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 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: “a ray tracing unit” in claim 18.
Claim 18 is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) because claim 18 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,
Specification [0162] discloses a ray tracing unit is a processor or GPU. (“[0162] FIG. 11 shows a computer system in which the ray tracing units described herein may be implemented. The computer system comprises a CPU 1102, a GPU 1104, a memory 1106, a neural network accelerator (NNA) 1108 and other devices 1114, such as a display 1116, speakers 1118 and a camera 1122. A processing block 1110 (corresponding to the ray tracing unit 102) is implemented on the GPU 1104.”)
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 § 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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim 5 recites, wherein said processing the intersection between the ray and the primitive comprises: using the determined LODI for the primitive to select a mipmap level of a texture; and applying the texture, at the selected mipmap level, to the primitive. The bolded phrase “LODI” is not known. It is not clear what it means. The scope of the claim is not clear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 6-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 III provides a flowchart for the subject matter eligibility test for product and processes. The claim analysis following the flowchart is as follows:
Regarding claim 1,
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes. It recites a process.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or nature phenomenon?
Yes The claim recites, determining a value of one or more intersection attributes for a primary sample of the ray relating to an intersection between the ray and the primitive in a ray coordinate system, wherein the ray coordinate system has two non-parallel axes that are both transverse to the direction of the ray, and wherein an origin of the ray coordinate system is on the ray; for one or both of the two non-parallel axes of the ray coordinate system, determining data indicating a change to the one or more intersection attributes in a direction parallel to that axis; -which is directed to abstract idea corresponding to mathematical calculation because a human can perform these activities based on mathematical relations.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial Exception into a practical application?
No
The limitation does recite additional elements- processing the intersection between the ray and the primitive using the determined value of the one or more intersection attributes for the primary sample of the ray and the determined data indicating a change to the one or more intersection attributes in one or both of the directions parallel to the two non-parallel axes. However processing the intersection doesn’t tell anything about its practical application.
Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly more>
NO
The claim(s) includes additional elements “a ray tracing system” to perform the claimed steps, which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because a ray tracing system performing the claimed step is just user of a system to automate the claimed steps- which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
Claims 2-4 are directed to an abstract idea and because the additional elements are mathematical functions, which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 6-7 and 14 are directed to an abstract idea and because the additional elements are mathematical formula which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 8-13 and 15-16 are directed to an abstract idea and because the additional elements are mathematical functions which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 18,
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes. It recites a machine.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or nature phenomenon?
Yes The claim recites, determine a value of one or more intersection attributes for a primary sample of the ray relating to an intersection between the ray and the primitive in a ray coordinate system, wherein the ray coordinate system has two non-parallel axes that are both transverse to the direction of the ray, and wherein an origin of the ray coordinate system is on the ray; for one or both of the two non-parallel axes of the ray coordinate system, determine data indicating a change to the one or more intersection attributes in a direction parallel to that axis; -which is directed to abstract idea corresponding to mathematical calculation because a human can perform these activities based on mathematical relations.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial Exception into a practical application?
No
The limitation does recite additional elements- process the intersection between the ray and the primitive using the determined value of the one or more intersection attributes for the primary sample of the ray and the determined data indicating a change to the one or more intersection attributes in one or both of the directions parallel to the two non-parallel axes. However processing the intersection doesn’t tell anything about its practical application.
Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly more>
NO
The claim(s) includes additional elements “a ray tracing unit” to perform the claimed steps, which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because a ray tracing system performing the claimed step is just user of a system to automate the claimed steps- which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
Regarding claim 19,
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or nature phenomenon?
Yes The claim recites, determining a value of one or more intersection attributes for a primary sample of the ray relating to an intersection between the ray and the primitive in a ray coordinate system, wherein the ray coordinate system has two non-parallel axes that are both transverse to the direction of the ray, and wherein an origin of the ray coordinate system is on the ray; for one or both of the two non-parallel axes of the ray coordinate system, determining data indicating a change to the one or more intersection attributes in a direction parallel to that axis; -which is directed to abstract idea corresponding to mathematical calculation because a human can perform these activities based on mathematical relations.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial Exception into a practical application?
No
The limitation does recite additional elements- processing the intersection between the ray and the primitive using the determined value of the one or more intersection attributes for the primary sample of the ray and the determined data indicating a change to the one or more intersection attributes in one or both of the directions parallel to the two non-parallel axes. However processing the intersection doesn’t tell anything about its practical application.
Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly more>
NO
The claim(s) includes additional elements “a ray tracing system” to perform the claimed steps, which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because a ray tracing system performing the claimed step is just user of a system to automate the claimed steps- which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
Regarding claim 18,
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes. It recites a machine.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or nature phenomenon?
Yes The claim recites, determine a value of one or more intersection attributes for a primary sample of the ray relating to an intersection between the ray and the primitive in a ray coordinate system, wherein the ray coordinate system has two non-parallel axes that are both transverse to the direction of the ray, and wherein an origin of the ray coordinate system is on the ray; for one or both of the two non-parallel axes of the ray coordinate system, determine data indicating a change to the one or more intersection attributes in a direction parallel to that axis; -which is directed to abstract idea corresponding to mathematical calculation because a human can perform these activities based on mathematical relations.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial Exception into a practical application?
No
The limitation does recite additional elements- process the intersection between the ray and the primitive using the determined value of the one or more intersection attributes for the primary sample of the ray and the determined data indicating a change to the one or more intersection attributes in one or both of the directions parallel to the two non-parallel axes. However processing the intersection doesn’t tell anything about its practical application.
Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly more>
NO
The claim(s) includes additional elements “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon an integrated circuit definition dataset that, when processed in an integrated circuit manufacturing system, configures the integrated circuit manufacturing system to manufacture a ray tracing unit that is configured to perform intersection testing for a ray with respect to a primitive” to perform the claimed steps, which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because a ray tracing system performing the claimed step is just user of a system to automate the claimed steps- which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed over prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 is allowable over prior art because Smith-Lacey ( US patent publication: US 20220351457 A1) teaches, a method of performing intersection testing in a ray tracing system, for a ray with respect to a primitive, the method comprising:
determining a value of one or more intersection attributes for a primary sample of the ray relating to an intersection between the ray and the primitive in a ray coordinate system, wherein the ray coordinate system has two non-parallel axes that are both transverse to the direction of the ray, and wherein an origin of the ray coordinate system is on the ray; (“[0030] The method may further comprise, if the ray is determined to intersect the convex polygon, determining an intersection distance and barycentric coordinates for the intersection, wherein the intersection distance and barycentric coordinates may be used in the ray tracing system for rendering an image of a 3D scene. “[0026] The ray and the convex polygon may be defined in a 3D space using a space-coordinate system, and said projecting the vertices of the convex polygons onto a pair of axes orthogonal to the ray direction may comprise transforming the vertices of the convex polygons into a ray coordinate system, wherein the ray-coordinate system has an origin at the ray origin, and wherein the ray-coordinate system has three basis vectors, wherein a first of the basis vectors is aligned with the ray direction; and wherein a second and a third of the basis vectors are respectively aligned with said pair of axes orthogonal to the ray direction, wherein the second and third basis vectors: (i) are not parallel with each other, and (ii) have a zero as one component when expressed in the space-coordinate system. The second and the third of the basis vectors of the ray-coordinate system may have a value of ±1 as one component when expressed in the space-coordinate system.”)
Clohset et al. ( US patent Publication: US 20150089156 A1 ) teaches, determining data indicating a change to the one or more intersection attributes ( “[0096] If such a closest ray intersection is read in such a manner, there may be situations where a pending update to the closest intersection distance would have obviated a need to perform a given intersection test (where a primitive being tested lies between the previous closest intersection and the intersection ……. closest intersection distance (which may have been updated with the then-pending closer distance), and updated in dependence on that comparison. More trivial examples of non-locked read requests include reads to areas of memory known to store static values (static applying to a given computation context, which may change over time), such as a definition of a ray or an acceleration structure element.”)
However, the best combination of prior arts fails to expressly teach, “for one or both of the two non-parallel axes of the ray coordinate system, determining data indicating a change to the one or more intersection attributes in a direction parallel to that axis; and processing the intersection between the ray and the primitive using the determined value of the one or more intersection attributes for the primary sample of the ray and the determined data indicating a change to the one or more intersection attributes in one or both of the directions parallel to the two non-parallel axes.”
Dependent claims 2-17 also don’t have prior art rejection based on dependency.
Claim 16 is directed to a device and its elements are similar in scope and functions of the steps of claim 1 and therefore claim 16 are allowable over prior arts.
Claim 19 and 20 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium a device and its elements are similar in scope and functions of the steps of claim 1 and therefore claim 19-20 are allowable over prior arts.
Claim 17 is 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.
As claim 17 doesn’t have prior art rejection, claim5 / claim 7 can be written in dependent form to get allowance.
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cenry et al. (US 20220058854 A1) paragraph [0063] teaches processing intersection attribute.
Wald ( US Patent Publication: US 20180089885 A1) Paragraph {0131} discloses determining intersection attribute w between a ray and a object.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tapas Mazumder whose telephone number is (571)270-7466. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM PST.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/TAPAS MAZUMDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights