DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
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 fetch unit”, “a shading unit”, “ a geometry transformation unit”, “ a tiling unit”, “a cull unit”, “transform unit”, “a unitary geometry unit”, “a programmable unit” in claims 1-18.
Claims 1-18 are interpreted under 35 USC 112 6th paragraph as the claims contains the above generic place holders that are coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier
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.
The closest hardware support available for these generic place holders:
“[0006] Typically modem computer graphics applications utilise a significant amount of geometry that remains static throughout a scene or across multiple scenes, this geometry data is stored in what is commonly known as static vertex buffers that typically reside in memory that is local to the graphics processing unit”. Accordingly, the corresponding structure for the claimed functional units is interpreted as comprising one or more graphics processing units performing the claimed functions by retrieving data stored in memory.
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.
Claims 2-13, 15 and 17-18 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.
Claim 2 recites “static geometry”. There is already an instance of “static geometry” in claim 1. So the scope is indefinite.
Claim 3 recites “3-D position data” and “static …geometry”. There is already an instance of “static geometry” and an instance of “3-D position data” in claim 1. So the scope is indefinite.
Claim 4 recites “3-D position data”, “static…geometry”. There is already an instance of “static geometry” and an instance of “3-D position data” in claim 1. So the scope is indefinite.
Claim 5 recites “static and dynamic geometry”, “untransformed 3-D position data”, “parameter data”. There is already an instance of “static and dynamic geometry”, an instance of “untransformed 3-D position data”, an instance of “parameter data” in claim 4. So the scope is indefinite.
Claim 6 recites “dynamic geometry”. There is already an instance of “dynamic geometry” in claim 4. So the scope is indefinite.
Claim 7 recites “dynamic geometry”. There is already an instance of “dynamic geometry” in claim 6. So the scope is indefinite.
Claim 8 recites “static geometry”. There is already an instance of “static geometry” in claim 4. So the scope is indefinite.
Claim 9 recites “the untransformed parameters”. Here there is a lack of antecedent basis for the phrase. So the scope is indefinite.
Claim 10 recites “transformed parameters”. There is already an instance of “transformed parameters” in claim 9. So the scope is indefinite.
Claim 11 recites “static geometry”. There is already an instance of “static geometry” in claim 1. So the scope is indefinite.
Claim 12 recites “static geometry” and “untransformed 3-D position data. There is already an instance of “static geometry”, an instance of “untransformed 3-D position data” in claim 1. So the scope is indefinite.
Claim 15 recites “static geometry”, “untransformed 3-D position data”,” a tile object list” and “a tile of pixels”. There is already an instance of “static geometry”, an instance of “untransformed 3-D position data”, an instance of ” a tile object list” and an instance of “a tile of pixels”.in claim 1. So the scope is indefinite.
Claim 17 recites “a surface”. There is already an instance of surface in claim 1. So the scope is indefinite.
Claim 18 is also rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 17.
Double Patenting
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.
Claims 1-18 and 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.12217358 Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the instant appl. are broader than the limitations of the 12217358.
Appl/Pat. No.
Claim Correspondence
Appl. 19020711
1-18
Pat. 12217358
1-17
Claim 1 of Appl. 19020711
Claim 1 of Pat. 12217358
A 3-D rendering system including a rasterization portion, the rasterization portion comprising:
A 3-D rendering system comprising a rasterization portion, the rasterization portion comprising:
a fetch unit, operable to retrieve untransformed 3-D position data for at least one element of static geometry appearing in a tile object list for a tile of pixels being processed; and
a fetch unit, operable to retrieve untransformed 3-D position data for at least one element of static geometry appearing in a tile object list for a tile of pixels being processed;
a shading unit operable to shade a surface for one or more pixels in the tile of pixels being processed, the surface being derived from the untransformed 3-D position data.
a transform unit, operable to receive the untransformed 3-D position data and transform the 3-D position data into 2-D screen space coordinates for the at least one element of static geometry;
a hidden surface removal unit configured to receive the 2-D screen space coordinates for the at least one element of static geometry from the transform unit and operable to perform hidden surface removal for one or more pixels in the tile of pixels; and
a shading unit operable to shade a visible surface for the one or more pixels in the tile.
Claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11450060 in view of Anderson et al. ( US patent Publication: US 20060209078 , “Anderson’).
Instant application
1, 4, 5
Patent 11450060
1
Claim 1 of appl.
Claim 1 of Patent 11450060
A 3-D rendering system including a rasterization portion, the rasterization portion comprising:
A tile based rendering system comprising:
a fetch unit, operable to retrieve untransformed 3-D position data for at least one element of static geometry appearing in a tile object list for a tile of pixels being processed; and
a geometry processing section including:
a fetch unit configured to retrieve untransformed position data from stored untransformed static geometry data in a memory;
surface being derived from the untransformed 3-D position data.
a first transform unit configured to transform the retrieved untransformed position data to screen space; and
a tiling unit configured to compile, for screen space position data, a list of corresponding pointers to the static geometry data in the memory from which the untransformed position data was retrieved for each of a plurality of rectangular areas; and
a rasterization section including:
a tiled parameter fetch unit configured to retrieve, for each of the plurality of rectangular areas, pointer data from each respective list of corresponding pointers;
an untransformed geometry fetch unit configured to retrieve the untransformed position data from the stored untransformed static geometry data in the memory, the data to be retrieved being data pointed to by the retrieved pointer data for each respective list;
a second transform unit configured to transform the retrieved untransformed position data to screen space;
a hidden surface removal unit configured to apply hidden surface removal to the thus transformed position data to obtain resulting data; and
wherein the tile based rendering system is configured to supply the resulting data to a buffer for display.
a shading unit operable to shade a surface for one or more pixels in the tile of pixels being processed, the surface being derived from the untransformed 3-D position data.
Claim 1 of Patent 11450060 doesn’t expressly teach, a shading unit operable to shade a surface for one or more pixels in the tile of pixels being processed,
However, Anderson teaches, a shading unit operable to shade a surface for one or more pixels in the tile of pixels being processed (Anderson teaches, a shading stage in rasterization pipeline. Fig. 1 pixel shader 102 and Fig. 5 pixel shading 503. “[0008] The pixel shading stage 102 uses the setup coefficients to compute which pixels are encompassed by each triangle. Since the triangles may overlap one another, multiple pixels of differing depths may be located at the same point on a screen display. In particular, the pixel shading stage 101 interpolates color, fog, depth values, texture coordinates, alpha values, etc., for each pixel using the vertex information. Any of a variety of shading techniques can be adopted for this purpose, and shading operations can take place on per triangle or per pixel basis.” “[0044] Illustrated in FIG. 5 are a command engine 501, a triangle setup block 502, a pixel shading block 503, a depth test block 504 (containing a hierarchical z-buffer, not shown), a memory system 505 (containing a depth buffer), and remaining pipeline blocks 506.”)
Claim 1 of Patent 11450060 and Anderson are analogous as both of them are related to graphics rendering.
Therefore it would been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art to have modified Claim 1 of Patent 11450060 to have included a shading unit operable to shade a surface for one or more pixels in the tile of pixels being processed as taught by Anderson.
The motivation to include the modification is to provide coloring effect to the geometry.
Claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8368691 in view of Anderson et al. ( US patent Publication: US 20060209078 , “Anderson’)
Instant application
1, 4, 5
Patent 8368691
and 6
Instant application
Claim 1
Patent 8368691
Claim 6, 1
A 3-D rendering system including a rasterization portion, the rasterization portion comprising
A tile based rendering system with reduced parameter memory comprising::
a geometry processing section comprising means for retrieving untransformed position data from stored untransformed static geometry data in a memory; means for transforming the retrieved untransformed position data to screen space; and means for compiling for screen space position data a list of corresponding pointers to the static geometry data in the memory from which the position data was retrieved for each of a plurality of rectangular areas; and
a rasterization section comprising, for each of the plurality of rectangular areas, means for retrieving pointer data from each respective list of corresponding pointers;
a fetch unit, operable to retrieve untransformed 3-D position data for at least one element of static geometry appearing in a tile object list for a tile of pixels being processed;
means for retrieving the untransformed position data from the stored untransformed static geometry data in the memory, the retrieved data being data pointed to by the retrieved pointer data for each respective list
the surface being derived from the untransformed 3-D position data.
means for transforming the retrieved untransformed data to screen space;
means for applying hidden surface removal and attribute processing to the thus transformed position data to obtain resulting data
and means for supplying the resulting data to a buffer for display.
a shading unit operable to shade a surface for one or more pixels in the tile of pixels being processed
Claim 1/6 of Patent 8368691 doesn’t expressly teach, a shading unit operable to shade a surface for one or more pixels in the tile of pixels being processed.
However, Anderson teaches a shading unit operable to shade a surface for one or more pixels in the tile of pixels being processed (Anderson teaches, a shading stage in rasterization pipeline. Fig. 1 pixel shader 102 and Fig. 5 pixel shading 503. “[0008] The pixel shading stage 102 uses the setup coefficients to compute which pixels are encompassed by each triangle. Since the triangles may overlap one another, multiple pixels of differing depths may be located at the same point on a screen display. In particular, the pixel shading stage 101 interpolates color, fog, depth values, texture coordinates, alpha values, etc., for each pixel using the vertex information. Any of a variety of shading techniques can be adopted for this purpose, and shading operations can take place on per triangle or per pixel basis.” “[0044] Illustrated in FIG. 5 are a command engine 501, a triangle setup block 502, a pixel shading block 503, a depth test block 504 (containing a hierarchical z-buffer, not shown), a memory system 505 (containing a depth buffer), and remaining pipeline blocks 506.”)
Claim 1 of Patent 8368691 and Anderson are analogous as both of them are related to graphics rendering.
Therefore it would been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art to have modified Claim 1/6 of Patent 8368691 to have included a shading unit operable to shade a surface for one or more pixels in the tile of pixels being processed as taught by Anderson.
The motivation to include the modification is to provide coloring effect to the geometry.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 are allowable over prior art..
Independent claim 1 is allowable over prior art because
Anderson ( US 20060209078) teaches, A3-D rendering system comprising a rasterization portion, the rasterization portion comprising:
a shading unit operable to shade a visible surface for the one or more pixels in the tile. (Fig.1 element 102, Fig. 5 element 503, . (Anderson teaches, a shading stage in rasterization pipeline. Fig. 1 pixel shader 102 and Fig. 5 pixel shading 503. “[0008] The pixel shading stage 102 uses the setup coefficients to compute which pixels are encompassed by each triangle. Since the triangles may overlap one another, multiple pixels of differing depths may be located at the same point on a screen display. In particular, the pixel shading stage 101 interpolates color, fog, depth values, texture coordinates, alpha values, etc., for each pixel using the vertex information. Any of a variety of shading techniques can be adopted for this purpose, and shading operations can take place on per triangle or per pixel basis.” “[0044] Illustrated in FIG. 5 are a command engine 501, a triangle setup block 502, a pixel shading block 503, a depth test block 504 (containing a hierarchical z-buffer, not shown), a memory system 505 (containing a depth buffer), and remaining pipeline blocks 506.”)
Reshetov ( US patent Publication: 20070097118) teaches, a fetch unit, operable to retrieve untransformed 3-D position data for at least one element of static geometry appearing in a tile object list for a tile of pixels being processed; “( [0022] FIG. 2 is a block diagram further illustrating render engine 200, as shown in FIG. 1, in accordance with one embodiment. Representatively, render engine 200, in one embodiment, provides rendering pipeline 202, in accordance with one embodiment. Representatively, rendering pipeline 202 includes the following pipeline stages: (1) three-dimensional (3D) geometry stage, which receives data submitted for rendering;”)
Dorbie ( US patent publication: 20090309876) teaches, a transform unit, operable to receive the untransformed 3-D position data and transform the 3-D position data into 2-D screen space coordinates for the at least one element; ([0060]…….“The 3-D transformation and lighting (or alternative vertex shader) processing converts each triangle vertex into a repositioned vertex in screen space in preparation for the rasterization stage. “)
However the combination of available prior art fails to expressly teach, the rasterization portion comprising: a fetch unit, operable to retrieve untransformed 3-D position data for at least one element of static geometry appearing in a tile object list for a tile of pixels being processed;
Dependent claims 2-18 are also allowable over prior art by virtue of dependency.
Claims 2-18 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.
As independent claim 1 doesn’t have prior art rejection, claims 2-18 depend on claim 1, so claims 2-18 is 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAPTARSHI MAZUMDER whose telephone number is (571)270-3454. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am-4 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, Said Broome can be reached at (571)272-2931. 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.
/SAPTARSHI MAZUMDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
Prosecution Insights