DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-14 have been amended, 15-29 have been cancelled, and claims 31-35 have been added; as a result, claims 1-14 and 30-35 are currently pending in the present application, with claims 1, 13, and 14 being independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 23 April 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 (and similarly claims 13 and 14) recites “adding game objects to a ray tracing world class associated with a scene; adding materials of the game objects to the ray tracing world class; adding light configuration to the ray tracing world class; rendering ray tracing effects for at least one portion of the game object in the scene based on the ray tracing world class; and generating stereo views of the scene including the game objects”. These limitations correspond to computer-implemented functional claim limitations as discussed in MPEP 2161.01. Applicant’s disclosure regarding these functions does not appear to describe the methodology by which the claimed functions are performed.
With respect to adding game objects to a ray tracing world class associated with a scene; adding materials of the game objects to the ray tracing world class; adding light configuration to the ray tracing world class; rendering ray tracing effects for at least one portion of the game object in the scene based on the ray tracing world class; and generating stereo views of the scene including the game objects, outside of the claim language, the originally filed disclosure does not appear to set forth how items are added to a ray tracing world class and how those added items are used to render ray tracing effects...in the scene. The disclosure does not appear to provide an explanation, algorithm, description of how first text content and image prompt are configured to describe something.
As explained in MPEP 2161.01 I, paragraphs 6-8, “original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. … An algorithm is defined, for example, as "a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task." Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). Applicant may "express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure." Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340, 86 USPQ2d 1609, 1623 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted). It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement.” With respect to the claimed computer functional limitations of “adding game objects to a ray tracing world class associated with a scene; adding materials of the game objects to the ray tracing world class; adding light configuration to the ray tracing world class; rendering ray tracing effects for at least one portion of the game object in the scene based on the ray tracing world class; and generating stereo views of the scene including the game objects”, although the disclosure provides examples of desired outcomes with respect to the functional limitations, there is no description of an algorithm, steps, or procedure showing how the inventor(s) intended the functions to be performed. Therefore the functions recited in claims 1, 13, and 14 correspond to subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention
Claims depending thereon do not cure the noted deficiencies and are also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth with respect to the claims from which they depend.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-14 and 30-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 1, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves when interpreted in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to:
What is meant by a ray tracing world class and how game objects, materials, and lighting configurations are added to the ray tracing world class. Outside of the claim language, the specification recites in paragraph 79 “A ray tracing world initialization module InitializeRTWorld 601 may initialize game objects associated with a ray tracing world class RTWorld”. However, taking the disclosure into account, it remains unclear as to what constitutes the ray tracing world class and how the different items are added to it. Is it a function? An encapsulation of different modules/class definitions?
What constitutes the materials of the game objects? Is it related to the composition of the game objects? To the surface rendering of the game objects, such as what the game object may look like on the screen?
What comprises the ray tracing effects for at least one portion of the game object in the scene based on the ray tracing world class? What are the rendered ray tracing effects in the scene based on the ray tracing world class? The originally filed specification sets forth in paragraph 81 that “Two customized shadow maps, which are needed of the left and right views respectively, will be created as the render target for ray tracing effects, such as shadow, reflection, refraction etc.” Are the ray tracing effects, related to rendering shadows and reflections within a scene? Are they just the natural biproduct of running a ray tracing algorithm for a scene?
How does the last limitation relate to the previous limitations? The last limitation recites “generating stereo views of the scene including the game objects”, while the previous limitations add things to a ray tracing world class and render ray tracing effects. Are the stereo views of the scene generated in addition to the other items, such that there are two things produced, a rendered ray tracing effects and stereo views of the scene?
The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitations.
Claims 13 and 14 recite similar subject matter as to that set forth in claim 1 and those limitations are rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that which was set forth with respect to claim 1.
Claims depending thereon do not cure all of the noted deficiencies and are accordingly also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth for the claims from which they depend.
With respect to claim 4, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves when interpreted in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to how and what is meant by the materials of the game object comprise albedo, normal, object relationship mapping (ORM), color, emission, roughness, and metallic. The disclosure in paragraph 79 sets forth “The module addMaterialToRTworld 622 may use material attributes of albedo, normal, orm, color, emission, roughness, and metallic in a material library 650”. Are the materials related to the surface of the object? For instance, is the metallic related to the surface being a specific type of metallic object, is it a metallic map for the object, is it related to the object itself being a dense metallic object or is it a metallic coat/surface?
The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitations.
Claim 30 recites a similar limitation as to that set forth in claim 4 and is rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that which was set forth with respect to claim 4.
With respect to claim 6, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves when interpreted in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to how the stereo views are generated in a multi-pass rendering mode in which a game engine renders the scene twice using two draw calls for each of the game objects. How are the stereo views generated in a multipass rendering mode? Does the claim require multi-pass rendering to be performed or just a mode that uses two draw calls for each of the game objects? Do the two draw calls relate to multi-pass rendering or are they two draw calls, such as a shading call and a wireframe call? What constitutes the draw call?
The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitations.
Claim 31 recites a similar limitation as to that set forth in claim 6 and is rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that which was set forth with respect to claim 6.
With respect to claim 8, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves when interpreted in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to how the GPU itself conducts a single iteration through all the game objects in the scene for a culling process, and renders the game objects that successfully pass the culling process. What is meant by a single iteration through all the game objects? Is it evaluating each game object a single time in a culling operation? Is it a culling operation being applied to the game object, such that those who pass the culling object are rendered. If so, then how odes the single iteration fit into the claimed limitation?
The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitations.
Claim 33 recites a similar limitation as to that set forth in claim 8 and is rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that which was set forth with respect to claim 8.
With respect to claim 9, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves when interpreted in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to what is meant by the stereo views being generated in a DIBR mode in which a left view and a depth map are used as input to generate a right view through 3D wrapping and hole filling. How are hole filling and 3D wrapping in conjunction with a right view and a depth map used to generate the left view? Furthermore is DIBR required by the claim or is it simply a mode called DIBR?
The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitations.
Claim 34 recites a similar limitation as to that set forth in claim 9 and is rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that which was set forth with respect to claim 9.
With respect to claim 10, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves when interpreted in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to what the optimization function ties into the rendering step is operable to be enabled or disabled. How is the generically recited optimization function applied to the rendering step? Is it optimizing the ray tracing effects, the rendering or something else? It appears from paragraph 91 that the optimization function disables some of the ray-traced effects to improve efficiency. For instance, in the hybrid method, the majority of the shadow areas are generated via rasterization, the zig-zag edges are then recalculated by a ray tracing method of the native plugin.
The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitations.
Claim 35 recites a similar limitation as to that set forth in claim 10 and is rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that which was set forth with respect to claim 10.
Claims depending thereon do not cure all of the noted deficiencies and are accordingly also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth for the claims from which they depend.
With respect to claim 11, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves when interpreted in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to how claim fits in with the previously cited limitations. How does optimizing the rendering of claim 1 fit with a portion of shadow areas being rendered with ray tracing and another portion be rendered rasterization. Do the shadow areas tie back to the ray tracing effects? Are the shadow areas rendered in addition to the ray tracing effects? In addition, it is unclear as to how the recalculated portion fits in with the remainder of the claim, since the shadow areas have not been previously calculated by a ray tracing method.
The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitations.
Claim 35 recites a similar limitation as to that set forth in claim 11 and is rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that which was set forth with respect to claim 11.
With respect to claim 12, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves when interpreted in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to how claim fits in with the previously cited limitations. How does optimizing the rendering set forth in claim 10, fit with optimizing the function comprising a reflection area reduction comprising the steps listed. Also, a game object has been previously defined in claim 1. It is also unclear as to how the bvh fits within the rest of the claim and if the mesh portion is determining if the mesh is reflective and then adding it to the world class or if something else flags it as being reflective.
The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitations.
Claim 35 recites a similar limitation as to that set forth in claim 12 and is rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that which was set forth with respect to claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10, 12-14, and 30-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) adding game objects to a ray tracing world class associated with a scene; adding materials of the game objects to the ray tracing world class; adding light configuration to the ray tracing world class; rendering ray tracing effects for at least one portion of the game object in the scene based on the ray tracing world class; and generating stereo views of the scene including the game objects.
As drafted, the claimed limitations are mental processes that could be done with a human using pen and paper. For instance, the limitation “adding game objects to a ray tracing world class associated with a scene; adding materials of the game objects to the ray tracing world class; adding light configuration to the ray tracing world class; rendering ray tracing effects for at least one portion of the game object in the scene based on the ray tracing world class; and generating stereo views of the scene including the game objects”, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is drawing a scene to incorporate different objects with some sort of lighting effect, such as shading. The limitations can be done by processes that could be performed using a pen and paper. Thus, the claim, as drafted, falls at least within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the processor and display, are recited at a high-level of generality, such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (claim 1 does not require a processor, merely something to render the ray tracing effects, which could be a pencil/pen). Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1, 13, and 14 are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a processor/device to perform the claimed limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claims 1, 13, and 14 are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-10, 12, 30-34 recite additional limitations that are processes that could be performed by a human using pen and paper and/or do not transform the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to more than the judicial exception. For instance, claim 5 requires the light configuration to comprise a light source, which could be done by a person shading the object from the direction of a light source. Accordingly, the considerations laid out for claims 1, 13, and 14 apply to the noted dependent claims. Therefore, as currently drafted, the noted dependent claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janzer et al (US PG Publication 2018/0122139) in view of Delamont (US PG Publication 2020/0368616).
Regarding claim 1, Janzer teaches a method for ray tracing for execution by an electronic device (see for instance, paragraphs 20, 27, 30, 37, 38, and 72-74), comprising:
adding game objects to a ray tracing world class associated with a scene (see for instance, paragraphs 20, 27, 30, 37, 38, and 72-74);
adding materials of the game objects to the ray tracing world class (see for instance, paragraphs 27-30, and 62);
adding light configuration to the ray tracing world class (see for instance, paragraphs 27-30, and 62);
rendering ray tracing effects for at least one portion of the game objects in the scene based on the ray tracing world class (see for instance, paragraphs 12, 19, 20, 27-30, and 99).
While Janzer teaches 3D objects and assets, Janzer does not appear to explicitly teach stereo views and thus does not appear to teach generating stereo views of the scene including the game objects.
In the same art of mixed reality and games, Delamont teaches generating stereo views of the scene including the game objects (see for instance, paragraphs 42, 47, 48, 55, and 76).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Janzer and Delamont in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate mixed reality gaming as taught by Delamont into Janzer’s 3D asset system, as generating stereo views of a scene including game objects, such as described by Delamont was well known at the time of the effective filing date invention and would have yielded predictable results in combination with Janzer.
The modification of Janzer with Delamont would have explicitly allowed generating stereo views of the scene including the game objects.
The motivation for combining Janzer with Delamont would have been to improve the user experience and enhance functionality.
Regarding claim 2, Janzer in view of Delamont teach the method for ray tracing of claim 1 and further teach wherein the method is implemented by a software development kit (SDK) in the electronic device (see for instance, Janzer, paragraphs 22, 23, 27, 35-39, and 89). The motivation to combine Janzer and Delamont is the same as that which was set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Janzer in view of Delamont teach the method for ray tracing of claim 2 and further teach wherein the SDK is included in a game engine of the electronic device (see for instance, Janzer, paragraphs 22, 23, 27, 35-39, and 89). The motivation to combine Janzer and Delamont is the same as that which was set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Janzer in view of Delamont teach the method for ray tracing of claim 1 and further teach wherein the light configuration comprises a light source (see for instance, Janzer, paragraphs 27-30, and 35-39 and Delamont, paragraph 432, 433, 478, 494, 495, 517, 558, and 1165). The motivation to combine Janzer and Delamont is the same as that which was set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Janzer in view of Delamont teach the method for ray tracing of claim 1 and further teach wherein the stereo views are generated in a multi-view rendering mode in which a game engine alternates rendering of the scene between a left view and a right view (see for instance, Delamont, paragraph 417). The motivation to combine Janzer and Delamont is the same as that which was set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, claim 13 is an electronic device and claim 14 is a chip, corresponding to the method claim 1 and corresponding limitations are rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth with respect to claim 1. In addition, Janzer in view of Delamont teaches an electronic device comprising: a processor configured to call and run a computer program stored in a memory, to cause a device in which the processor is installed to (see for instance, Janzer, paragraphs 40, 81-87 and Delamont, paragraphs 108, 111, 116, 1527, and 1626) and a chip, comprising: a processor, configured to call and run a computer program stored in a memory, to cause a device in which the chip is installed to (see for instance, Janzer, paragraphs 40, 81-87 and Delamont, paragraphs 108, 111, 116, 1527, and 1626). The motivation to combine Janzer and Delamont is the same as that which was set forth in claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J COBB whose telephone number is (571)270-3875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11am - 7pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL J COBB/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights