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 .
2. 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The Information Disclosure Statement filed 14 January 2025 has been fully considered by Examiner. An annotated copy is included herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 1, 5-7, 10, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ard (US-2005/0017971).
Regarding claim 1: Ard discloses an immersive virtual reality system (fig 1 and [0030] of Ard – system used to generate a virtual 3D scene with virtual 3D objects) comprising a ray tracing system configured to render a scene by performing ray tracing of light rays (fig 2 and [0031] of Ard – virtual light rays for rendering objects; sub-divides scene into bounding volumes of recursively adaptable size), wherein said performing ray tracing comprises tracing primary light rays through the scene to render the scene in the immersive virtual reality system (fig 2 and [0032]-[0036] of Ard), wherein the origin of each of the primary light rays is based on a viewpoint from which the scene is to be rendered (figs 10-11(1001), [0031], and [0048] of Ard – “virtual light rays are traced between the object and a light source, so that shading of the many features of the object 201 will be performed to sufficient degree that it looks realistic” ([0031])), the ray tracing system comprising one or more processing units (fig 3(301,309), and [0038]-[0039] of Ard – CPU and graphics card), wherein the ray tracing system is configured to: perform, at the one or more processing units, intersection testing of primary light rays against shapes to generate intersection test results (figs 13-15, [0048]-[0049], and [0052]-[0054] of Ard – intersection testing of light rays with bounding boxes to determine if there is an intersection with an object surface, and to determine if further bounding volume sub-division is needed); and use said intersection test results, that are generated from intersection testing of primary light rays, to render the scene from the viewpoint in the immersive virtual reality system (figs 10-12, [0045]-[0047], and [0051] of Ard – intersection results updated and bounding volumes/ray tracing further refined until user is satisfied, then final rendering with ray tracing).
Regarding claim 5: Ard discloses the immersive virtual reality system according to claim 1 (as rejected above), wherein the scene is entirely computer generated (figs 1-2, and [0030]-[0031] of Ard – virtual scene with virtual objects created by user).
Regarding claim 6: Ard discloses the immersive virtual reality system according to claim 1 (as rejected above), wherein the ray tracing system is configured to perform a first subset of intersection tests by testing, in each of the one or more processing units, a single ray with a respective different shape of a plurality of shapes (figs 14-15 and [0053]-[0054] of Ard – intersection testing performed at each level of detail to see if further bounding volume sub-division needed; can additionally use other shaped volume sub-divisions).
Regarding claim 7: Ard discloses the immersive virtual reality system according to claim 6 (as rejected above), wherein the ray tracing system is configured to perform, subsequent to performing the first subset of intersection tests, a second subset of intersection tests by testing a different second ray with a respective different shape of the plurality of shapes (figs 14-15 and [0053]-[0054] of Ard – intersection testing performed at initial level of detail to see if further bounding volume sub-division needed; can additionally use other shaped volume sub-divisions).
Regarding claim 10: Ard discloses the immersive virtual reality system according to claim 1 (as rejected above), wherein the ray tracing system is further configured to form at least one packet comprising intersection test results (fig 16(1601-1602) and [0055] of Ard – test results for intersection of ray and bounding volume, which are used to determine if further sub-divisions are needed; test results data can be consider a packet of data).
Regarding claim 18: Ard discloses a ray tracing system for rendering a scene by performing ray tracing of light rays (fig 2 and [0031] of Ard – virtual light rays for rendering objects; sub-divides scene into bounding volumes of recursively adaptable size), said performing ray tracing comprises tracing primary light rays through the scene to render the scene in an immersive virtual reality system (figs 1-2, [0030], and [0032]-[0036] of Ard – system used to generate a virtual 3D scene with virtual 3D objects), wherein the origin of each of the primary light rays is based on a viewpoint from which the scene is to be rendered (figs 10-11(1001), [0031], and [0048] of Ard – “virtual light rays are traced between the object and a light source, so that shading of the many features of the object 201 will be performed to sufficient degree that it looks realistic” ([0031])), the ray tracing system comprising one or more processing units (fig 3(301,309), and [0038]-[0039] of Ard – CPU and graphics card), wherein the ray tracing system is configured to: perform, at the one or more processing units, intersection testing of primary light rays against shapes to generate intersection test results (figs 13-15, [0048]-[0049], and [0052]-[0054] of Ard – intersection testing of light rays with bounding boxes to determine if there is an intersection with an object surface, and to determine if further bounding volume sub-division is needed); and use said intersection test results, that are generated from intersection testing of primary light rays, to render the scene from said viewpoint in the immersive virtual reality system (figs 10-12, [0045]-[0047], and [0051] of Ard – intersection results updated and bounding volumes/ray tracing further refined until user is satisfied, then final rendering with ray tracing).
Regarding claim 19: Ard discloses a computer-implemented method of rendering a scene by performing ray tracing of light rays (fig 2 and [0031] of Ard – virtual light rays for rendering objects; sub-divides scene into bounding volumes of recursively adaptable size), said performing ray tracing comprises tracing primary light rays through the scene to render the scene in an immersive virtual reality system (figs 1-2, [0030], and [0032]-[0036] of Ard – system used to generate a virtual 3D scene with virtual 3D objects), wherein the origin of each of the primary light rays is based on a viewpoint from which the scene is to be rendered (figs 10-11(1001), [0031], and [0048] of Ard – “virtual light rays are traced between the object and a light source, so that shading of the many features of the object 201 will be performed to sufficient degree that it looks realistic” ([0031])), the method of performing ray tracing comprising: performing, at one or more processing units (fig 3(301,309), and [0038]-[0039] of Ard – CPU and graphics card), intersection testing of primary light rays against shapes to generate intersection test results (figs 13-15, [0048]-[0049], and [0052]-[0054] of Ard – intersection testing of light rays with bounding boxes to determine if there is an intersection with an object surface, and to determine if further bounding volume sub-division is needed); and using said intersection test results, that are generated from intersection testing of primary light rays, to render the scene from said viewpoint in the immersive virtual reality system (figs 10-12, [0045]-[0047], and [0051] of Ard – intersection results updated and bounding volumes/ray tracing further refined until user is satisfied, then final rendering with ray tracing).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
7. Claims 2 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ard (US-2005/0017971) in view of El Dokor (US-2008/0225041).
Regarding claim 2: Ard discloses the immersive virtual reality system according to claim 1 (as rejected above). Ard does not disclose wherein the immersive virtual reality system is an immersive virtual reality conferencing system.
El Dokor discloses wherein the immersive virtual reality system is an immersive virtual reality conferencing system (figs 6A-6B & 7, [0047]-[0050], and [0066] of El Dokor).
Ard and El Dokor are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image/video rendering in a virtual environment. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the immersive virtual reality system be an immersive virtual reality conferencing system, as taught by El Dokor. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a multi-user experience, thus expanding the overall functionality of the system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ard according to the relied-upon teachings of El Dokor to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Regarding claim 20: Ard discloses the method of claim 19 (as rejected above). Ard does not disclose wherein the immersive virtual reality system is an immersive virtual reality conferencing system.
El Dokor discloses wherein the immersive virtual reality system is an immersive virtual reality conferencing system (figs 6A-6B & 7, [0047]-[0050], and [0066] of El Dokor).
Ard and El Dokor are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image/video rendering in a virtual environment. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the immersive virtual reality system be an immersive virtual reality conferencing system, as taught by El Dokor. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a multi-user experience, thus expanding the overall functionality of the system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ard according to the relied-upon teachings of El Dokor to obtain the invention as specified in claim 20.
8. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ard (US-2005/0017971) in view of Lim (Mei Lim & Ruth Aylett, “My Virtual Graffiti System”, 2004 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME), June 2004, pp. 847-850; cited IDS of 1/14/2025, also cited herewith in Notice of References Cited, with copy for this case file).
Regarding claim 3: Ard discloses the immersive virtual reality system according to claim 1 (as rejected above). Ard does not disclose wherein the scene is a real-world scene.
Lim discloses wherein the scene is a real-world scene (Section III, 4th paragraph, on page 848 of Lim – “Stereoscopic glasses offer virtual as well as real-world vision, reducing the user’s awareness of the existence of both the different worlds.”).
Ard and Lim are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image/video rendering in a virtual environment. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the scene be a real-world scene, as taught by Lim. The motivation for doing so would have been to enhance real-world interaction with a scene through providing manipulation of virtual objects to allow a user to navigate in a real-world space while also manipulating virtual objects. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ard according to the relied-upon teachings of Lim to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Regarding claim 4: Ard discloses the immersive virtual reality system according to claim 1 (as rejected above), wherein the scene comprises some computer generated objects (figs 1-2, and [0030]-[0031] of Ard – virtual scene with virtual objects created by user). Ard does not disclose wherein the scene comprises some physical objects of a real-world scene.
Lim discloses wherein the scene comprises some computer generated objects and some physical objects of a real-world scene (Section III, 4th paragraph, on page 848 of Lim – “Stereoscopic glasses offer virtual as well as real-world vision, reducing the user’s awareness of the existence of both the different worlds.”).
Ard and Lim are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image/video rendering in a virtual environment. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the scene comprise some computer generated objects and some physical objects of a real-world scene, as taught by Lim. The motivation for doing so would have been to enhance real-world interaction with a scene through providing manipulation of virtual objects to allow a user to navigate in a real-world space while also manipulating virtual objects. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ard according to the relied-upon teachings of Lim to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
9. Claims 8, 9, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ard (US-2005/0017971) in view of Christensen (US-2005/0179686).
Regarding claim 8: Ard discloses the immersive virtual reality system according to claim 1 (as rejected above). Ard does not disclose wherein the ray tracing system is further configured to receive, at the computing resource, ray data for a plurality of rays to be intersection tested and shape data for a plurality of shapes against which the rays are to be tested.
Christensen discloses wherein the ray tracing system is further configured to receive, at the computing resource, ray data for a plurality of rays to be intersection tested and shape data for a plurality of shapes against which the rays are to be tested ([0018] of Christensen – “For example, 20-25 shadow rays per pixel are shot to virtual point lights generated by random walks, and indirect illumination is averaged between neighbor pixels to reduce noise. … Each surface is tessellated and assigned to a processor.”).
Ard and Christensen are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image/video rendering in a virtual environment. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further configure the ray tracing system to receive, at the computing resource, ray data for a plurality of rays to be intersection tested and shape data for a plurality of shapes against which the rays are to be tested, as taught by Christensen. The motivation for doing so would have been to more accurately render the objects, including lighting and other effects. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ard according to the relied-upon teachings of Christensen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Regarding claim 9: Ard in view of Christensen discloses the immersive virtual reality system according to claim 8 (as rejected above). Ard does not disclose wherein receiving the ray data and the shape data comprises receiving a packet comprising the ray data and the shape data.
Christensen discloses wherein receiving the ray data and the shape data comprises receiving a packet comprising the ray data and the shape data ([0018] of Christensen – “Packets of rays to be tested for intersection are communicated between the processors.”).
Ard and Christensen are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image/video rendering in a virtual environment. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further configure the ray tracing system to receive, at the computing resource, ray data for a plurality of rays to be intersection tested and shape data for a plurality of shapes against which the rays are to be tested, as taught by Christensen. The motivation for doing so would have been to more accurately render the objects, including lighting and other effects. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ard according to the relied-upon teachings of Christensen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Regarding claim 12: Ard in view of Christensen discloses the immersive virtual reality system according to claim 8 (as rejected above). Ard does not disclose wherein the ray tracing system is further configured to retrieve ray origin and ray direction data for the plurality of rays and store the retrieved ray origin and ray direction data in local storage for accessing the one or more processing units.
Christensen discloses wherein the ray tracing system is further configured to retrieve ray origin and ray direction data for the plurality of rays and store the retrieved ray origin and ray direction data in local storage for accessing the one or more processing units ([0064]-[0066] of Christensen).
Ard and Christensen are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image/video rendering in a virtual environment. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further configure the ray tracing system to retrieve ray origin and ray direction data for the plurality of rays and store the retrieved ray origin and ray direction data in local storage for accessing the one or more processing units, as taught by Christensen. The motivation for doing so would have been to more efficiently store and process the ray tracing data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ard according to the relied-upon teachings of Christensen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Regarding claim 13: Ard discloses the immersive virtual reality system of claim 1 (as rejected above), wherein the ray tracing system is configured to trace secondary rays through the scene (figs 14-15, [0051]-[0054], and [0057] of Ard – secondary ray tracing when bounding volumes are sub-divided). Ard does not disclose wherein the origin of a secondary ray is based on an intersection point of an intersection involving a previously traced ray.
Christensen discloses wherein the origin of a secondary ray is based on an intersection point of an intersection involving a previously traced ray (fig 8 and [0113]-[0115] of Christensen).
Ard and Christensen are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image/video rendering in a virtual environment. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to base the origin of a secondary ray on an intersection point of an intersection involving a previously traced ray, as taught by Christensen. The motivation for doing so would have been to more efficiently perform ray trace processing and more accurately render the image by including reflection and diffraction/shadow components of the light rays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ard according to the relied-upon teachings of Christensen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
10. Claims 11 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ard (US-2005/0017971) in view of Williams (N.S. Williams et al., “Distributed Ray Tracing Using an SIMD Processor Array”, Theoretical Foundations of Computer Graphics and CAD, vol. 27, pp. 703-725, July 1988; cited IDS of 1/14/2025, also cited herewith in Notice of References Cited, with copy for this case file).
Regarding claim 11: Ard discloses the immersive virtual reality system according to claim 10 (as rejected above). Ard does not disclose wherein forming at least one packet comprises formatting the intersection test results into a plurality of packets, wherein each packet comprises the intersection test results for a particular shape of a plurality of shapes.
Williams discloses wherein forming at least one packet comprises formatting the intersection test results into a plurality of packets, wherein each packet comprises the intersection test results for a particular shape of a plurality of shapes (Section 6, paragraphs 3-4, on pages 709-710 of Williams).
Ard and Williams are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image/video rendering in a virtual environment. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to format the intersection test results into a plurality of packets, wherein each packet comprises the intersection test results for a particular shape of a plurality of shapes, as taught by Williams. The motivation for doing so would have been to balance the processing load by performing ray tracing intersection processing for an immersive scene through distributing the processing between multiple processors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ard according to the relied-upon teachings of Williams to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Regarding claim 14: Ard discloses the immersive virtual reality system according to claim 1 (as rejected above). Ard does not disclose wherein the one or more processing units comprise a plurality of single-instruction multiple data (SIMD) computation units for performing the intersection testing.
Williams discloses wherein the one or more processing units comprise a plurality of single-instruction multiple data (SIMD) computation units for performing the intersection testing (Section 1, 7th paragraph, on page 704 of Williams).
Ard and Williams are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image/video rendering in a virtual environment. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the one or more processing units comprise a plurality of single-instruction multiple data (SIMD) computation units for performing the intersection testing, as taught by Williams. The motivation for doing so would have been to balance the processing load by performing ray tracing intersection processing for an immersive scene through distributing the processing between multiple processors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ard according to the relied-upon teachings of Williams to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
Regarding claim 15: Ard in view of Williams discloses the immersive virtual reality system according to claim 14 (as rejected above). Ard does not disclose wherein the ray tracing system is configured to perform a first subset of intersection tests by testing in parallel, in each respective SIMD computation unit, a respective different ray with a single shape.
Williams discloses wherein the ray tracing system is configured to perform a first subset of intersection tests by testing in parallel, in each respective SIMD computation unit, a respective different ray with a single shape (Section 6, 4th paragraph, on pages 709-710 of Williams).
Ard and Williams are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image/video rendering in a virtual environment. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the ray tracing system to perform a first subset of intersection tests by testing in parallel, in each respective SIMD computation unit, a respective different ray with a single shape, as taught by Williams. The motivation for doing so would have been to balance the processing load by performing ray tracing intersection processing for an immersive scene through distributing the processing between multiple processors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ard according to the relied-upon teachings of Williams to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15.
Regarding claim 16: Ard in view of Williams discloses the immersive virtual reality system according to claim 15 (as rejected above). Ard does not disclose wherein the ray tracing system is configured to use said intersection test results to render the scene by shading identified intersections to determine what effect an intersected primitive has on a ray hitting it.
Williams discloses wherein the ray tracing system is configured to use said intersection test results to render the scene by shading identified intersections to determine what effect an intersected primitive has on a ray hitting it (Section 8, on pages 710-711 of Williams – tested for all types (visible, reflected, etc.), including for surface shading).
Ard and Williams are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image/video rendering in a virtual environment. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the ray tracing system to use said intersection test results to render the scene by shading identified intersections to determine what effect an intersected primitive has on a ray hitting it, as taught by Williams. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a more accurate representation by including more components of the light rays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ard according to the relied-upon teachings of Williams to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16.
Regarding claim 17: Ard discloses the immersive virtual reality system according to claim 1 (as rejected above). Ard does not disclose wherein said intersection testing is performed in parallel to generate multiple intersection test results concurrently.
Williams discloses wherein said intersection testing is performed in parallel to generate multiple intersection test results concurrently (Section 6, 4th paragraph, on pages 709-710 of Williams).
Ard and Williams are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image/video rendering in a virtual environment. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform said intersection testing in parallel to generate multiple intersection test results concurrently, as taught by Williams. The motivation for doing so would have been to balance the processing load by performing ray tracing intersection processing for an immersive scene through distributing the processing between multiple processors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ard according to the relied-upon teachings of Williams to obtain the invention as specified in claim 17.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James A Thompson whose telephone number is (571)272-7441. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-6pm.
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.
/JAMES A THOMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights