DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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.
3. Claims 1 and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, and 10-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,254,558 B2 (patent 558). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are broader.
4. The following table shows correspondence between the claims of the present application and claims of patent 558.
Claims of present application
1
18
19
20
Claims of patent 558
1 and 6
1 and 10
1 and 11
1 and 6
5. The following table shows correspondence between the limitations of claim 1 of present application with claims 1 and 5-6 of patent 558.
Claim 1 of present application
Claims 1 and 6 of patent 558.
1. A system for facilitating ray trace operations with shared traversal, comprising:
one or more processors; and one or more hardware storage devices that store instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to configure the system to:
perform a pre-test operation, the pre-test operation comprising:
testing one or more volumes against an acceleration structure associated with a virtual environment to identify a set of candidate nodes of the acceleration structure, the virtual environment comprising one or more virtual objects defined by one or more object components,
and perform a ray trace operation based upon the set of candidate nodes of the acceleration structure.
1. A system for facilitating ray trace operations with shared traversal, comprising:
one or more processors; and
one or more hardware storage devices that store instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to configure the system to:
perform a pre-test operation, the pre-test operation comprising:
testing one or more volumes against an acceleration structure associated with a virtual environment to identify a set of candidate nodes of the acceleration structure, the virtual environment comprising one or more virtual objects defined by one or more object components, wherein testing the one or more volumes against the acceleration structure comprises, for each traversed node of the acceleration structure:
after determining that no child nodes of the traversed node intersect with or are contained by the one or more volumes, refraining from traversing child nodes of the traversed node;
after determining that at least one but fewer than all child nodes of the traversed node intersect with or are contained by the one or more volumes, traversing the at least one but fewer than all child nodes of the traversed node; and
after determining that all child nodes of the traversed node intersect with or are contained by the one or more volumes, or after determining that the traversed node includes no child nodes, including the traversed node in the set of candidate nodes;
and perform a ray trace operation based upon the set of candidate nodes of the acceleration structure.
wherein identifying the set of candidate nodes comprises:
identifying an initial set of nodes of the acceleration structure by testing the one or more volumes against the acceleration structure;
obtaining a modified set of nodes by replacing at least one node of the initial set of nodes with a higher-level node;
and defining the modified set of nodes as the set of candidate nodes;
6. The system of claim 1, wherein identifying the set of candidate nodes comprises:
identifying an initial set of nodes of the acceleration structure by testing the one or more volumes against the acceleration structure;
obtaining a modified set of nodes by replacing at least one node of the initial set of nodes with a higher-level node;
and defining the modified set of nodes as the set of candidate nodes.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 1-20 are allowed.
7. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claim 1 recites the limitation identifying an initial set of nodes of the acceleration structure by testing the one or more volumes against the acceleration structure; obtaining a modified set of nodes by replacing at least one node of the initial set of nodes with a higher-level node; and defining the modified set of nodes as the set of candidate nodes which is neither disclosed nor suggested by the cited reference, either singly or in combination.
8. Claim 20, similar to claim 1, also recites the limitation identifying an initial set of nodes of the acceleration structure by testing the one or more volumes against the acceleration structure; obtaining a modified set of nodes by replacing at least one node of the initial set of nodes with a higher-level node; and defining the modified set of nodes as the set of candidate nodes which is neither disclosed nor suggested by the cited reference, either singly or in combination.
9. Claim 18 recites the limitation and order nodes of the set of candidate nodes in accordance with an importance factor which is neither disclosed nor suggested by the cited reference, either singly or in combination.
10. A close art of record is Paul Endre Endresen (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0236335 A1). Endresen discloses an acceleration structure that ranks geometric primitives in the nodes. However, this is different from and order nodes of the set of candidate nodes in accordance with an importance factor which actually involves reordering the nodes based on the nodes itself and not reordering the content with each node. Endresen furthermore fails to disclose the limitation identifying an initial set of nodes of the acceleration structure by testing the one or more volumes against the acceleration structure; obtaining a modified set of nodes by replacing at least one node of the initial set of nodes with a higher-level node; and defining the modified set of nodes as the set of candidate nodes of claims 1 and 20.
11. Dammertz et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0053162 A1) and Bakalash et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0233302 A1) both disclose using an acceleration structure for ray tracing. Dammertz further discloses collapsing the levels of tree. However, this is not equivalent to identifying an initial set of nodes of the acceleration structure by testing the one or more volumes against the acceleration structure; obtaining a modified set of nodes by replacing at least one node of the initial set of nodes with a higher-level node; and defining the modified set of nodes as the set of candidate nodes. Therefore, both Dammertz and Bakalash fails to disclose or suggest the cited limitations above.
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.”
CONTACT
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK S CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7993. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8-11:30 and 1:30-6.
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 5712727794. 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.
/FRANK S CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights