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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 5, 13, 15, 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.
The term “low surface area” in claims 5 and 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low surface area” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear where the boundary would be between optimizing for low surface area versus medium surface area or any other surface area size.
Regarding claims 15 and 20, the phrase "e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The phrase “e.g.” is generally equivalent to “for example” and thus the discussion of the language “for example” in MPEP is relevant to the phrase “e.g.” used in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 –
(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.
Claims 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Garanzha (U.S. Publication 2013/0016109).
As to claim 16, Garanzha discloses a system, comprising:
one or more processing units (p. 14, sections 0116-0117) to determine a set of clusters of geometric primitives (p. 10, section 0085-p. 11, section 0096; a set of primitive clusters is determined based on surface area and memory efficient heuristics) to be used to perform light transport simulation for an image to be rendered (p. 1, section 0021; the ray tracing and intersection tests for rendering can be used in a light transport algorithm, which would read on a light transport simulation), the clusters determined recursively by splitting the geometric primitives into smaller clusters based in part on spatial positions of the geometric primitives, a target cluster size, and a minimum cost with respect to bounding geometries around the clusters (p. 10, section 0085-p. 11, section 0096; recursive subdivision is used to split the clusters; surface area and memory efficient heuristics are taken into account based on centroid position of the primitives, and costs are minimized with respect to separation of axis aligned bounding boxes).
As to claim 17, Garanzha discloses wherein the clusters include at most one cluster that does not correspond to the target cluster size (p. 10, section 0084-p. 11, section 0085; p. 12, sections 0102-0103; every primitive cluster has the same size in memory, which reads on a target cluster size, meaning that zero clusters have a size that is not the target cluster size or a multiple thereof).
As to claim 18, Garanzha discloses wherein the spatial positions correspond to centroids calculated for the geometric primitives (p. 11, section 0086; positions for the primitives are evaluated at each primitive’s centroid).
As to claim 20, Garanzha discloses wherein the system comprises at least one of a system for performing light transport simulation and a system for rendering graphical output (p. 1, section 0021; the ray tracing and intersection tests can be used in rendering and/or a light transport algorithm, which would read on a light transport simulation).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garanzha in view of Chajdas (U.S. Publication 2025/0307207).
As to claim 1, Garanzha discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising:
identifying spatial positions of a plurality of geometric primitives to be used to render an image of a scene (p. 11, section 0086; each primitive centroid position is identified for use in evaluation);
determining potential sub-groupings of the plurality of geometric primitives based in part on the spatial positions (p. 11, section 0086; each primitive centroid position is used to group the primitives), at most one of the potential sub-groupings having a size that is not a multiple of a target group size (p. 10, section 0084-p. 11, section 0085; p. 12, sections 0102-0103; every primitive sub-grouping has the same size in memory, which reads on a target group size, meaning that zero groupings have a size that is not the target group size or a multiple thereof);
selecting a sub-grouping that produces a minimum cost determined using at least a surface area heuristic with respect to bounding geometries around the potential sub-groupings (p. 10, section 0085-p. 11, section 0096; surface area and memory efficient heuristics are taken into account and costs are minimized with respect to separation of axis aligned bounding boxes); and
providing a set of final sub-groupings of the geometric primitives to be used to render the image (p. 2, sections 0024-0029; p. 11-12, section 0100; a group of final clusters/sub-groupings is output and used to accelerate ray tracing or otherwise render a scene).
Garanzha does not disclose, but Chajdas discloses determining, for each of a number of iterations, sub-groupings, selecting, for each iteration of the number of iterations, a sub-grouping, and providing, after a final iteration of the number of iterations, a set of final sub-groupings (p. 4, section 0023; p. 5, sections 0040-p. 6, section 0049; for each of a number of iterations, cluster subgroupings are created and selected for subdivision using a surface area heuristic; after a condition is met, no further iterations are performed and the output of this final iteration is the final cluster subgroupings). The motivation for this is to increase suitability for real-time or interactive applications where efficiency is important (p. 1, section 0003). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Garanzha to determine, for each of a number of iterations, sub-groupings, select, for each iteration of the number of iterations, a sub-grouping, and provide, after a final iteration of the number of iterations, a set of final sub-groupings in order to increase suitability for real-time or interactive applications where efficiency is important as taught by Chajdas.
As to claim 2, Garanzha discloses wherein the target group size corresponds to a maximum number of geometric primitives that can concurrently be stored in memory of a processing unit (p. 4, section 0044-p. 5, section 0048; p. 10, section 0084; p. 11, sections 0095-0098; a target size is the maximum number of primitives that can be stored in each memory division; when optimally arranged, the memory is filled with primitives).
As to claim 3, Garanzha discloses wherein the set of final sub-groupings includes at most one sub-grouping that does not correspond to the target group size (p. 10, section 0084-p. 11, section 0085; p. 12, sections 0102-0103; every primitive sub-grouping has the same size in memory, which reads on a target group size, meaning that zero groupings have a size that is not the target group size or a multiple thereof).
As to claim 4, Chajdas discloses a method further comprising determining the potential sub-groupings in part by sweeping along at least two different axes in two different directions (p. 4, sections 0033-p. 5, section 0037; clusters/subgroupings are determined by sweeping along x, y, and z axes in minimum and maximum directions to determine extents of the primitives). Motivation for the combination is given in the rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 7, Garanzha discloses wherein the bounding geometries correspond to bounding boxes, aligned with a coordinate system for the scene, calculated for the plurality of geometric primitives (p. 10, section 0085-p. 11, section 0098; axis-aligned bounding boxes bounding the primitives are aligned with axes in the coordinate system for the scene).
As to claim 8, Garanzha discloses wherein the spatial positions correspond to centroids calculated for the plurality of geometric primitives (p. 11, section 0086; positions for the primitives are evaluated at each primitive’s centroid).
As to claim 9, Garanzha discloses wherein the geometric primitives include triangular faces (p. 2-3, section 0033) to be used for hit testing (p. 7, section 0063-p. 8, section 0071; primitives are tested for intersection with rays) during an implementation of a light transport simulation technique (p. 1, section 0021; the ray tracing and intersection tests can be used in a light transport algorithm, which would read on a light transport simulation technique).
As to claim 10, see the rejection to claim 1. Further, Garanzha discloses at least one processor comprising one or more processing units to perform the method (p. 14, sections 0116-0117).
As to claim 11, see the rejections to claims 1 and 3.
As to claim 12, see the rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 15, Garanzha discloses wherein the system comprises at least one of a system for performing light transport simulation and a system for rendering graphical output (p. 1, section 0021; the ray tracing and intersection tests can be used in rendering or a light transport algorithm, which would read on a light transport simulation).
Claims 5, 6, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garanzha in view of Chajdas and further in view of Stich (U.S. Patent 8,471,845).
As to claim 5, Garanzha does not disclose, but Stich discloses wherein the surface area heuristic is used to optimize for low surface area of a bounding geometry relative to a number of geometric primitives grouped within the bounding geometries. (col. 5, lines 19-55; a cost optimizes for a ratio of primitives/objects to surface area of a bounding volume/geometry; thus low surface area geometries can be optimized by not performing further splits). The motivation for this is to increase efficiency, taking into account that overlapping regions are expensive processing-wise (col. 2, lines 4-18). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Garanzha and Chajdas to have the surface area heuristic used to optimize for low surface area of a bounding geometry relative to a number of geometric primitives grouped within the bounding geometries in order to increase efficiency as taught by Stich.
As to claim 6, Garanzha does not disclose, but Stich discloses wherein the surface area heuristic uses a weighted combination of surface area size and overlap of the bounding geometries (col. 12, line 63-col. 13, line 49; a combination of surface area size and total overlap of bounding volumes/geometries are combined and evaluated using a weighting factor). The motivation for this is to increase efficiency, taking into account that overlapping regions are expensive processing-wise (col. 2, lines 4-18). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Garanzha and Chajdas to have an SAH use a weighted combination of surface area size and overlap of the bounding geometries in order to increase efficiency as taught by Stich.
As to claim 13, see the rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 14, see the rejection to claim 6.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garanzha in view of Stich.
As to claim 19, see the rejection to claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON M RICHER whose telephone number is (571)272-7790. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, King Poon can be reached at (571)272-7440. 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.
/AARON M RICHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights