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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “ray definition module” in claim 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 12-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pharr et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20030227457).
With respect to claim 1, Pharr et al. disclose a computer-implemented method of rendering an image of a 3-D scene using a ray tracing system, the method comprising: identifying an intersection at an intersection point between a first ray and a primitive located in the 3-D scene (paragraph 106, The third ray cast, ray 450, intersects the second primitive 120-2); emitting the secondary ray from the origin (paragraph 106, The renderer 23 (and shaders 22) responds to this intersection by casting additional rays 460, 470, 480 from this intersection); and processing the secondary ray for use in rendering the image of the 3-D scene (paragraph 107, Note that the rays 460, 470, 480 cast from the second primitive 120-2 may be thought of as secondary rays since they are used to compute a color value for the intersection of another ray and a primitive). Computing a color value is used to render the image of the 3-D scene. Pharr et al. disclose in an alternative embodiment determining an offset between the intersection point and an origin of a secondary ray which lies on an implicit curved surface associated with the primitive (paragraph 117, FIG. 5D illustrates ray 544 after its origin is moved to four exemplary positions on the (first) shading grid); determining that the offset would place the origin of the secondary ray on a side of the primitive opposite a direction of a geometric normal associated with the primitive (paragraph 133, FIG. 6A is illustrative of this problem and includes a side-view of two flat, perpendicular primitives 120 (i.e., the first and second primitive) that abut each other along a common edge that includes the primitive-edge vertex designated 606, a set of rays 608 cast from the primitive-edge vertex 606, valid object scene space 610, and invalid object scene space 612 [invalid object scene space 612 is opposite a direction of the normal associated with primitive 12-2]); clipping the offset to a surface of the primitive or to a minimum offset which would not place the origin of the secondary ray on the side of the primitive opposite the direction of the geometric normal associated with the primitive (paragraph 13, To avoid this problem, the renderer 23 preferably offsets the origin of the set of rays 608 so that the rays 608 can not be cast directly into the invalid object scene space 612, paragraph 136, FIG. 6B illustrates a result of shifting the origin of the rays 608 illustrated in FIG. 6A away from the primitive-edge vertex 606). It would have been obvious to apply the teachings of determining an offset, determining that the offset would place the origin of the secondary ray on a side of the primitive opposite a direction of a geometric normal associated with the primitive, and clipping the offset because this would solve the problem of rays typically return color values that produce invalid shadows along edges of a primitive (paragraph 134 of Pharr et al.), which would cause image artifacts.
With respect to claim 2, Pharr et al. disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the secondary ray is emitted in response to the identification of the intersection between the first ray and the primitive (paragraph 106, The third ray cast, ray 450, intersects the second primitive 120-2. The renderer 23 (and shaders 22) responds to this intersection by casting additional rays 460, 470, 480 from this intersection).
With respect to claim 3, Pharr et al. disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the first ray is a primary ray, and wherein the primitive is a planar primitive (paragraph 106, The third ray cast, ray 450, intersects the second primitive 120-2. The renderer 23 (and shaders 22) responds to this intersection by casting additional rays 460, 470, 480 from this intersection). The third ray cast, ray 450 is considered a primary ray (paragraph 155, rays that trigger secondary rays) and primitive 120-2 is shown as a planar primitive in Fig. 4.
With respect to claim 4, Pharr et al. disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the origin of the secondary ray is offset from the intersection point by an offset amount which varies in dependence upon the position of the intersection point (paragraph 117, The origin of ray 544a, as indicated by the thin black line, is located at the intersection of the ray 544 (if traced towards the first shading grid) and the first shading grid). The offset amount is based on the position of the intersection point (original location of the secondary ray) and position of the ray 544a after it is shifted.
With respect to claim 5, Pharr et al. disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the origin of the secondary ray is offset from the intersection point by an offset amount which is dependent on a relative position of the intersection point to vertices defining the primitive in the 3-D scene (paragraph 121, parameters of parametrically defined primitives (e.g., NURBS) are used to compute positions on shading grids corresponding to vertices of visibility grids. When a primitive is defined parametrically, the vertices of a corresponding visibility grid and a corresponding shading grid include parameters associated with a specific position on the primitive).
With respect to claim 6, Pharr et al. disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the origin of the secondary ray is offset from the intersection point by an offset amount which is dependent on indicia of curvature calculated for the primitive (paragraph 121, parameters of parametrically defined primitives (e.g., NURBS) are used to compute positions on shading grids corresponding to vertices of visibility grids. When a primitive is defined parametrically, the vertices of a corresponding visibility grid and a corresponding shading grid include parameters associated with a specific position on the primitive). As shown in Fig. 5E, the vertices define the surface, which define an indicia of curvature.
With respect to claim 12, Pharr et al. disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the offset of the origin from the intersection point is in a direction along a geometric normal of the primitive at the intersection point or is along the incoming direction of the first ray (paragraph 117, One position is illustrated by ray 544a. The origin of ray 544a, as indicated by the thin black line, is located at the intersection of the ray 544 (if traced towards the first shading grid) and the first shading grid). The offset is along the incoming direction of the first ray 544.
With respect to claim 13, Pharr et al. disclose the method of claim 1, wherein said processing the secondary ray for use in rendering the image of the 3-D scene comprises: tracing the secondary ray through the scene to identify an intersection involving the secondary ray; and using the results of the tracing of the secondary ray in rendering the image of the 3-D scene (paragraph 106, Two of these rays 460, 470 are cast towards, and intersect, the first and second light sources 410, 420 respectively. These intersections provide color values for the ray intersection on the second primitive 120-2 (e.g., the origin of the rays 460, 470). A third ray, ray 480, cast from the second primitive 120-2 does not intersect any of the primitives illustrated in FIG. 4. When this occurs, a background color value is typically assigned to the ray (e.g., to the origin of the ray). The color values computed for the rays 460, 470, 480 cast from the second primitive 120-2 are then used to compute a color value for the intersection of the ray 450 cast from the first primitive and intersected with the second primitive 120-2. This color value is then used along with the color values computed for the other two rays 430, 440 cast from the first primitive 120-1 to compute a color value for the vertex being shaded).
With respect to claim 14, Pharr et al. disclose the method of claim 13, wherein the secondary ray is an occlusion ray, and the tracing determines whether a source of light in the direction of that occlusion ray, if any, is prevented from reaching the surface of the primitive (paragraph 106, the ray 440 cast towards the second light source is blocked by the third primitive 120-3. As a result, the vertex being shaded is in a shadow cast by the second light source 420 and the third primitive 120-3 (e.g., they too provide a color value for the vertex)). Although ray 440 is cast from the first primitive, Pharr et al. disclose the concept of an occlusion ray, which is applicable to a secondary ray in a certain configuration of primitives and light sources.
With respect to claim 15, Pharr et al. disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the primitive is defined by at least two vertices and the method comprises associating a vector with each of the vertices defining the primitive (paragraph 136, FIG. 6C illustrate the general direction that ray origins are shifted for a primitive comprised of six polygons in an embodiment of the present invention). The polygons are defined by at least two vertices with an associated vector in Fig. 6C.
With respect to claim 17, Pharr et al. disclose a ray tracing system for rendering an image of a 3-D scene (paragraph 28, FIG. 1A shows a computer device 100), the ray tracing system comprising: a ray definition module configured (paragraph 28, Included in the computer device 100 is a central processing unit (CPU) 10, a memory 20, and i/o devices 30. The CPU 10 executes instructions as directed by the operating system 29 and other programs maintained in the memory 20 and sends control signals to various hardware components included in the computer device 100) to, based on an identified intersection at an intersection point between a first ray and a primitive located in the 3-D scene (paragraph 106, The third ray cast, ray 450, intersects the second primitive 120-2) execute the method of claim 1; see rationale for rejection of claim 1.
With respect to claim 18, Pharr et al. disclose the ray tracing system of claim 17, wherein the origin of the secondary ray is offset from the intersection point by an offset amount which varies in dependence upon the position of the intersection point (paragraph 117, The origin of ray 544a, as indicated by the thin black line, is located at the intersection of the ray 544 (if traced towards the first shading grid) and the first shading grid). The offset amount is based on the position of the intersection point (original location of the secondary ray) and position of the ray 544a after it is shifted.
With respect to claim 19, Pharr et al. disclose the ray tracing system of claim 17, wherein the offset of the origin of the secondary ray from the intersection point is along one of the incoming direction of the first ray and a geometric normal for the primitive at the intersection point (paragraph 117, One position is illustrated by ray 544a. The origin of ray 544a, as indicated by the thin black line, is located at the intersection of the ray 544 (if traced towards the first shading grid) and the first shading grid). The offset is along the incoming direction of the first ray 544.
With respect to claim 20, Pharr et al. disclose a non-transitory computer readable medium (paragraph 157, The present invention can be implemented as a computer program product that includes a computer program mechanism embedded in a computer readable storage medium) having stored thereon computer executable instructions, which when executed cause at least one processor to render an image of a 3-D scene by implementing the method of claim 1; see rationale for rejection of claim 1.
Claims 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pharr et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20030227457) in view of Howson et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20140063016).
With respect to claim 7, Pharr et al. do not expressly disclose the indicia of curvature comprise coefficients associated with respective vertices of the primitive and the offset is determined based at least in part on using the coefficients in a polynomial that weights the coefficients using barycentric coordinates of the intersection point.
Howson et al., who also deal with ray tracing, disclose a method wherein the indicia of curvature comprise coefficients associated with respective vertices of the
primitive and the offset is determined based at least in part on using the coefficients in a polynomial that weights the coefficients using barycentric coordinates of the intersection point (paragraph 46, barycentric coordinate weights allow for identifying a point on a plane of a triangle as a weighted linear combination of vertices of the triangle, in a circumstance where the barycentric weights are all positive and add to one (so that the point is on the plane of the triangle). These barycentric coordinates are a natural byproduct of some ray intersection testing algorithms).
Pharr et al. and Howson et al. are in the same field of endeavor, namely computer graphics.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to apply the method wherein the indicia of curvature comprise coefficients associated with respective vertices of the primitive and the offset is determined based at least in part on using the coefficients in a polynomial that weights the coefficients using barycentric coordinates of the intersection point, as taught by Howson et al., to the Pharr et al. system, because this would allow for ray tracing triangular primitives and obtaining barycentric coordinates from ray intersection testing algorithms.
With respect to claim 10, Pharr et al. as modified by Howson et al. disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the primitive is a triangle and a respective pair of coefficients are calculated for each of three vertices defining the triangle, wherein the coefficients of a pair define an initial offset for the respective vertex towards each of the other two vertices defining the triangle, and wherein these coefficients are modulated to produce a final value for the origin offset, using barycentric coordinates of the intersection point (Howson et al.: paragraph 46, barycentric coordinate weights allow for identifying a point on a plane of a triangle as a weighted linear combination of vertices of the triangle, in a circumstance where the barycentric weights are all positive and add to one (so that the point is on the plane of the triangle). These barycentric coordinates are a natural byproduct of some ray intersection testing algorithms).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9, 11, and 16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the cited art teaches or suggests the method of determining the origin offsets as detailed in claims 8 and 11, i.e., wherein offset coefficients are calculated for each vertex defining the primitive, a value for each offset coefficient being calculated based on defining a respective perpendicular to a vector associated with each of the vertices defining the primitive;
wherein the planar primitive is a triangle and the origin offset is determined using barycentric coordinates for the intersection point to determine a blending among offset coefficients associated with the vertices of the triangle, wherein each of the offset coefficients is determined based on a dot product of a vector associated with one of the vertices and a geometric normal associated with the primitive, weighted by a measure of a size of the primitive.
None of the cited art teaches or suggests an acute vector relationship for clipping the offsets, i.e., wherein the method comprises determining that each vector associated with a respective vertex defining the primitive makes an acute angle with the primitive and clipping the offset in response to determining that each vector associated with a respective vertex defining the primitive makes an acute angle with the primitive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. PGPUB 20090167763 to Waechter et al. for a method of using a small offset on secondary rays
U.S. Patent No. 5,933,146 to Wrigley for a method of moving the origin to any intersection point found.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW GUS YANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5514. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM - 5:30 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, Kent Chang can be reached at (571)272-7667. 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.
/ANDREW G YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2614
8/5/26
Prosecution Insights