because, apparatus performs the method in question and thus they are considered substantively similar.
CRM claim 20 of the instant application is shown conflicting to respective apparatus claim(s) of the Patent. This is considered an obvious analysis to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), because, apparatus performs the method in question which can be stored as instructions in CRM to be executed by a processor and thus they are considered substantively similar.
Against Patent 11,830,124
Claims 1-8, 10-18, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6, 6, 6, 6, 7, 6+9, 6+8, 6+9, 6+12, 6, 6, 6, 6, 9, 6+9, 6+8, 6+9, and 6 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 11,830,124. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, the claims of the instant application are obvious variant of the corresponding ones of the US Patent No. 11,830,124. Furthermore, the scopes of the claims on the instant application are also met and encompassed by the corresponding ones of the Patent No. 11,830,124.
The apparent difference between the conflicting claims mainly arises from the style of limitation recitation and relative placement of conflicting elements within the claims’ body.
In few cases, subject matters of more than one claims are added from the Patent to yield the conflicting claim of the instant application. Combining claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to yield subject matter of the conflicting claim in the instant application, because, both the patent and the instant application pertains to same/similar invention.
Method claims 10-18, of the instant application is shown conflicting to respective apparatus claims of the Patent. This is considered an obvious analysis to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), because, apparatus performs the method in question and thus they are considered substantively similar.
CRM claim 20 of the instant application is shown conflicting to respective apparatus claim(s) of the Patent. This is considered an obvious analysis to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), because, apparatus performs the method in question which can be stored as instructions in CRM to be executed by a processor and thus they are considered substantively similar.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, Laine et al. (US 20200051314 A1) discloses an apparatus (ray tracing graphics system of fig. 1, and/or PPU 1700, fig. 18), comprising:
a graphics processor (GPC 1750, fig. 18) configured to determine whether a ray intersects a primitive in a graphics scene (intersection test done in units 1010, 1024, fig. 10b) based on traversal (using traversal coprocessor of fig. 9), wherein the graphics processor includes:
traversal circuitry (using traversal coprocessor of fig. 9) configured to traverse an acceleration data structure (ADS shown in fig. 8b, ¶0039) that includes hierarchically-arranged bounding volumes (BVH of figs. 8a-b, also see 1010 & 1024 of fig. 10b) for at least a portion of a graphics scene (scene shown in display 150, fig. 1 and/or scene of fig. 7a-b), including to:
perform a depth-first search of the acceleration data structure for a ray (The traversal coprocessor 138 thus performs a depth-first traversal of intersected descendent branch nodes until leaf nodes are reached, ¶0111. Also see ¶0134-0135); and
for a set of child nodes of a first node in the acceleration data structure, select a next node for the depth-first search according to an ordering of intersected bounding regions for the set of child nodes (In some non-limiting embodiments, the acceleration data structure comprises a hierarchy of bounding volumes (bounding volume hierarchy or BVH) that recursively encapsulates smaller and smaller bounding volume subdivisions. The largest volumetric bounding volume may be termed a “root node.” The smallest subdivisions of such hierarchy of bounding volumes (“leaf nodes”) contain items, ¶0062.
A bounding volume hierarchy (BVH) data structure is one type of acceleration data structure which can help reduce the number of intersections to test. The BVH data structure represents a scene or object with a bounding volume and subdivides the bounding volume into smaller and smaller bounding volumes terminating in leaf nodes containing geometric primitives. The bounding volumes are hierarchical, meaning that the topmost level encloses the level below it, that level encloses the next level below it, and so on. In one embodiment, leaf nodes can potentially overlap other leaf nodes in the bounding volume hierarchy, ¶0095).
However, neither Laine, nor any other prior arts of record taken alone or in combination reasonably discloses or suggests the limitation of, wherein the ordering begins with a bounding volume that is closer to a mid-point of a ray being tested than one or more front bounding volumes and one or more back bounding volumes.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WOOP (US 20210287428)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NURUN FLORA whose telephone number is (571)272-5742. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am -5:00 pm.
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.
/NURUN FLORA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619
Prosecution Insights