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 . 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 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
2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on the following dates are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and are being considered by the Examiner: 02/24/2025.
Specification
3. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The Abstract should be an adequate, clear and concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent application, 37 C.F.R. 1.72(b). Also, the abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words. The Abstract of the disclosure for the present application is objected to because it fails to satisfy these guidelines. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01 (b).
4. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Specification, page 1, line 5: There is a blank after "now U.S. Patent No.___".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 8 recites "a mixed-facing test”. The limitation "mixed-facing test" is previously introduced in claim 1, line 7. It is not clear whether "a mixed-facing test” at claim 1, line 8 is the same with “mixed-facing test” in "a single mixed-facing test" in claim 1, line 7.
Claim 1, line 9 recites "a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane”. The limitation "front-facing plane" or “back-facing plane” is previously introduced in claim 1, lines 2-3. It is not clear whether "a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane” at claim 1, line 9 is the same with “a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane” in claim 1, lines 2-3.
Claim 1, lines 10-11 recites "a single mixed-facing test”. The limitation "single mixed-facing test" is previously introduced in claim 1, line 7. It is not clear whether "a single mixed-facing test” at claim 1, lines 10-11 is the same with “single mixed-facing test” in claim 1, line 7.
Claim 1, line 12 recites "a single back-facing plane”. The limitation "a back-facing plane" is previously introduced in claim 1, line 3. It is not clear whether "a single back-facing plane” at claim 1, line 12 is the same with “a back-facing plane” in claim 1, line 3.
Claim 2, line 1 recites "a single mixed-facing test”. The limitation "single mixed-facing test" is previously introduced in claim 1, line 7. It is not clear whether "a single mixed-facing test” at claim 2, line 1 is the same with “a single mixed-facing test” in claim 1, line 7.
Claim 4, line 2 recites "a direction”. The limitation "a direction" is previously introduced in claim 1, line 6. It is not clear whether "a direction” at claim 4, line 2 is the same with “a direction” in claim 1, line 7.
Claim 13, line 8 recites "a mixed-facing test”. The limitation "one mixed-facing test" is previously introduced in claim 13, line 7. It is not clear whether "a mixed-facing test” at claim 13, line 8 is the same with “one mixed-facing test” in claim 13, line 7.
Claim 13, line 9 recites "a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane”. The limitation "front-facing plane" or “back-facing plane” is previously introduced in claim 13, lines 2-3. It is not clear whether "a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane” at claim 13, line 9 is the same with “a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane” in claim 13, lines 2-3.
Claim 13, line 14 recites "back-facing plane”. The limitation "a back-facing plane" is previously introduced in claim 13, line 3. It is not clear whether “back-facing plane” at claim 13, line 14 is the same with “a back-facing plane” in claim 13, line 3.
Claim 14, line 1 recites "one mixed-facing”. The limitation "one mixed-facing test" is previously introduced in claim 13, line 7. It is not clear whether “one mixed-facing” at claim 14, line 1 is the same with “one mixed-facing test” in claim 13, line 7.
Claim 19, line 9 recites "a mixed-facing test”. The limitation "one mixed-facing test" is previously introduced in claim 19, line 8. It is not clear whether "a mixed-facing test” at claim 19, line 9 is the same with “one mixed-facing test” in claim 19, line 8.
Claim 19, line 10 recites "a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane”. The limitation "front-facing plane" or “back-facing plane” is previously introduced in claim 19, line 3. It is not clear whether "a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane” at claim 19, line 10 is the same with “a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane” in claim 19, line 3.
Claim 19, line 13 recites "a single back-facing plane”. The limitation "a back-facing plane" is previously introduced in claim 19, line 3. It is not clear whether "a single back-facing plane” at claim 1, line 13 is the same with “a back-facing plane” in claim 1, line 3.
Therefore, the claims 1-20 are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure,
material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any
new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function.
For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Double Patenting
7. 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
8. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11741659B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are similar to the claims in the patent to meet the limitations claimed in the patent.
Table 1: Comparison of claims in instant application 19/061691 vs. claims in US11741659B2.
Instant Application (19/061691)
US11741659B2
1. A method of determining, in a ray tracing system, whether a ray intersects a three-dimensional axis-aligned box, wherein the box represents a volume defined by a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane for each dimension of the three-dimensional axis-aligned box, the method comprising:
identifying which of the front-facing planes intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along a direction of the ray;
determining, in dependence on a geometry of the box, that a single mixed-facing test is needed to determine whether the ray intersects the box, wherein a mixed-facing test comprises comparing distances at which a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane intersect the ray; and
determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned box in dependence on a single mixed-facing test comprising comparing (i) the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane with (ii) the position at which the ray intersects a single back-facing plane, wherein a dimension of the single back-facing plane is different to the dimension for which the front-facing plane was identified.
1. A method of determining, in a ray tracing system, whether a ray intersects a three-dimensional axis-aligned box, wherein the box represents a volume defined by a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane for each dimension of the three-dimensional axis-aligned box, the method comprising:
identifying which of the front-facing planes of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along a direction of the ray;
determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned box in dependence on the determination of whether the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane is no further along the ray than positions at which the ray intersects the back-facing planes in the subset of the dimensions,
wherein the method determines whether the ray intersects the box without performing a test to determine whether the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane is no further along the ray than a position at which the ray intersects the back-facing plane in the dimension for which the front-facing plane was identified.
(Claim 5) …
performing a first mixed-facing test to determine which of the identified front-facing plane and a first back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray, wherein the first back-facing plane of the box is a back-facing plane for a first dimension in the subset of dimensions;
performing a second mixed-facing test to determine which of the identified front-facing plane and a second back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray, wherein the second back-facing plane of the box is a back-facing plane for a second dimension in the subset of dimensions;
2. The method of claim 1, wherein determining that a single mixed-facing test is needed to determine whether the ray intersects the box comprises determining that the ray can intersect at most one back-facing plane of the box based on the identified front-facing plane.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein identifying which of the front-facing planes intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray comprises performing two edge tests, each edge test determining which of two front-facing planes intersects the ray further along the ray, and wherein at least some of the geometry of the box is identified by performing the two edge tests.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein said steps of identifying which of the front-facing planes of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along a direction of the ray and comparing (i) the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane with (ii) the at least one position at which the ray intersects one of the back-facing planes are performed without computing intersection distances to any of the planes of the box.
2. The method of claim 1 wherein said steps of identifying which of the front-facing planes of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along a direction of the ray and determining whether the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane is no further along the ray than positions at which the ray intersects the back-facing planes in the subset of the dimensions, are performed without computing intersection distances to any of the planes of the box.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein said identifying which of the front-facing planes of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray comprises:
performing a first front-facing test to determine which of a first front-facing plane and a second front-facing plane of the box the ray intersects furthest along the ray; and
performing a second front-facing test to determine which of the determined front-facing plane and a third front-facing plane of the box the ray intersects furthest along the ray, thereby identifying which of the front-facing planes of the box intersects the ray furthest along the ray.
3. The method of claim 1 wherein said identifying which of the front-facing planes of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray comprises:
performing a first front-facing test to determine which of a first front-facing plane and a second front-facing plane of the box the ray intersects furthest along the ray; and
performing a second front-facing test to determine which of the determined front-facing plane and a third front-facing plane of the box the ray intersects furthest along the ray, thereby identifying which of the front-facing planes of the box intersects the ray furthest along the ray.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein said identifying which of the front-facing planes of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray comprises:
performing a first front-facing test to determine which of a first front-facing plane and a second front-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the ray;
performing a second front-facing test to determine which of the first front-facing plane and a third front-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray;
performing a third front-facing test to determine which of the second front-facing plane and the third front-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray; and
using the results of the first, second and third front-facing tests to identify which of the front-facing planes of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray.
4. The method of claim 1 wherein said identifying which of the front-facing planes of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray comprises:
performing a first front-facing test to determine which of a first front-facing plane and a second front-facing plane of the box intersects the ray intersects at a position that is furthest along the ray;
performing a second front-facing test to determine which of the first front-facing plane and a third front-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray;
performing a third front-facing test to determine which of the second front-facing plane and the third front-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray; and
using the results of the first, second and third front-facing tests to identify which of the front-facing planes of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of comparing (i) the position at which the ray
intersects the identified front-facing plane with (ii) the position at which the ray intersects the single back-facing plane in a dimension for which the front-facing plane was not identified comprises determining whether the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane is no further along the ray than the position at which the ray intersects the single back facing plane.
8. The method of claim 7, wherein said determining whether the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane is no further along the ray than the at least one position at which the ray intersects the single back-facing plane comprises:
performing the mixed-facing test to determine which of the identified front-facing plane and the single back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray.
9. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
storing one or more intermediate results which are determined in said identifying which of the front-facing planes of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray; and
reading the stored one or more intermediate results for use in the step of comparing (i) the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane with (ii) the position at which the ray intersects the single back-facing plane.
8. The method of claim 1 further comprising:
storing one or more intermediate results which are determined in said identifying which of the front-facing planes of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray; and
reading the stored one or more intermediate results for use in said determining whether the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane is no further along the ray than positions at which the ray intersects the back-facing planes in the subset of the dimensions.
10. The method of claim 1, further comprising determining whether a maximum distance
condition is satisfied, wherein the maximum distance condition is satisfied if a maximum valid distance of the ray from the ray origin is greater than or equal to a minimum distance from the ray origin to any intersection of the ray with a point within the box,
wherein said determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned box further comprises using the determination of whether the maximum distance condition is satisfied.
9. The method of claim 1 further comprising determining whether a maximum distance condition is satisfied, wherein the maximum distance condition is satisfied if a maximum valid distance of the ray from the ray origin is greater than or equal to a minimum distance from the ray origin to any intersection of the ray with a point within the box,
wherein said determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned box further comprises using the determination of whether the maximum distance condition is satisfied.
11. The method of claim 1, further comprising determining whether a minimum distance
condition is satisfied, wherein the minimum distance condition is satisfied if a minimum valid distance of the ray from the ray origin is less than or equal to a maximum distance from the ray origin to any intersection of the ray with a point within the box, wherein said determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned box further comprises using the determination of whether the minimum distance condition is satisfied.
10. The method of claim 1 further comprising determining whether a minimum distance condition is satisfied, wherein the minimum distance condition is satisfied if a minimum valid distance of the ray from the ray origin is less than or equal to a maximum distance from the ray origin to any intersection of the ray with a point within the box,
wherein said determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned box further comprises using the determination of whether the minimum distance condition is satisfied.
12. The method of claim 11, further comprising determining whether a maximum distance condition is satisfied, wherein the maximum distance condition is satisfied if a maximum valid distance of the ray from the ray origin is greater than or equal to a minimum distance from the ray origin to any intersection of the ray with a point within the box, wherein said determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned box further comprises using the determination of whether the maximum distance condition is satisfied, and wherein said determining whether a maximum distance condition is satisfied and said determining whether a minimum distance condition is satisfied are performed in parallel with the step of comparing (i) the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane and (ii) the position at which the ray intersects the single back-facing plane.
11. The method of claim 10 further comprising determining whether a maximum distance condition is satisfied, wherein the maximum distance condition is satisfied if a maximum valid distance of the ray from the ray origin is greater than or equal to a minimum distance from the ray origin to any intersection of the ray with a point within the box, wherein said determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned box further comprises using the determination of whether the maximum distance condition is satisfied, and wherein said determining whether a maximum distance condition is satisfied and said determining whether a minimum distance condition is satisfied are performed in parallel with said determining whether the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane is no further along the ray than positions at which the ray intersects the back-facing planes in the subset of the dimensions.
13. A method of determining, in a ray tracing system, whether a ray intersects a three-dimensional axis-aligned box, wherein the box represents a volume defined by a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane for each dimension of the three-dimensional axis-aligned box, the method comprising:
identifying which of the back-facing planes intersects the ray as a position that is the least far along a direction of the ray;
determining, in dependence on a geometry of the box, that at most one mixed-facing test is needed to determine whether the ray intersects the box, wherein a mixed-facing test comprises comparing distances at which a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane intersect the ray; and
determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned-box in dependence on a mixed-facing test comprising comparing (i) the position at which the ray intersects the identified backfacing plane with (ii) the position at which the ray intersects a single front-facing plane;
wherein a dimension of the single front-facing plane is different to the dimension for which
back-facing plane was identified.
14. A method of determining, in a ray tracing system, whether a ray intersects a three-dimensional axis-aligned box, wherein the box represents a volume defined by a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane for each dimension of the three-dimensional axis-aligned box, the method comprising:
identifying which of the back-facing planes of the box intersects the ray at a position that is the least far along a direction of the ray;
……
determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned box using the determination of whether the ray intersects the front-facing planes in the subset of the dimensions at positions that are no further along the ray than a position at which the ray intersects the identified back-facing plane, wherein the method determines whether the ray intersects the box without performing a test to determine whether the ray intersects the front-facing plane in the dimension for which the back-facing plane was identified at a position that is no further along the ray than a position at which the ray intersects the identified back-facing plane.
(Claim 17) …
performing a first mixed-facing test to determine which of the identified back-facing plane and a first front-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray, wherein the first front-facing plane of the box is a front-facing plane for a first dimension in the subset of dimensions;
performing a second mixed-facing test to determine which of the identified back-facing plane and a second front-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray, wherein the second front-facing plane of the box is a front-facing plane for a second dimension in the subset of dimensions;
14. The method of claim 13, wherein determining that at most one mixed-facing is needed to determine whether the ray intersects the box comprises determining that the ray can intersect at most one front-facing plane of the box based on the identified back-facing plane.
15. The method of claim 13, wherein said identifying which of the back-facing planes of the box intersects the ray as a position that is the least far along the direction of the ray comprises:
performing a first back-facing test to determine which of a first back-facing plane and a second back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray intersects as a position that is the least far along the direction of the ray; and
performing a second back-facing test to determine which of the determined back-facing plane and a third back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray as a position that is the least far along the direction of the ray, thereby identifying which of the back-facing planes of the box intersects the ray at a position that is the least far along the direction of the ray.
15. The method of claim 14 wherein said identifying which of the back-facing planes of the box intersects the ray at a position that is the least far along the direction of the ray comprises:
performing a first back-facing test to determine which of a first back-facing plane and a second back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray intersects at a position that is the least far along the direction of the ray; and
performing a second back-facing test to determine which of the determined back-facing plane and a third back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is the least far along the direction of the ray, thereby identifying which of the back-facing planes of the box intersects the ray at a position that is the least far along the direction of the ray.
16. The method of claim 13, wherein said identifying which of the back-facing planes of the box intersects the ray as a position that is the least far along the direction of the ray comprises:
performing a first back-facing test to determine which of a first back-facing plane and a second back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is the least far along the direction of the ray;
performing a second back-facing test to determine which of the first back-facing plane and a third back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is the least far along the direction of the ray;
performing a third back-facing test to determine which of the second back-facing plane and the third back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is the least far along the direction of the ray; and
using the results of the first, second and third back-facing tests to identify which of the
back-facing planes of the box intersects the ray as a position that the least far along the direction of the ray.
16. The method of claim 14 wherein said identifying which of the back-facing planes of the box intersects the ray at a position that is the least far along the direction of the ray comprises:
performing a first back-facing test to determine which of a first back-facing plane and a second back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is the least far along the direction of the ray;
performing a second back-facing test to determine which of the first back-facing plane and a third back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is the least far along the direction of the ray;
performing a third back-facing test to determine which of the second back-facing plane and the third back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is the least far along the direction of the ray; and
using the results of the first, second and third back-facing tests to identify which of the back-facing planes of the box intersects the ray as a position that the least far along the direction of the ray.
17. The method of claim 13, wherein the step of comparing (i) the position at which the ray
intersects the identified back-facing plane with (ii) the position at which the ray intersects the single front-facing planes in a dimension for which the back-facing plane was not identified comprises determining whether the position at which the ray intersects the single front-facing plane for dimension for which the back-facing plane was not identified is no further along the ray than the position at which the ray intersects the identified back-facing plane.
18. The method of claim 17, wherein said determining whether the position at which the ray intersects the single front-facing plane is no further along the ray than the position at which the ray intersects the identified back-facing plane comprises:
performing a first mixed-facing test to determine which of the identified back-facing plane and the single front-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray, wherein the single front-facing plane of the box is a front-facing plane for a dimension for which the back-facing plane was not identified.
19. An intersection testing module implemented in fixed function circuitry, for use in a ray tracing system, configured to determine whether a ray intersects a three-dimensional axis-aligned box, wherein the box represents a volume defined by a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane for each dimension of the three-dimensional axis-aligned box, the intersection testing module being configured to:
identify which of the front-facing planes intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along a direction of the ray;
determine, in dependence on a geometry of the box, that at most one mixed-facing test is needed to determine whether the ray intersects the box, wherein a mixed-facing test comprises comparing distances at which a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane intersect the ray;
determine whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned box in dependence on a mixed-facing test comprising comparing (i) the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane with (ii) the position at which the ray intersects a single back-facing plane, wherein a dimension of the single back-facing plane is different to the dimension for which the front-facing plane was identified.
19. An intersection testing module implemented in fixed function circuitry, for use in a ray tracing system, configured to determine whether a ray intersects a three-dimensional axis-aligned box, wherein the box represents a volume defined by a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane for each dimension of the three-dimensional axis-aligned box, the intersection testing module being configured to:
identify which of the front-facing planes of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along a direction of the ray;
……
determine whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned box using the determination of whether the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane is no further along the ray than positions at which the ray intersects the back-facing planes in the subset of the dimensions,
wherein the intersection testing module is configured to determine whether the ray intersects the box without performing a test to determine whether the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane is no further along the ray than a position at which the ray intersects the back-facing plane in the dimension for which the front-facing plane was identified.
(Claim 5) …
performing a first mixed-facing test to determine which of the identified front-facing plane and a first back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray, wherein the first back-facing plane of the box is a back-facing plane for a first dimension in the subset of dimensions;
performing a second mixed-facing test to determine which of the identified front-facing plane and a second back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray, wherein the second back-facing plane of the box is a back-facing plane for a second dimension in the subset of dimensions.
20. An intersection testing module implemented in fixed function circuitry, for use in a ray tracing system, configured to determine whether a ray intersects a three-dimensional axis-aligned box, wherein the box represents a volume defined by a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane for each dimension of the three-dimensional axis-aligned box, the intersection testing module being configured to:
identify which of the back-facing planes intersects the ray at a position that is the least far along a direction of the ray;
determine, in dependence on a geometry of the box, that at most one mixed-facing test is needed to determine whether the ray intersects the box, wherein a mixed-facing test comprises comparing distances at which a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane intersect the ray; and
determine whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned-box in dependence on a mixed-facing test comprising comparing (i) the position at which the ray intersects the identified back-facing plane with (ii) the position at which the ray intersects a single front-facing plane, wherein a dimension of the single front-facing plane is different to the dimension for which back-facing plane was identified.
20. An intersection testing module implemented in fixed function circuitry, for use in a ray tracing system, configured to determine whether a ray intersects a three-dimensional axis-aligned box, wherein the box represents a volume defined by a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane for each dimension of the three-dimensional axis-aligned box, the intersection testing module being configured to:
identify which of the back-facing planes of the box intersects the ray at a position that is the least far along a direction of the ray;
……
determine whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned box using the determination of whether the ray intersects the front-facing planes in the subset of the dimensions at positions that are no further along the ray than the position at which the ray intersects the identified back-facing plane,
…...
(Claim 17) …
performing a first mixed-facing test to determine which of the identified back-facing plane and a first front-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray, wherein the first front-facing plane of the box is a front-facing plane for a first dimension in the subset of dimensions;
performing a second mixed-facing test to determine which of the identified back-facing plane and a second front-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray, wherein the second front-facing plane of the box is a front-facing plane for a second dimension in the subset of dimensions.
9. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For example, claim 1 of the present application recites “identifying which of the front-facing planes intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along a direction of the ray;” “determining, in dependence on a geometry of the box, that a single mixed-facing test is
needed to determine whether the ray intersects the box, wherein a mixed-facing test comprises
comparing distances at which a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane intersect the ray; and” “determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned box in dependence on a single mixed-facing test comprising comparing (i) the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane with (ii) the position at which the ray intersects a single back-facing plane, wherein a dimension of the single back-facing plane is different to the dimension for which the front-facing plane was identified.” while claims 1 and 5 of 11741659 discloses “identifying which of the front-facing planes of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along a direction of the ray” “determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned box in dependence on the determination of whether the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane is no further along the ray than positions at which the ray intersects the back-facing planes in the subset of the dimensions, wherein the method determines whether the ray intersects the box without performing a test to determine whether the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane is no further along the ray than a position at which the ray intersects the back-facing plane in the dimension for which the front-facing plane was identified.” … “performing a first mixed-facing test to determine which of the identified front-facing plane and a first back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray, wherein the first back-facing plane of the box is a back-facing plane for a first dimension in the subset of dimensions;” “performing a second mixed-facing test to determine which of the identified front-facing plane and a second back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray, wherein the second back-facing plane of the box is a back-facing plane for a second dimension in the subset of dimensions.” The “identifying which of the front-facing planes of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along a direction of the ray” “determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned box in dependence on the determination of whether the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane is no further along the ray than positions at which the ray intersects the back-facing planes in the subset of the dimensions, wherein the method determines whether the ray intersects the box without performing a test to determine whether the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane is no further along the ray than a position at which the ray intersects the back-facing plane in the dimension for which the front-facing plane was identified.” … “performing a first mixed-facing test to determine which of the identified front-facing plane and a first back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray, wherein the first back-facing plane of the box is a back-facing plane for a first dimension in the subset of dimensions;” “performing a second mixed-facing test to determine which of the identified front-facing plane and a second back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray, wherein the second back-facing plane of the box is a back-facing plane for a second dimension in the subset of dimensions” would be corresponding to “identifying which of the front-facing planes intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along a direction of the ray;” “determining, in dependence on a geometry of the box, that a single mixed-facing test is needed to determine whether the ray intersects the box, wherein a mixed-facing test comprises comparing distances at which a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane intersect the ray; and” “determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned box in dependence on a single mixed-facing test comprising comparing (i) the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane with (ii) the position at which the ray intersects a single back-facing plane, wherein a dimension of the single back-facing plane is different to the dimension for which the front-facing plane was identified.”
10. Application claim 13, recites “identifying which of the back-facing planes intersects the ray as a position that is the least far along a direction of the ray;” “determining, in dependence on a geometry of the box, that at most one mixed-facing test is needed to determine whether the ray intersects the box, wherein a mixed-facing test comprises comparing distances at which a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane intersect the ray; and” “determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned-box in dependence on a mixed-facing test comprising comparing (i) the position at which the ray intersects the identified backfacing plane with (ii) the position at which the ray intersects a single front-facing plane; wherein a dimension of the single front-facing plane is different to the dimension for which back-facing plane was identified.” while claims 14 and 17 of 11741659 discloses “identifying which of the back-facing planes of the box intersects the ray at a position that is the least far along a direction of the ray;” “determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned box using the determination of whether the ray intersects the front-facing planes in the subset of the dimensions at positions that are no further along the ray than a position at which the ray intersects the identified back-facing plane, wherein the method determines whether the ray intersects the box without performing a test to determine whether the ray intersects the front-facing plane in the dimension for which the back-facing plane was identified at a position that is no further along the ray than a position at which the ray intersects the identified back-facing plane.” … “performing a first mixed-facing test to determine which of the identified back-facing plane and a first front-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray, wherein the first front-facing plane of the box is a front-facing plane for a first dimension in the subset of dimensions;” “performing a second mixed-facing test to determine which of the identified back-facing plane and a second front-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray, wherein the second front-facing plane of the box is a front-facing plane for a second dimension in the subset of dimensions.” The “identifying which of the back-facing planes of the box intersects the ray at a position that is the least far along a direction of the ray;” “determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned box using the determination of whether the ray intersects the front-facing planes in the subset of the dimensions at positions that are no further along the ray than a position at which the ray intersects the identified back-facing plane, wherein the method determines whether the ray intersects the box without performing a test to determine whether the ray intersects the front-facing plane in the dimension for which the back-facing plane was identified at a position that is no further along the ray than a position at which the ray intersects the identified back-facing plane.” … “performing a first mixed-facing test to determine which of the identified back-facing plane and a first front-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray, wherein the first front-facing plane of the box is a front-facing plane for a first dimension in the subset of dimensions;” “performing a second mixed-facing test to determine which of the identified back-facing plane and a second front-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray, wherein the second front-facing plane of the box is a front-facing plane for a second dimension in the subset of dimensions.” would be corresponding to “identifying which of the back-facing planes intersects the ray as a position that is the least far along a direction of the ray;” “determining, in dependence on a geometry of the box, that at most one mixed-facing test is needed to determine whether the ray intersects the box, wherein a mixed-facing test comprises comparing distances at which a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane intersect the ray; and” “determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned-box in dependence on a mixed-facing test comprising comparing (i) the position at which the ray intersects the identified backfacing plane with (ii) the position at which the ray intersects a single front-facing plane; wherein a dimension of the single front-facing plane is different to the dimension for which back-facing plane was identified.”
Regarding Claims 19-20, the claims are rejected under obviousness double patenting for the same rational described at claims 1 and 14 as above.
====================================================================
11. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12266047B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are similar to the claims in the patent to meet the limitations claimed in the patent.
Table 1: Comparison of claims in instant application 19/061691 vs. claims in US12266047B2.
Instant Application (19/061691)
US12266047B2
1. A method of determining, in a ray tracing system, whether a ray intersects a three-dimensional axis-aligned box, wherein the box represents a volume defined by a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane for each dimension of the three-dimensional axis-aligned box, the method comprising:
identifying which of the front-facing planes intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along a direction of the ray;
determining, in dependence on a geometry of the box, that a single mixed-facing test is needed to determine whether the ray intersects the box, wherein a mixed-facing test comprises comparing distances at which a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane intersect the ray; and
determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned box in dependence on a single mixed-facing test comprising comparing (i) the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane with (ii) the position at which the ray intersects a single back-facing plane, wherein a dimension of the single back-facing plane is different to the dimension for which the front-facing plane was identified.
1. A method of determining, in a ray tracing system, whether a ray intersects a three-dimensional axis-aligned box, wherein the box represents a volume defined by a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane for each dimension of the three-dimensional axis-aligned box, the method comprising:
identifying which of the front-facing planes intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along a direction of the ray; and
determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned box in dependence on comparing (i) the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane with (ii) at least one position at which the ray intersects one of the back-facing planes for the two dimensions for which the front-facing plane was not identified;
……….
(Claim 6) …
performing a first mixed-facing test to determine which of the identified front-facing plane and a first back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray, wherein the first back-facing plane of the box is a back-facing plane for a first dimension of the two dimensions for which the front-facing plane was not identified;
performing a second mixed-facing test to determine which of the identified front-facing plane and a second back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray, wherein the second back-facing plane of the box is a back-facing plane for a second dimension of the two dimensions for which the front-facing plane was not identified;
2. The method of claim 1, wherein determining that a single mixed-facing test is needed to determine whether the ray intersects the box comprises determining that the ray can intersect at most one back-facing plane of the box based on the identified front-facing plane.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein identifying which of the front-facing planes intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray comprises performing two edge tests, each edge test determining which of two front-facing planes intersects the ray further along the ray, and wherein at least some of the geometry of the box is identified by performing the two edge tests.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein said steps of identifying which of the front-facing planes of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along a direction of the ray and comparing (i) the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane with (ii) the at least one position at which the ray intersects one of the back-facing planes are performed without computing intersection distances to any of the planes of the box.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein said steps of identifying which of the front-facing planes of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along a direction of the ray and comparing (i) the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane with (ii) the at least one position at which the ray intersects one of the back-facing planes are performed without computing intersection distances to any of the planes of the box.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein said identifying which of the front-facing planes of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray comprises:
performing a first front-facing test to determine which of a first front-facing plane and a second front-facing plane of the box the ray intersects furthest along the ray; and
performing a second front-facing test to determine which of the determined front-facing plane and a third front-facing plane of the box the ray intersects furthest along the ray, thereby identifying which of the front-facing planes of the box intersects the ray furthest along the ray.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein said identifying which of the front-facing planes of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray comprises:
performing a first front-facing test to determine which of a first front-facing plane and a second front-facing plane of the box the ray intersects furthest along the ray; and
performing a second front-facing test to determine which of the determined front-facing plane and a third front-facing plane of the box the ray intersects furthest along the ray, thereby identifying which of the front-facing planes of the box intersects the ray furthest along the ray.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein said identifying which of the front-facing planes of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray comprises:
performing a first front-facing test to determine which of a first front-facing plane and a second front-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the ray;
performing a second front-facing test to determine which of the first front-facing plane and a third front-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray;
performing a third front-facing test to determine which of the second front-facing plane and the third front-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray; and
using the results of the first, second and third front-facing tests to identify which of the front-facing planes of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein said identifying which of the front-facing planes of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray comprises:
performing a first front-facing test to determine which of a first front-facing plane and a second front-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the ray;
performing a second front-facing test to determine which of the first front-facing plane and a third front-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray;
performing a third front-facing test to determine which of the second front-facing plane and the third front-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray; and
using the results of the first, second and third front-facing tests to identify which of the front-facing planes of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of comparing (i) the position at which the ray
intersects the identified front-facing plane with (ii) the position at which the ray intersects the single back-facing plane in a dimension for which the front-facing plane was not identified comprises determining whether the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane is no further along the ray than the position at which the ray intersects the single back facing plane.
8. The method of claim 7, wherein said determining whether the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane is no further along the ray than the at least one position at which the ray intersects the single back-facing plane comprises:
performing the mixed-facing test to determine which of the identified front-facing plane and the single back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray.
9. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
storing one or more intermediate results which are determined in said identifying which of the front-facing planes of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray; and
reading the stored one or more intermediate results for use in the step of comparing (i) the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane with (ii) the position at which the ray intersects the single back-facing plane.
8. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
storing one or more intermediate results which are determined in said identifying which of the front-facing planes of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray; and
reading the stored one or more intermediate results for use in the step of comparing (i) the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane with (ii) the at least one position at which the ray intersects one of the back-facing planes.
10. The method of claim 1, further comprising determining whether a maximum distance
condition is satisfied, wherein the maximum distance condition is satisfied if a maximum valid distance of the ray from the ray origin is greater than or equal to a minimum distance from the ray origin to any intersection of the ray with a point within the box,
wherein said determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned box further comprises using the determination of whether the maximum distance condition is satisfied.
9. The method of claim 1, further comprising determining whether a maximum distance condition is satisfied, wherein the maximum distance condition is satisfied if a maximum valid distance of the ray from the ray origin is greater than or equal to a minimum distance from the ray origin to any intersection of the ray with a point within the box,
wherein said determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned box further comprises using the determination of whether the maximum distance condition is satisfied.
11. The method of claim 1, further comprising determining whether a minimum distance
condition is satisfied, wherein the minimum distance condition is satisfied if a minimum valid distance of the ray from the ray origin is less than or equal to a maximum distance from the ray origin to any intersection of the ray with a point within the box, wherein said determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned box further comprises using the determination of whether the minimum distance condition is satisfied.
10. The method of claim 1, further comprising determining whether a minimum distance condition is satisfied, wherein the minimum distance condition is satisfied if a minimum valid distance of the ray from the ray origin is less than or equal to a maximum distance from the ray origin to any intersection of the ray with a point within the box;
wherein said determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned box further comprises using the determination of whether the minimum distance condition is satisfied.
12. The method of claim 11, further comprising determining whether a maximum distance condition is satisfied, wherein the maximum distance condition is satisfied if a maximum valid distance of the ray from the ray origin is greater than or equal to a minimum distance from the ray origin to any intersection of the ray with a point within the box, wherein said determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned box further comprises using the determination of whether the maximum distance condition is satisfied, and wherein said determining whether a maximum distance condition is satisfied and said determining whether a minimum distance condition is satisfied are performed in parallel with the step of comparing (i) the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane and (ii) the position at which the ray intersects the single back-facing plane.
11. The method of claim 10, further comprising determining whether a maximum distance condition is satisfied, wherein the maximum distance condition is satisfied if a maximum valid distance of the ray from the ray origin is greater than or equal to a minimum distance from the ray origin to any intersection of the ray with a point within the box; wherein said determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned box further comprises using the determination of whether the maximum distance condition is satisfied; and wherein said determining whether a maximum distance condition is satisfied and said determining whether a minimum distance condition is satisfied are performed in parallel with the step of comparing (i) the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane and (ii) the at least one position at which the ray intersects one of the back-facing planes.
13. A method of determining, in a ray tracing system, whether a ray intersects a three-dimensional axis-aligned box, wherein the box represents a volume defined by a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane for each dimension of the three-dimensional axis-aligned box, the method comprising:
identifying which of the back-facing planes intersects the ray as a position that is the least far along a direction of the ray;
determining, in dependence on a geometry of the box, that at most one mixed-facing test is needed to determine whether the ray intersects the box, wherein a mixed-facing test comprises comparing distances at which a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane intersect the ray; and
determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned-box in dependence on a mixed-facing test comprising comparing (i) the position at which the ray intersects the identified backfacing plane with (ii) the position at which the ray intersects a single front-facing plane;
wherein a dimension of the single front-facing plane is different to the dimension for which
back-facing plane was identified.
13. A method of determining, in a ray tracing system, whether a ray intersects a three-dimensional axis-aligned box, wherein the box represents a volume defined by a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane for each dimension of the three-dimensional axis-aligned box, the method comprising:
identifying which of the back-facing planes intersects the ray as a position that is the least far along a direction of the ray; and
determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned-box in dependence on comparing (i) the position at which the ray intersects the identified back-facing plane with (ii) at least one position at which the ray intersects one of the front-facing planes for the two dimensions for which the back-facing plane was not identified;
…...
(Claim 17) …
performing a first mixed-facing test to determine which of the identified back-facing plane and a first front-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray, wherein the first front-facing plane of the box is a front-facing plane for a first dimension for the two dimensions for which the back-facing plane was not identified;
performing a second mixed-facing test to determine which of the identified back-facing plane and a second front-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray, wherein the second front-facing plane of the box is a front-facing plane for a second dimension for the two dimensions for which the back-facing plane was not identified;
14. The method of claim 13, wherein determining that at most one mixed-facing is needed to determine whether the ray intersects the box comprises determining that the ray can intersect at most one front-facing plane of the box based on the identified back-facing plane.
15. The method of claim 13, wherein said identifying which of the back-facing planes of the box intersects the ray as a position that is the least far along the direction of the ray comprises:
performing a first back-facing test to determine which of a first back-facing plane and a second back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray intersects as a position that is the least far along the direction of the ray; and
performing a second back-facing test to determine which of the determined back-facing plane and a third back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray as a position that is the least far along the direction of the ray, thereby identifying which of the back-facing planes of the box intersects the ray at a position that is the least far along the direction of the ray.
14. The method of claim 13, wherein said identifying which of the back-facing planes of the box intersects the ray as a position that is the least far along the direction of the ray comprises:
performing a first back-facing test to determine which of a first back-facing plane and a second back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray intersects as a position that is the least far along the direction of the ray; and
performing a second back-facing test to determine which of the determined back-facing plane and a third back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray as a position that is the least far along the direction of the ray, thereby identifying which of the back-facing planes of the box intersects the ray at a position that is the least far along the direction of the ray.
16. The method of claim 13, wherein said identifying which of the back-facing planes of the box intersects the ray as a position that is the least far along the direction of the ray comprises:
performing a first back-facing test to determine which of a first back-facing plane and a second back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is the least far along the direction of the ray;
performing a second back-facing test to determine which of the first back-facing plane and a third back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is the least far along the direction of the ray;
performing a third back-facing test to determine which of the second back-facing plane and the third back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is the least far along the direction of the ray; and
using the results of the first, second and third back-facing tests to identify which of the
back-facing planes of the box intersects the ray as a position that the least far along the direction of the ray.
15. The method of claim 13, wherein said identifying which of the back-facing planes of the box intersects the ray as a position that is the least far along the direction of the ray comprises:
performing a first back-facing test to determine which of a first back-facing plane and a second back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is the least far along the direction of the ray;
performing a second back-facing test to determine which of the first back-facing plane and a third back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is the least far along the direction of the ray;
performing a third back-facing test to determine which of the second back-facing plane and the third back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is the least far along the direction of the ray; and
using the results of the first, second and third back-facing tests to identify which of the back-facing planes of the box intersects the ray as a position that the least far along the direction of the ray.
17. The method of claim 13, wherein the step of comparing (i) the position at which the ray
intersects the identified back-facing plane with (ii) the position at which the ray intersects the single front-facing planes in a dimension for which the back-facing plane was not identified comprises determining whether the position at which the ray intersects the single front-facing plane for dimension for which the back-facing plane was not identified is no further along the ray than the position at which the ray intersects the identified back-facing plane.
18. The method of claim 17, wherein said determining whether the position at which the ray intersects the single front-facing plane is no further along the ray than the position at which the ray intersects the identified back-facing plane comprises:
performing a first mixed-facing test to determine which of the identified back-facing plane and the single front-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray, wherein the single front-facing plane of the box is a front-facing plane for a dimension for which the back-facing plane was not identified.
19. An intersection testing module implemented in fixed function circuitry, for use in a ray tracing system, configured to determine whether a ray intersects a three-dimensional axis-aligned box, wherein the box represents a volume defined by a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane for each dimension of the three-dimensional axis-aligned box, the intersection testing module being configured to:
identify which of the front-facing planes intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along a direction of the ray;
determine, in dependence on a geometry of the box, that at most one mixed-facing test is needed to determine whether the ray intersects the box, wherein a mixed-facing test comprises comparing distances at which a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane intersect the ray;
determine whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned box in dependence on a mixed-facing test comprising comparing (i) the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane with (ii) the position at which the ray intersects a single back-facing plane, wherein a dimension of the single back-facing plane is different to the dimension for which the front-facing plane was identified.
19. An intersection testing module implemented in fixed function circuitry, for use in a ray tracing system, configured to determine whether a ray intersects a three-dimensional axis-aligned box, wherein the box represents a volume defined by a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane for each dimension of the three-dimensional axis-aligned box, the intersection testing module being configured to:
identify which of the front-facing planes intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along a direction of the ray; and
determine whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned box in dependence on comparing (i) the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane with (ii) at least one position at which the ray intersects one of the back-facing planes for the two dimensions for which the front-facing plane was not identified;
……
(Claim 6) …
performing a first mixed-facing test to determine which of the identified front-facing plane and a first back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray, wherein the first back-facing plane of the box is a back-facing plane for a first dimension of the two dimensions for which the front-facing plane was not identified;
performing a second mixed-facing test to determine which of the identified front-facing plane and a second back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray, wherein the second back-facing plane of the box is a back-facing plane for a second dimension of the two dimensions for which the front-facing plane was not identified.
20. An intersection testing module implemented in fixed function circuitry, for use in a ray tracing system, configured to determine whether a ray intersects a three-dimensional axis-aligned box, wherein the box represents a volume defined by a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane for each dimension of the three-dimensional axis-aligned box, the intersection testing module being configured to:
identify which of the back-facing planes intersects the ray at a position that is the least far along a direction of the ray;
determine, in dependence on a geometry of the box, that at most one mixed-facing test is needed to determine whether the ray intersects the box, wherein a mixed-facing test comprises comparing distances at which a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane intersect the ray; and
determine whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned-box in dependence on a mixed-facing test comprising comparing (i) the position at which the ray intersects the identified back-facing plane with (ii) the position at which the ray intersects a single front-facing plane, wherein a dimension of the single front-facing plane is different to the dimension for which back-facing plane was identified.
20. An intersection testing module implemented in fixed function circuitry, for use in a ray tracing system, configured to determine whether a ray intersects a three-dimensional axis-aligned box, wherein the box represents a volume defined by a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane for each dimension of the three-dimensional axis-aligned box, the intersection testing module being configured to:
identify which of the back-facing planes intersects the ray at a position that is the least far along a direction of the ray; and
determine whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned-box in dependence on comparing (i) the position at which the ray intersects the identified back-facing plane with (ii) at least one position at which the ray intersects one of the front-facing planes for the two dimensions for which the back-facing plane was not identified;
……
(Claim 17) …
performing a first mixed-facing test to determine which of the identified back-facing plane and a first front-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray, wherein the first front-facing plane of the box is a front-facing plane for a first dimension for the two dimensions for which the back-facing plane was not identified;
performing a second mixed-facing test to determine which of the identified back-facing plane and a second front-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray, wherein the second front-facing plane of the box is a front-facing plane for a second dimension for the two dimensions for which the back-facing plane was not identified.
12. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For example, claim 1 of the present application recites “identifying which of the front-facing planes intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along a direction of the ray;” “determining, in dependence on a geometry of the box, that a single mixed-facing test is
needed to determine whether the ray intersects the box, wherein a mixed-facing test comprises
comparing distances at which a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane intersect the ray; and” “determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned box in dependence on a single mixed-facing test comprising comparing (i) the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane with (ii) the position at which the ray intersects a single back-facing plane, wherein a dimension of the single back-facing plane is different to the dimension for which the front-facing plane was identified.” while claims 1 and 6 of 12266047 discloses “identifying which of the front-facing planes intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along a direction of the ray; and” “determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned box in dependence on comparing (i) the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane with (ii) at least one position at which the ray intersects one of the back-facing planes for the two dimensions for which the front-facing plane was not identified;” “wherein the method determines whether the ray intersects the box without comparing the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane with a position at which the ray intersects the back-facing plane in the dimension for which the front-facing plane was identified” […] “performing a first mixed-facing test to determine which of the identified front-facing plane and a first back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray, wherein the first back-facing plane of the box is a back-facing plane for a first dimension of the two dimensions for which the front-facing plane was not identified;” “performing a second mixed-facing test to determine which of the identified front-facing plane and a second back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray, wherein the second back-facing plane of the box is a back-facing plane for a second dimension of the two dimensions for which the front-facing plane was not identified.” The “identifying which of the front-facing planes intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along a direction of the ray; and” “determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned box in dependence on comparing (i) the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane with (ii) at least one position at which the ray intersects one of the back-facing planes for the two dimensions for which the front-facing plane was not identified;” “wherein the method determines whether the ray intersects the box without comparing the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane with a position at which the ray intersects the back-facing plane in the dimension for which the front-facing plane was identified” […] “performing a first mixed-facing test to determine which of the identified front-facing plane and a first back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray, wherein the first back-facing plane of the box is a back-facing plane for a first dimension of the two dimensions for which the front-facing plane was not identified;” “performing a second mixed-facing test to determine which of the identified front-facing plane and a second back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray, wherein the second back-facing plane of the box is a back-facing plane for a second dimension of the two dimensions for which the front-facing plane was not identified.” would be corresponding to “identifying which of the front-facing planes intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along a direction of the ray;” “determining, in dependence on a geometry of the box, that a single mixed-facing test is needed to determine whether the ray intersects the box, wherein a mixed-facing test comprises comparing distances at which a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane intersect the ray; and” “determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned box in dependence on a single mixed-facing test comprising comparing (i) the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane with (ii) the position at which the ray intersects a single back-facing plane, wherein a dimension of the single back-facing plane is different to the dimension for which the front-facing plane was identified.”
13. Application claim 13, recites “identifying which of the back-facing planes intersects the ray as a position that is the least far along a direction of the ray;” “determining, in dependence on a geometry of the box, that at most one mixed-facing test is needed to determine whether the ray intersects the box, wherein a mixed-facing test comprises comparing distances at which a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane intersect the ray; and” “determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned-box in dependence on a mixed-facing test comprising comparing (i) the position at which the ray intersects the identified backfacing plane with (ii) the position at which the ray intersects a single front-facing plane; wherein a dimension of the single front-facing plane is different to the dimension for which back-facing plane was identified.” while claims 13 and 17 of 12266047 discloses “identifying which of the back-facing planes intersects the ray as a position that is the least far along a direction of the ray; and” “determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned-box in dependence on comparing (i) the position at which the ray intersects the identified back-facing plane with (ii) at least one position at which the ray intersects one of the front-facing planes for the two dimensions for which the back-facing plane was not identified;” “wherein the method determines whether the ray intersects the box without comparing the position at which the ray intersects the identified back-facing plane with a position at which the ray intersects the front-facing plane in the dimension for which back-facing plane was identified” […] “performing a first mixed-facing test to determine which of the identified back-facing plane and a first front-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray, wherein the first front-facing plane of the box is a front-facing plane for a first dimension for the two dimensions for which the back-facing plane was not identified;” “performing a second mixed-facing test to determine which of the identified back-facing plane and a second front-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray, wherein the second front-facing plane of the box is a front-facing plane for a second dimension for the two dimensions for which the back-facing plane was not identified.” The “identifying which of the back-facing planes intersects the ray as a position that is the least far along a direction of the ray; and” “determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned-box in dependence on comparing (i) the position at which the ray intersects the identified back-facing plane with (ii) at least one position at which the ray intersects one of the front-facing planes for the two dimensions for which the back-facing plane was not identified;” “wherein the method determines whether the ray intersects the box without comparing the position at which the ray intersects the identified back-facing plane with a position at which the ray intersects the front-facing plane in the dimension for which back-facing plane was identified” […] “performing a first mixed-facing test to determine which of the identified back-facing plane and a first front-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray, wherein the first front-facing plane of the box is a front-facing plane for a first dimension for the two dimensions for which the back-facing plane was not identified;” “performing a second mixed-facing test to determine which of the identified back-facing plane and a second front-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray, wherein the second front-facing plane of the box is a front-facing plane for a second dimension for the two dimensions for which the back-facing plane was not identified.” would be corresponding to “identifying which of the back-facing planes intersects the ray as a position that is the least far along a direction of the ray;” “determining, in dependence on a geometry of the box, that at most one mixed-facing test is needed to determine whether the ray intersects the box, wherein a mixed-facing test comprises comparing distances at which a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane intersect the ray; and” “determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned-box in dependence on a mixed-facing test comprising comparing (i) the position at which the ray intersects the identified backfacing plane with (ii) the position at which the ray intersects a single front-facing plane; wherein a dimension of the single front-facing plane is different to the dimension for which back-facing plane was identified.”
Regarding Claims 19-20, the claims are rejected under obviousness double patenting for the same rational described at claims 1 and 13 as above .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
15. Claims 1-2 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karras et al., (“Karras”) [US-2018/0182158-A1]
Regarding claim 1, Karras discloses a method of determining, in a ray tracing system (¶0007, at least discloses the apparatus may comprise circuitry within a processing unit, such as a parallel processing unit, which may further include circuitry to implement one or more tree traversal units that may be configured to generate the intersection query; ¶0028, at least discloses the intersection test engine may reside within tree traversal unit (TTU) 500 of FIGS. 5A-5B, or within any other technically feasible location within the parallel processing unit (PPU) 200 of FIG. 2), whether a ray intersects a three-dimensional axis-aligned box, wherein the box represents a volume defined by a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane for each dimension of the three-dimensional axis-aligned box (Karras- ¶0006, method for performing an intersection query between a query beam and a target bounding volume […] and it is determined whether the query beam intersects the target bounding volume based on at least the parametric variable range for the first dimension; Fig. 1B and ¶0041-0042, FIG. 1B illustrates a ray 130 intersecting a rectangular bounding volume 136 [a ray intersects a three-dimensional axis-aligned box, wherein the box represents a volume] […] In the z dimension, the rectangular bounding volume 136 is defined by a minimum value (zmin) [a front-facing plane] and a maximum value (zmax) [a back-facing plane] of z), the method comprising:
identifying which of the front-facing planes intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along a direction of the ray (Fig. 1B shows the ray 130 intersects the z slab at t3; ¶0039, at least discloses Any representation of direction, including inverse direction, may be referred to herein generically as a direction vector, whereby the direction vector may include one or more values; ¶0042-0043, at least disclose The rectangular bounding volume 136 is defined by a pair of infinite planes at minimum and maximum values in each dimension […] In the z dimension, the rectangular bounding volume 136 is defined by a minimum value (zmin) and a maximum value (zmax) of z. Each pair of minimum and maximum values for a given dimension defines a slab for the dimension. For example, xmin and xmax define an x slab in the x dimension, ymin and ymax define a y slab, and zmin and zmax define a z slab […] the ray 130 intersects the x slab at t1, the y slab at t2 and the z slab at t3 [the front-facing planes of the box intersects the ray furthest along the ray]);
determining, in dependence on a geometry of the box, that a single mixed-facing test is needed to determine whether the ray intersects the box (Fig. 1B shows the ray 130 intersects the z slab at t3 and exits the z slab at t4 [Wingdings font/0xE0] ray intersects at t3 and t4 suggests a single mixed-facing test to determine whether the ray intersects the box; Fig. 1A and ¶0036, at least disclose an intersection by the first query ray at a minimum value along the first dimension is referred to herein as intersection parameter value Amin […] Similarly, an intersection at a maximum value is referred to herein as intersection parameter value Amax […] the intersection test engine further calculates intersection parameter values for each dimension within a 3D space. For example, the intersection parameter values may include a minimum and maximum value for each of x, y, and z dimensions [mixed-facing test]; Fig. 1B and ¶0041, at least disclose a ray 130 intersecting a rectangular bounding volume 136 [in dependence on a geometry of the box]), wherein a mixed-facing test comprises comparing distances at which a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane intersect the ray (Fig. 1A and ¶0036, at least disclose an intersection by the first query ray at a minimum value along the first dimension is referred to herein as intersection parameter value Amin (distance at front-facing plane) […] Similarly, an intersection at a maximum value is referred to herein as intersection parameter value Amax (distance at back-facing plane) […] the intersection test engine further calculates intersection parameter values for each dimension within a 3D space. For example, the intersection parameter values may include a minimum and maximum value for each of x, y, and z dimensions [mixed-facing test]); and
determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned box in dependence on a single mixed-facing test comprising comparing (i) the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane with (ii) the position at which the ray intersects a single back-facing plane (Fig. 1B shows the ray 130 intersects the z slab at t3 [the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane] and exits the z slab at t4 [the position at which the ray intersects a single back-facing plane]; Fig. 1A and ¶0036, at least disclose an intersection by the first query ray at a minimum value along the first dimension is referred to herein as intersection parameter value Amin [the identified front-facing plane]. Similarly, an intersection at a maximum value is referred to herein as intersection parameter value Amax [a second back-facing plane]. Minimum and maximum intersection parameter values associated with the second query ray are referred to herein as Bmin and Bmax, respectively […] the intersection parameter values include one or more of Amin, Amax, Bmin, and Bmax. In one embodiment, the intersection test engine further calculates intersection parameter values for each dimension within a 3D space. For example, the intersection parameter values may include a minimum and maximum value for each of x, y, and z dimensions [mixed-facing test]), wherein a dimension of the single back-facing plane is different to the dimension for which the front-facing plane was identified (Fig. 1B shows the ray 130 intersects the z slab at t3 [dimension for which the front-facing plane] and exits the z slab at t4 [dimension of the single back-facing plane]; ¶0036, at least disclosses an intersection by the first query ray at a minimum value along the first dimension is referred to herein as intersection parameter value Amin. Similarly, an intersection at a maximum value is referred to herein as intersection parameter value Amax [Wingdings font/0xE0] Amix and Amax suggests a dimension of the single back-facing plane is different to the dimension for which the front-facing plane).
Karras fails to explicitly disclose a dimension of the single back-facing plane is different to the dimension for which the front-facing plane was identified. However, Karras does disclose the ray 130 intersects the z slab at t3 and exits the z slab at t4. An intersection by the first query ray at a minimum value along the first dimension is referred to herein as intersection parameter value Amin. Similarly, an intersection at a maximum value is referred to herein as intersection parameter value Amax (see figures 1A-1B and [0036]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Karras with the ray intersects the z slab at t3 and exits the z slab at t4 and the first dimension as intersection parameter value Amin and the second dimension as intersection parameter value Amax because doing so would provide a valid and conservative configuration for performing an intersection test.
Regarding claim 2, Karras discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein determining that a single mixed-facing test is needed to determine whether the ray intersects the box (see Claim 1 rejection for detailed analysis) comprises determining that the ray can intersect back-facing plane of the box based on the identified front-facing plane (Karras- Fig. 1B shows the ray 130 intersects the z slab at t3 [the identified front-facing plane] and exits the z slab at t4 [back-facing plane]).
Regarding claim 5, Karras discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein said identifying which of the front-facing planes of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray (see Claim 1 rejection for detailed analysis) comprises:
performing a first front-facing test to determine which of a first front-facing plane and a second front-facing plane of the box the ray intersects furthest along the ray (Karras- Fig. 1A and ¶0036, At step 106, the intersection test engine calculates intersection parameter values for the first dimension based on the beam information and the slab boundary information […] an intersection by the first query ray at a minimum value along the first dimension is referred to herein as intersection parameter value Amin [performing a first front-facing test to determine which of a first front-facing plane] […] Minimum and maximum intersection parameter values associated with the second query ray are referred to herein as Bmin [a second front- facing plane of the box the ray intersects furthest along the ray] and Bmax, respectively; Fig. 1G and ¶0049, At xmin, the first query ray A 162 intersects the x slab 160 at t=Amin. Similarly, at xmin the second query ray B 164 intersects the x slab 160 at t=Bmin [performing a first front-facing test to determine which of a first front-facing plane and a second front- facing plane of the box the ray intersects]); and
performing a second front-facing test to determine which of the determined front-facing plane and a third front-facing plane of the box the ray intersects furthest along the ray (Karras- Fig. 1A and ¶0036, Fig. 1A and ¶0036, At step 106, the intersection test engine calculates intersection parameter values for the first dimension based on the beam information and the slab boundary information […] Minimum and maximum intersection parameter values associated with the second query ray are referred to herein as Bmin [a second front-facing test] and Bmax, respectively […] the intersection test engine further calculates intersection parameter values for each dimension within a 3D space. For example, the intersection parameter values may include a minimum and maximum value for each of x, y, and z dimensions – z dimensions suggests a third front-facing plane of the box the ray intersects furthest along the ray; Fig. 1D and ¶0045, FIG. 1D illustrates a ray 142(Z) intersecting z slab 140(Z) […] the parametric variable is equal to z.tmin when the ray 142(Z) is at zmin [a third front-facing plane of the box the ray intersects furthest along the ray]), thereby identifying which of the front-facing planes of the box intersects the ray furthest along the ray (Karras- ¶0026, Testing may be performed as a query, where a given query ray is tested against bounding volumes within the BVH. An individual query may comprise testing whether the parametric variable associated with the query ray is within an appropriate range to fall between bounding planes for the x-dimension, y-dimension, and z-dimension to intersect the bounding volume).
Regarding claim 6, Karras discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein said identifying which of the front-facing planes of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray (see Claim 1 rejection for detailed analysis) comprises:
performing a first front-facing test to determine which of a first front-facing plane and a second front-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the ray (Karras- Fig. 1A and ¶0036, At step 106, the intersection test engine calculates intersection parameter values for the first dimension based on the beam information and the slab boundary information […] an intersection by the first query ray at a minimum value along the first dimension is referred to herein as intersection parameter value Amin [performing a first front-facing test to determine which of a first front-facing plane] […] Minimum and maximum intersection parameter values associated with the second query ray are referred to herein as Bmin [a second front- facing plane of the box the ray intersects furthest along the ray] and Bmax, respectively; Fig. 1G and ¶0049, At xmin, the first query ray A 162 intersects the x slab 160 at t=Amin. Similarly, at xmin the second query ray B 164 intersects the x slab 160 at t=Bmin [performing a first front-facing test to determine which of a first front-facing plane and a second front- facing plane of the box the ray intersects]);
performing a second front-facing test to determine which of the first front-facing plane and a third front-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray (Karras- Fig. 1A and ¶0036, Fig. 1A and ¶0036, At step 106, the intersection test engine calculates intersection parameter values for the first dimension based on the beam information and the slab boundary information […] Minimum and maximum intersection parameter values associated with the second query ray are referred to herein as Bmin [a second front-facing test] and Bmax, respectively […] the intersection test engine further calculates intersection parameter values for each dimension within a 3D space. For example, the intersection parameter values may include a minimum and maximum value for each of x, y, and z dimensions – z dimensions suggests a third front-facing plane of the box the ray intersects furthest along the ray; Fig. 1D and ¶0045, FIG. 1D illustrates a ray 142(Z) intersecting z slab 140(Z) […] the parametric variable is equal to z.tmin when the ray 142(Z) is at zmin [a third front-facing plane of the box the ray intersects furthest along the ray]);
performing a third front-facing test to determine which of the second front-facing plane and the third front-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray (Karras- Fig. 1A and ¶0036, Fig. 1A and ¶0036, At step 106, the intersection test engine calculates intersection parameter values for the first dimension based on the beam information and the slab boundary information […] Minimum and maximum intersection parameter values associated with the second query ray are referred to herein as Bmin [the second front-facing plane] and Bmax, respectively […] the intersection test engine further calculates intersection parameter values for each dimension within a 3D space. For example, the intersection parameter values may include a minimum and maximum value for each of x, y, and z dimensions – z dimensions suggests a third front-facing plane of the box the ray intersects furthest along the ray; Fig. 1D and ¶0045, FIG. 1D illustrates a ray 142(Z) intersecting z slab 140(Z) […] the parametric variable is equal to z.tmin when the ray 142(Z) is at zmin [a third front-facing plane of the box the ray intersects furthest along the ray]); and
using the results of the first, second and third front-facing tests to identify which of the front-facing planes of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray (Karras- ¶0026, Testing may be performed as a query, where a given query ray is tested against bounding volumes within the BVH. An individual query may comprise testing whether the parametric variable associated with the query ray is within an appropriate range to fall between bounding planes for the x-dimension, y-dimension, and z-dimension to intersect the bounding volume).
Regarding claim 7, Karras discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the step of comparing (i) the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane with (ii) the position at which the ray intersects the single back-facing plane (see Claim 1 rejection for detailed analysis) in a dimension for which the front-facing plane was not identified comprises determining whether the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane is no further along the ray than the position at which the ray intersects the single back-facing plane (Karras- Fig. 1B shows the ray 130 intersects the z slab at t3 and exits the z slab at t4 [the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane is no further along the ray than the position at which the ray intersects the single back-facing plane]; ¶0057, a first distance between a first origin and a slab minimum (MIN-oA, MIN-oB), and a second multiplication may be performed between a second inverse direction (idB, idA) and a second distance between a second origin and a slab maximum distance (MAX-oB, MAX-oA); ¶0124, the TTU 500 may include four traversal units 530 to test up to eight child nodes for intersection with the ray in parallel).
Regarding claim 8, Karras discloses the method of claim 7, wherein said determining whether the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane is no further along the ray than the at least one position at which the ray intersects the single back-facing plane (see Claim 7 rejection for detailed analysis) comprises:
performing the mixed-facing test to determine which of the identified front-facing plane and the single back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray (Karras- Fig. 1A and ¶0036, At step 106, the intersection test engine calculates intersection parameter values for the first dimension based on the beam information and the slab boundary information […] an intersection by the first query ray at a minimum value along the first dimension is referred to herein as intersection parameter value Amin [performing the mixed-facing test to determine which of the identified front-facing plane] […] Minimum and maximum intersection parameter values associated with the second query ray are referred to herein as Bmin [front- facing plane of the box the ray intersects furthest along the direction of the ray] and Bmax, respectively; Fig. 1G and ¶0049, At xmin, the first query ray A 162 intersects the x slab 160 at t=Amin. Similarly, at xmin the second query ray B 164 intersects the x slab 160 at t=Bmin [mixed-facing test to determine which of the identified front-facing plane and the single back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray]).
Regarding claim 9, Karras discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
storing one or more intermediate results which are determined in said identifying which of the front-facing planes of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray (¶0042-0043, The rectangular bounding volume 136 is defined by a pair of infinite planes at minimum and maximum values in each dimension […] In the z dimension, the rectangular bounding volume 136 is defined by a minimum value (zmin) and a maximum value (zmax) of z […] and zmin and zmax define a z slab […] the ray 130 intersects the x slab at t1, the y slab at t2 and the z slab at t3 [the front-facing planes of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray]; ¶0104, the query data structure associated with a particular tree traversal operation is stored in the local storage 502. The query data structure may specify a query shape to be intersected with a tree data structure. The interface 505 may receive the data for the query data structure and store the data in an available memory location in the local storage 502); and
reading the stored one or more intermediate results for use in the step of comparing (i) the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane with (ii) the position at which the ray intersects the single back-facing plane (¶0117, the scheduler unit 510 may retrieve the top element (i.e., a new node) from the traversal stack included in the local storage 504, fetch any data required for performing the tree traversal operation for the new node into the L0 cache unit 570 and/or local storage 502, and notify the setup unit 520 to configure the one or more traversal units 530 to perform the tree traversal operation for one or more nodes in the new block of the tree data structure).
Regarding claim 10, Karras discloses the method of claim 1, and discloses the method further comprising determining whether a maximum distance condition is satisfied (Fig. 1B shows the ray 130 exits the z slab when the parametric variable is at t4; ¶0057, a first distance between a first origin and a slab minimum (MIN-oA, MIN-oB), and a second multiplication may be performed between a second inverse direction (idB, idA) and a second distance between a second origin and a slab maximum distance (MAX-oB, MAX-oA)), wherein the maximum distance condition is satisfied if a maximum valid distance of the ray from the ray origin is greater than or equal to a minimum distance from the ray origin to any intersection of the ray with a point within the box (¶0043, the ray 130 must be located between slabs for all dimensions simultaneously for a given parametric variable value. As shown, the ray 130 intersects the x slab at t1, the y slab at t2 and the z slab at t3. The ray 130 exits the z slab when the parametric variable is at t4. Therefore, the ray intersection test for ray 130 intersecting the bounding volume 136 is true for t3≤t≤t4 [the ray from the ray origin is greater than a minimum distance], where t is the parametric variable),
wherein said determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned box further comprises using the determination of whether the maximum distance condition is satisfied (¶0043, the ray intersection test for ray 130 intersecting the bounding volume 136 is true for t3≤t≤t4, where t is the parametric variable; ¶0057, a first distance between a first origin and a slab minimum (MIN-oA, MIN-oB), and a second multiplication may be performed between a second inverse direction (idB, idA) and a second distance between a second origin and a slab maximum distance (MAX-oB, MAX-oA)).
Regarding claim 11, Karras discloses the method of claim 1, and discloses the method further comprising determining whether a minimum distance condition is satisfied (Fig. 1B shows the ray 130 intersects the z slab at t3; ¶0057, a first distance between a first origin and a slab minimum (MIN-oA, MIN-oB), and a second multiplication may be performed between a second inverse direction (idB, idA) and a second distance between a second origin and a slab maximum distance (MAX-oB, MAX-oA)), wherein the minimum distance condition is satisfied if a minimum valid distance of the ray from the ray origin is less than or equal to a maximum distance from the ray origin to any intersection of the ray with a point within the box (¶0043, the ray 130 must be located between slabs for all dimensions simultaneously for a given parametric variable value. As shown, the ray 130 intersects the x slab at t1, the y slab at t2 and the z slab at t3. The ray 130 exits the z slab when the parametric variable is at t4. Therefore, the ray intersection test for ray 130 intersecting the bounding volume 136 is true for t3≤t≤t4 [a minimum valid distance of the ray from the ray origin is less than a maximum distance], where t is the parametric variable),
wherein said determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned box further comprises using the determination of whether the minimum distance condition is satisfied (¶0043, the ray intersection test for ray 130 intersecting the bounding volume 136 is true for t3≤t≤t4, where t is the parametric variable; ¶0057, a first distance between a first origin and a slab minimum (MIN-oA, MIN-oB), and a second multiplication may be performed between a second inverse direction (idB, idA) and a second distance between a second origin and a slab maximum distance (MAX-oB, MAX-oA)).
Regarding claim 12, Karras discloses the method of claim 11, and discloses the method further comprising determining whether a maximum distance condition is satisfied, wherein the maximum distance condition is satisfied if a maximum valid distance of the ray from the ray origin is greater than or equal to a minimum distance from the ray origin to any intersection of the ray with a point within the box (¶0043, the ray 130 must be located between slabs for all dimensions simultaneously for a given parametric variable value. As shown, the ray 130 intersects the x slab at t1, the y slab at t2 and the z slab at t3. The ray 130 exits the z slab when the parametric variable is at t4. Therefore, the ray intersection test for ray 130 intersecting the bounding volume 136 is true for t3≤t≤t4 [the ray from the ray origin is greater than a minimum distance], where t is the parametric variable),
wherein said determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned box further comprises using the determination of whether the maximum distance condition is satisfied (Karras- Fig. 1B shows an intersection between the ray 130 and the rectangular bounding volume 136. The ray 130 intersects the z slab at t3 and exits the z slab at t4; Fig. 1A and ¶0028, FIG. 1A illustrates a flowchart of a method 100 for determining whether a query beam intersects a target bounding volume [determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned box]; ¶0043, Each pair of minimum and maximum values for a given dimension defines a slab for the dimension. For example, xmin and xmax define an x slab in the x dimension, ymin and ymax define a y slab, and zmin and zmax define a z slab [the subset of the dimensions] […] For an intersection test between the ray 130 and the rectangular bounding volume 136 to be true, the ray 130 must be located between slabs for all dimensions simultaneously for a given parametric variable value […] the ray 130 intersects the x slab at t1, the y slab at t2 and the z slab at t3. The ray 130 exits the z slab when the parametric variable is at t4. Therefore, the ray intersection test for ray 130 intersecting the bounding volume 136 is true for t3≤t≤t4, where t is the parametric variable), and
wherein said determining whether a maximum distance condition is satisfied and said determining whether a minimum distance condition is satisfied are performed in parallel with the step of comparing (i) the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane and (ii) the position at which the ray intersects the single back-facing plane (Karras- Fig. 1B shows the ray 130 intersects the z slab at t3 and exits the z slab at t4 [the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane at a position that is no further along the ray than positions at which the ray intersects the back-facing planes]; ¶0057, a first distance between a first origin and a slab minimum (MIN-oA, MIN-oB), and a second multiplication may be performed between a second inverse direction (idB, idA) and a second distance between a second origin and a slab maximum distance (MAX-oB, MAX-oA); ¶0124, the TTU 500 may include four traversal units 530 to test up to eight child nodes for intersection with the ray in parallel).
Regarding claim 13, Karras discloses a method of determining, in a ray tracing system (Karras- ¶0007, The apparatus may comprise circuitry within a processing unit, such as a parallel processing unit, which may further include circuitry to implement one or more tree traversal units that may be configured to generate the intersection query; ¶0028, The intersection test engine may reside within tree traversal unit (TTU) 500 of FIGS. 5A-5B, or within any other technically feasible location within the parallel processing unit (PPU) 200 of FIG. 2), whether a ray intersects a three-dimensional axis-aligned box, wherein the box represents a volume defined by a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane for each dimension of the three-dimensional axis-aligned box (Karras- ¶0006, method for performing an intersection query between a query beam and a target bounding volume […] and it is determined whether the query beam intersects the target bounding volume based on at least the parametric variable range for the first dimension; Fig. 1B and ¶0041-0042, FIG. 1B illustrates a ray 130 intersecting a rectangular bounding volume 136 [a ray intersects a three-dimensional axis-aligned box, wherein the box represents a volume] […] In the z dimension, the rectangular bounding volume 136 is defined by a minimum value (zmin) [a front-facing plane] and a maximum value (zmax) [a back-facing plane] of z), the method comprising:
identifying which of the back-facing planes intersects the ray as a position that is the least far along a direction of the ray (Karras- Fig. 1B shows the ray 130 intersects and exists the z slab at t4 and ¶0042-0043, The rectangular bounding volume 136 is defined by a pair of infinite planes at minimum and maximum values in each dimension […] In the z dimension, the rectangular bounding volume 136 is defined by a minimum value (zmin) and a maximum value (zmax) of z. Each pair of minimum and maximum values for a given dimension defines a slab for the dimension. For example, xmin and xmax define an x slab in the x dimension, ymin and ymax define a y slab, and zmin and zmax define a z slab […] the ray 130 intersects the x slab at t1, the y slab at t2 and the z slab at t3. The ray 130 exits the z slab when the parametric variable is at t4 [the back-facing planes intersects the ray as a position that is the least far along a direction of the ray]);
determining, in dependence on a geometry of the box, that at most one mixed-facing test is needed to determine whether the ray intersects the box (Fig. 1B shows the ray 130 intersects the z slab at t3 and exits the z slab at t4 [Wingdings font/0xE0] ray intersects at t3 and t4 suggests a single mixed-facing test to determine whether the ray intersects the box; Fig. 1A and ¶0036, at least disclose an intersection by the first query ray at a minimum value along the first dimension is referred to herein as intersection parameter value Amin […] Similarly, an intersection at a maximum value is referred to herein as intersection parameter value Amax […] the intersection test engine further calculates intersection parameter values for each dimension within a 3D space. For example, the intersection parameter values may include a minimum and maximum value for each of x, y, and z dimensions [mixed-facing test]; Fig. 1B and ¶0041, at least disclose a ray 130 intersecting a rectangular bounding volume 136 [in dependence on a geometry of the box]), wherein a mixed-facing test comprises comparing distances at which a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane intersect the ray (Fig. 1A and ¶0036, at least disclose an intersection by the first query ray at a minimum value along the first dimension is referred to herein as intersection parameter value Amin (distance at front-facing plane) […] Similarly, an intersection at a maximum value is referred to herein as intersection parameter value Amax (distance at back-facing plane) […] the intersection test engine further calculates intersection parameter values for each dimension within a 3D space. For example, the intersection parameter values may include a minimum and maximum value for each of x, y, and z dimensions [mixed-facing test]); and
determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned-box in dependence on a mixed-facing test comprising comparing (i) the position at which the ray intersects the identified back-facing plane with (ii) the position at which the ray intersects a single front-facing plane (Fig. 1B shows the ray 130 intersects the z slab at t4 [the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane] and exits the z slab at t4 [the position at which the ray intersects a single back-facing plane]; Fig. 1A and ¶0036, at least disclose an intersection by the first query ray at a minimum value along the first dimension is referred to herein as intersection parameter value Amin [the identified front-facing plane]. Similarly, an intersection at a maximum value is referred to herein as intersection parameter value Amax [a second back-facing plane]. Minimum and maximum intersection parameter values associated with the second query ray are referred to herein as Bmin and Bmax, respectively […] the intersection parameter values include one or more of Amin, Amax, Bmin, and Bmax. In one embodiment, the intersection test engine further calculates intersection parameter values for each dimension within a 3D space. For example, the intersection parameter values may include a minimum and maximum value for each of x, y, and z dimensions [mixed-facing test]);
wherein a dimension of the single front-facing plane is different to the dimension for which back-facing plane was identified (Fig. 1B shows the ray 130 intersects the z slab at t3 [dimension for which the front-facing plane] and exits the z slab at t4 [dimension of the single back-facing plane]; ¶0036, at least discloses an intersection by the first query ray at a minimum value along the first dimension is referred to herein as intersection parameter value Amin. Similarly, an intersection at a maximum value is referred to herein as intersection parameter value Amax [Wingdings font/0xE0] Amix and Amax suggests a dimension of the single front-facing plane is different to the dimension for which back-facing plane was identified).
Regarding claim 14, Karras discloses the method of claim 13, and further discloses wherein determining that at most one mixed-facing is needed to determine whether the ray intersects the box (see Claim 13 rejection for detailed analysis) comprises determining that the ray can intersect at most one front-facing plane of the box based on the identified back-facing plane (Karras- Fig. 1B shows the ray 130 intersects the z slab at t3 [front-facing plane] and exits the z slab at t4 [identified back-facing plane]).
Regarding claim 15, Karras discloses the method of claim 13, and further discloses wherein said identifying which of the back-facing planes of the box intersects the ray as a position that is the least far along the direction of the ray (see Claim 13 rejection for detailed analysis) comprises:
performing a first back-facing test to determine which of a first back-facing plane and a second back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray intersects as a position that is the least far along the direction of the ray (Karras- Fig. 1A and ¶0036, At step 106, the intersection test engine calculates intersection parameter values for the first dimension based on the beam information and the slab boundary information […] an intersection at a maximum value is referred to herein as intersection parameter value Amax [performing a first back-facing test to determine which of a first back-facing plane] […] Minimum and maximum intersection parameter values associated with the second query ray are referred to herein as Bmin and Bmax [a second backfacing plane of the box the ray intersects least far along the ray], respectively; Fig. 1G and ¶0049, At xmax, the second query ray B 164 intersects the x slab 160 at t=Bmax. Similarly, at xmax the first query ray 162 A intersects the x slab 160 at t=Amax [performing a first back-facing test to determine which of a first back-facing plane and a second backfacing plane of the box the ray intersects least far along the ray]); and
performing a second back-facing test to determine which of the determined back-facing plane and a third back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray as a position that is the least far along the direction of the ray (Karras- Fig. 1A and ¶0036, Fig. 1A and ¶0036, At step 106, the intersection test engine calculates intersection parameter values for the first dimension based on the beam information and the slab boundary information […] Minimum and maximum intersection parameter values associated with the second query ray are referred to herein as Bmin and Bmax [a second back-facing test], respectively […] the intersection test engine further calculates intersection parameter values for each dimension within a 3D space. For example, the intersection parameter values may include a minimum and maximum value for each of x, y, and z dimensions – z dimensions suggests a third back-facing plane of the box the ray intersects least far along the ray; Fig. 1D and ¶0045, FIG. 1D illustrates a ray 142(Z) intersecting z slab 140(Z) […] the parametric variable is equal to z.tmax when the ray 142(Z) is at zmax [a third back-facing plane of the box the ray intersects least far along the ray]), thereby identifying which of the back-facing planes of the box intersects the ray at a position that is the least far along the direction of the ray (Karras- ¶0026, Testing may be performed as a query, where a given query ray is tested against bounding volumes within the BVH. An individual query may comprise testing whether the parametric variable associated with the query ray is within an appropriate range to fall between bounding planes for the x-dimension, y-dimension, and z-dimension to intersect the bounding volume).
Regarding claim 16, Karras discloses the method of claim 13, wherein said identifying which of the back-facing planes of the box intersects the ray as a position that is the least far along the direction of the ray (see Claim 13 rejection for detailed analysis) comprises:
performing a first back-facing test to determine which of a first back-facing plane and a second back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is the least far along the direction of the ray (Karras- Fig. 1A and ¶0036, At step 106, the intersection test engine calculates intersection parameter values for the first dimension based on the beam information and the slab boundary information […] an intersection at a maximum value is referred to herein as intersection parameter value Amax [performing a first back-facing test to determine which of a first back-facing plane] […] Minimum and maximum intersection parameter values associated with the second query ray are referred to herein as Bmin and Bmax [a second backfacing plane of the box the ray intersects least far along the ray], respectively; Fig. 1G and ¶0049, At xmax, the second query ray B 164 intersects the x slab 160 at t=Bmax. Similarly, at xmax the first query ray 162 A intersects the x slab 160 at t=Amax [performing a first back-facing test to determine which of a first back-facing plane and a second backfacing plane of the box the ray intersects least far along the ray]);
performing a second back-facing test to determine which of the first back-facing plane and a third back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is the least far along the direction of the ray (Karras- Fig. 1A and ¶0036, Fig. 1A and ¶0036, At step 106, the intersection test engine calculates intersection parameter values for the first dimension based on the beam information and the slab boundary information […] Minimum and maximum intersection parameter values associated with the second query ray are referred to herein as Bmin and Bmax [a second back-facing test], respectively […] the intersection test engine further calculates intersection parameter values for each dimension within a 3D space. For example, the intersection parameter values may include a minimum and maximum value for each of x, y, and z dimensions – z dimensions suggests a third back-facing plane of the box the ray intersects least far along the ray; Fig. 1D and ¶0045, FIG. 1D illustrates a ray 142(Z) intersecting z slab 140(Z) […] the parametric variable is equal to z.tmax when the ray 142(Z) is at zmax [a third back-facing plane of the box the ray intersects least far along the ray]);
performing a third back-facing test to determine which of the second back-facing plane and the third back-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is the least far along the direction of the ray (Karras- Fig. 1A and ¶0036, Fig. 1A and ¶0036, At step 106, the intersection test engine calculates intersection parameter values for the first dimension based on the beam information and the slab boundary information […] Minimum and maximum intersection parameter values associated with the second query ray are referred to herein as Bmin and Bmax [the second back-facing plane, respectively […] the intersection test engine further calculates intersection parameter values for each dimension within a 3D space. For example, the intersection parameter values may include a minimum and maximum value for each of x, y, and z dimensions – z dimensions suggests the third back-facing plane of the box the ray intersects least far along the ray; Fig. 1D and ¶0045, FIG. 1D illustrates a ray 142(Z) intersecting z slab 140(Z) […] the parametric variable is equal to z.tmax when the ray 142(Z) is at zmax [the third back-facing plane of the box the ray intersects least far along the ray]); and
using the results of the first, second and third back-facing tests to identify which of the back-facing planes of the box intersects the ray as a position that the least far along the direction of the ray (Karras- ¶0026, Testing may be performed as a query, where a given query ray is tested against bounding volumes within the BVH. An individual query may comprise testing whether the parametric variable associated with the query ray is within an appropriate range to fall between bounding planes for the x-dimension, y-dimension, and z-dimension to intersect the bounding volume).
Regarding claim 17, Karras discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the step of comparing (i) the position at which the ray intersects the identified back-facing plane with (ii) the position at which the ray intersects the single front-facing planes in a dimension for which the back-facing plane was not identified comprises determining whether the position at which the ray intersects the single front-facing plane for dimension for which the back-facing plane was not identified is no further along the ray than the position at which the ray intersects the identified back-facing plane (Karras- ¶0043, Each pair of minimum and maximum values for a given dimension defines a slab for the dimension. For example, xmin and xmax define an x slab in the x dimension, ymin and ymax define a y slab [two dimensions], and zmin and zmax define a z slab).
Regarding claim 18, Karras discloses the method of claim 17, and further discloses wherein said determining whether the position at which the ray intersects the single front-facing plane is no further along the ray than the position at which the ray intersects the identified back-facing plane (see Claim 13 rejection for detailed analysis) comprises:
performing a first mixed-facing test to determine which of the identified back-facing plane and the single front-facing plane of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along the direction of the ray, wherein the single front-facing plane of the box is a front-facing plane for a dimension for which the back-facing plane was not identified (Karras- Fig. 1B shows the ray 130 intersects the z slab at t3 [the identified front-facing plane] and exits the z slab at t4 [a first back-facing plane of the box the ray intersects furthest along the ray]; Fig. 1A and ¶0036, an intersection by the first query ray at a minimum value along the first dimension is referred to herein as intersection parameter value Amin [the identified front-facing plane] […] the intersection test engine further calculates intersection parameter values for each dimension within a 3D space. For example, the intersection parameter values may include a minimum and maximum value for each of x, y, and z dimensions [mixed-facing test]).
Regarding claim 19, Karras discloses an intersection testing module implemented in fixed function circuitry, for use in a ray tracing system (Karras- ¶0025, at least discloses Rendering techniques based on ray tracing may organize three-dimensional (3D) objects, such as triangles, occupying a 3D space using a bounding volume hierarchy (BVH), a data structure designed to efficiently encode spatial relationships among 3D objects; Fig. 5A and ¶0096, at least disclose a TPC 320 of FIG. 3A, modified to include one or more tree traversal units (TTUs) 500, in accordance with one embodiment. The TTUs 500 are each configured to perform tree traversal operations. Tree traversal operations are commonly utilized in, for example, ray tracing algorithms in computer graphics; Fig. 9 and ¶0141-0142, at least disclose The system 900 also includes input devices 912, a graphics processor 906, and a display 908 […] the graphics processor 906 may include a plurality of shader modules, a rasterization module, etc. Each of the foregoing modules may even be situated on a single semiconductor platform to form a graphics processing unit (GPU)), configured to determine whether a ray intersects a three-dimensional axis-aligned box, wherein the box represents a volume defined by a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane for each dimension of the three-dimensional axis-aligned box (see Claim 1 rejection for detailed analysis), the intersection testing module being configured to perform the method of claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Karras discloses an intersection testing module implemented in fixed function circuitry, for use in a ray tracing system (Karras- ¶0025, at least discloses Rendering techniques based on ray tracing may organize three-dimensional (3D) objects, such as triangles, occupying a 3D space using a bounding volume hierarchy (BVH), a data structure designed to efficiently encode spatial relationships among 3D objects; Fig. 5A and ¶0096, at least disclose a TPC 320 of FIG. 3A, modified to include one or more tree traversal units (TTUs) 500, in accordance with one embodiment. The TTUs 500 are each configured to perform tree traversal operations. Tree traversal operations are commonly utilized in, for example, ray tracing algorithms in computer graphics; Fig. 9 and ¶0141-0142, at least disclose The system 900 also includes input devices 912, a graphics processor 906, and a display 908 […] the graphics processor 906 may include a plurality of shader modules, a rasterization module, etc. Each of the foregoing modules may even be situated on a single semiconductor platform to form a graphics processing unit (GPU)), configured to determine whether a ray intersects a three-dimensional axis-aligned box, wherein the box represents a volume defined by a front-facing plane and a back-facing plane for each dimension of the three-dimensional axis-aligned box, the intersection testing module being configured to perform the method of claim 13.
16. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karras in view of “Fast Ray-Axis Aligned Bounding Box Overlap Tests with Plucker Coordinates” by Jeffrey Mahovsky (“Mahovsky”)
Regarding claim 4, Karras discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein said steps of identifying which of the front-facing planes of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along a direction of the ray and comparing (i) the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane with (ii) the at least one position at which the ray intersects one of the back-facing planes determining whether a query beam intersects a target bounding volume [determining whether the ray intersects the axis-aligned box]; ¶0043, Each pair of minimum and maximum values for a given dimension defines a slab for the dimension. For example, xmin and xmax define an x slab in the x dimension, ymin and ymax define a y slab, and zmin and zmax define a z slab [a subset of the dimensions] […] For an intersection test between the ray 130 and the rectangular bounding volume 136 to be true, the ray 130 must be located between slabs for all dimensions simultaneously for a given parametric variable value […] the ray 130 intersects the x slab at t1, the y slab at t2 and the z slab at t3. The ray 130 exits the z slab when the parametric variable is at t4).
Karras does not explicitly disclose said steps of identifying are performed without computing intersection distances to any of the planes of the box.
However, Mahovsky discloses
steps of identifying are performed without computing intersection distances to any of the planes of the box (Mahovsky- page 42, 1st paragraph, The Plucker technique does not, by itself, compute an intersection distance; page 43, 3rd paragraph, Determines whether the ray hits the box, does not compute an intersection distance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Karras to incorporate the teachings of Mahovsky, and apply the Plucker technique into the steps of identifying, as taught by Karras for identifying which of the front-facing planes of the box intersects the ray at a position that is furthest along a direction of the ray and comparing (i) the position at which the ray intersects the identified front-facing plane with (ii) the at least one position at which the ray intersects one of the back-facing planes are performed without computing intersection distances to any of the planes of the box.
Doing so the number of faces tested can be reduced.
Allowable Subject Matter
17. Claim 3 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.
18. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of prior arts teaches the method of Claim 1.
However in the context of claim 1, 2 and 3 as a whole, the combination of prior arts does not teach performing two edge tests, each edge test determining which of two front-facing planes intersects the ray further along the ray, and wherein at least some of the geometry of the box is identified by performing the two edge tests. Therefore, Claim 3 in the context of claim 1, 2 as a whole does comprise allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
19. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. They are as recited in the attached PTO-892 form.
20. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL LE whose telephone number is (571)272-5330. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kent Chang can be reached at (571) 272-7667. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2614
Prosecution Insights