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 .
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 § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, it recite(s) An information processing system comprising: one or a plurality of processors configured to: identify at least one revised part changed between before and after editing of three-dimensional shape data representing a three-dimensional shape; and control a specific image that is based on the three-dimensional shape data and is obtained by viewing the three-dimensional shape from a specific viewpoint at which a feature value of the at least one revised part satisfies a predetermined condition to be displayed.
MPEP 2106 III provide a flowchart for the subject matter eligibility test for product and processes. The analysis following the flowchart is as follows:
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes. It recites a system, which is a machine.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or nature phenomenon?
Yes. The claim recites an abstract idea.
identify at least one revised part
control a specific image
identify at least one revised part is merely a mental process of looking at two parts and determining the change in the human mind or with assistance of a pen and paper, as the identification techniques are not described and it is merely a statement of identifying without limit to how it is being identified.
Control a specific image can be considered a mental process of visualizing an image in the human mind and mentally changing portions as desired as there is no description of how the specific image is controlled.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements one or a plurality of processors which merely identify at least on part and control a specific image. The one or a plurality of processors are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., general processors) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Accordingly, this 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
These elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. In the instant claim, the use of one or a plurality of processors only presents the idea of a solution while failing to describe how the one or a plurality of processors are used or structured to achieve the solution. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 2, it recite(s) the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the feature value is an area of the at least one revised part in an image, which merely further defines the feature of data utilized in the abstract idea of controlling the specific image. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and therefore it does not amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 3, it recite(s) the information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the predetermined condition is a condition that the area is displayed to be the largest, which merely further defines the predetermined condition utilized in the abstract idea of controlling the specific image. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and therefore it does not amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 4, it recite(s) the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the feature value is a number of the at least one revised part in an image, which merely further defines the feature of data utilized in the abstract idea of controlling the specific image. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and therefore it does not amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 5, it recite(s) the information processing system according to claim 4, wherein the predetermined condition is a condition that the number of the at least one revised part is displayed to be the largest, which merely further defines the predetermined condition utilized in the abstract idea of controlling the specific image. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and therefore it does not amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 6, it recite(s) the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the feature value is an area of a specific revised part among a plurality of revised parts in an image, which merely further defines the feature of data and part utilized in the abstract idea of controlling the specific image. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and therefore it does not amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 7, it recite(s) the information processing system according to claim 6, wherein the specific revised part is a revised part with the largest difference between before and after a change among the plurality of revised parts, which merely further defines the part utilized in the abstract idea of controlling the specific image. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and therefore it does not amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 8, it recite(s) the information processing system according to claim 6, wherein the predetermined condition is a condition that the area is displayed to be the largest, which merely further defines the predetermined condition utilized in the abstract idea of controlling the specific image. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and therefore it does not amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 9, it recite(s) the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the feature value is calculated based on a first feature value of a revised part that is able to be seen in an image without a non-revised part in the three-dimensional shape being made transparent among the at least one revised part, a first weight that is a weight on the first feature value, a second feature value of a revised part that is able to be seen in the image by making the non-revised part transparent among the at least one revised part, and a second weight that is a weight on the second feature value and is smaller than the first weight, which merely further defines the feature value and part utilized in the abstract idea of controlling the specific image. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and therefore it does not amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 10, it recite(s) the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the one or the plurality of processors are configured to perform control in such a manner that, after controlling an image obtained by viewing the three-dimensional shape from a predetermined viewpoint to be displayed, when a predetermined event occurs, the specific image is displayed.
MPEP 2106 III provide a flowchart for the subject matter eligibility test for product and processes. The analysis following the flowchart is as follows:
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes. It recites a system, which is a machine.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or nature phenomenon?
Yes. The claim recites an abstract idea.
To perform control
To perform control can be considered a mental process of visualizing an image in the human mind to view the specific image.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements one or a plurality of processors which merely identify at least on part and control a specific image. The one or a plurality of processors are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., general processors) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Accordingly, this 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
These elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. In the instant claim, the use of one or a plurality of processors only presents the idea of a solution while failing to describe how the one or a plurality of processors are used or structured to achieve the solution. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 11, it recite(s) the information processing system according to claim 10, wherein the predetermined event is an event in which a predetermined time passes, which merely further defines the predetermined event utilized in the abstract idea of to perform control. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and therefore it does not amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 12, it recite(s) The information processing system according to claim 10, wherein the predetermined event is an event in which a user performs a predetermined operation, which merely further defines the predetermined event utilized in the abstract idea of to perform control. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and therefore it does not amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 13, it recite(s) The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the one or the plurality of processors are configured to perform control in such a manner that, after controlling the specific image to be displayed, when a predetermined event occurs, a different image that is obtained by viewing the three-dimensional shape from a different viewpoint at which the feature value satisfies the predetermined condition is displayed.
MPEP 2106 III provide a flowchart for the subject matter eligibility test for product and processes. The analysis following the flowchart is as follows:
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes. It recites a system, which is a machine.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or nature phenomenon?
Yes. The claim recites an abstract idea.
To perform control
To perform control can be considered a mental process of visualizing an image in the human mind to view the specific image.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements one or a plurality of processors which merely identify at least on part and control a specific image. The one or a plurality of processors are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., general processors) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Accordingly, this 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
These elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. In the instant claim, the use of one or a plurality of processors only presents the idea of a solution while failing to describe how the one or a plurality of processors are used or structured to achieve the solution. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 14, it recite(s) The information processing system according to claim 13, wherein the predetermined event is an event in which a predetermined time passes, which merely further defines the predetermined event utilized in the abstract idea of to perform control. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and therefore it does not amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 15, it recite(s) The information processing system according to claim 13, wherein the predetermined event is an event in which a user performs an operation for selecting a display element representing the different viewpoint from among a plurality of display elements representing a plurality of viewpoints, which merely further defines the predetermined event utilized in the abstract idea of to perform control. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and therefore it does not amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 16, it recite(s) The information processing system according to claim 13, wherein the one or the plurality of processors are configured to perform control in such a manner that, after controlling an image obtained by viewing the three-dimensional shape from a viewpoint at which a degree of how much the feature value of the at least one revised part satisfies the predetermined condition is a first degree to be displayed as the specific image, when the predetermined event occurs, an image obtained by viewing the three-dimensional shape from a viewpoint at which the degree of how much the feature value satisfies the predetermined condition is a second degree that is lower than the first degree is displayed.
MPEP 2106 III provide a flowchart for the subject matter eligibility test for product and processes. The analysis following the flowchart is as follows:
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes. It recites a system, which is a machine.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or nature phenomenon?
Yes. The claim recites an abstract idea.
To perform control
To perform control can be considered a mental process of visualizing an image in the human mind to view an image.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements one or a plurality of processors which merely identify at least on part and control a specific image. The one or a plurality of processors are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., general processors) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Accordingly, this 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
These elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. In the instant claim, the use of one or a plurality of processors only presents the idea of a solution while failing to describe how the one or a plurality of processors are used or structured to achieve the solution. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 17, it recite(s) The information processing system according to claim 13, wherein the one or the plurality of processors are configured to perform control in such a manner that, after controlling an image obtained by viewing the three-dimensional shape from a viewpoint at which a degree of how much a first feature value of the at least one revised part satisfies a first condition that is the predetermined condition corresponding to the first feature value is a specific degree to be displayed as the specific image, when the predetermined event occurs, an image obtained by viewing the three-dimensional shape from a viewpoint at which a degree of how much a second feature value of the at least one revised part satisfies a second condition that is the predetermined condition corresponding to the second feature value is the specific degree is displayed.
MPEP 2106 III provide a flowchart for the subject matter eligibility test for product and processes. The analysis following the flowchart is as follows:
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes. It recites a system, which is a machine.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or nature phenomenon?
Yes. The claim recites an abstract idea.
To perform control
To perform control can be considered a mental process of visualizing an image in the human mind to view the specific image.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements one or a plurality of processors which merely identify at least on part and control a specific image. The one or a plurality of processors are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., general processors) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Accordingly, this 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
These elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. In the instant claim, the use of one or a plurality of processors only presents the idea of a solution while failing to describe how the one or a plurality of processors are used or structured to achieve the solution. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 18, it recite(s) the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the one or the plurality of processors are configured to: control images obtained by viewing the three-dimensional shape from a plurality of viewpoints to be sequentially displayed in accordance with an operation by a user; and when an image obtained by viewing the three-dimensional shape from the specific viewpoint is displayed,
provide a notification indicating that the image obtained by viewing the three-dimensional shape from the specific viewpoint is displayed to the user.
MPEP 2106 III provide a flowchart for the subject matter eligibility test for product and processes. The analysis following the flowchart is as follows:
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes. It recites a system, which is a machine.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or nature phenomenon?
Yes. The claim recites an abstract idea.
Control images
Provide a notification
Control images can be considered a mental process of visualizing an image in the human mind to view the specific image.
Provide a notification can be considered can be the mental process of determining as the user that you have visualized an image.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements one or a plurality of processors which merely identify at least on part and control a specific image. The one or a plurality of processors are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., general processors) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Accordingly, this 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
These elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. In the instant claim, the use of one or a plurality of processors only presents the idea of a solution while failing to describe how the one or a plurality of processors are used or structured to achieve the solution. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 19, it recite(s) An information processing method comprising: identifying at least one revised part changed between before and after editing of three-dimensional shape data representing a three-dimensional shape; and controlling a specific image that is based on the three-dimensional shape data and is obtained by viewing the three-dimensional shape from a specific viewpoint at which a feature value of the at least one revised part satisfies a predetermined condition to be displayed.
MPEP 2106 III provide a flowchart for the subject matter eligibility test for product and processes. The analysis following the flowchart is as follows:
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes. It recites a Method, which is a process.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or nature phenomenon?
Yes. The claim recites an abstract idea.
identifying at least one revised part
controlling a specific image
identifying at least one revised part is merely a mental process of looking at two parts and determining the change in the human mind or with assistance of a pen and paper, as the identification techniques are not described and it is merely a statement of identifying without limit to how it is being identified.
Controlling a specific image can be considered a mental process of visualizing an image in the human mind and mentally changing portions as desired as there is no description of how the specific image is controlled.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. The claim does not recite any additional elements other that the limitations identified as an abstract idea (mental process) in Step 2A Prong One.
Therefore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional elements other than the abstract idea limitations.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. The claim does not recite any additional elements other that the limitations identified as an abstract idea (mental process) in Step 2A Prong One.
Therefore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional elements other than the abstract idea limitations.
Regarding claim 20, it recite(s) A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a process for information processing, the process comprising: identifying at least one revised part changed between before and after editing of three-dimensional shape data representing a three-dimensional shape; and controlling a specific image that is based on the three-dimensional shape data and is obtained by viewing the three-dimensional shape from a specific viewpoint at which a feature value of the at least one revised part satisfies a predetermined condition to be displayed.
MPEP 2106 III provide a flowchart for the subject matter eligibility test for product and processes. The analysis following the flowchart is as follows:
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes. It recites a computer readable medium, which is a manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or nature phenomenon?
Yes. The claim recites an abstract idea.
identifying at least one revised part
controlling a specific image
identifying at least one revised part is merely a mental process of looking at two parts and determining the change in the human mind or with assistance of a pen and paper, as the identification techniques are not described and it is merely a statement of identifying without limit to how it is being identified.
Controling a specific image can be considered a mental process of visualizing an image in the human mind and mentally changing portions as desired as there is no description of how the specific image is controlled.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements a computer and a non-transitory computer-readable medium which merely identify at least on part and control a specific image. The computer and a non-transitory computer-readable medium are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., general purpose computer and storage) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Accordingly, this 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
These elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. In the instant claim, the use of a computer and a non-transitory computer-readable medium only presents the idea of a solution while failing to describe how the computer and the non-transitory computer-readable medium are used or structured to achieve the solution. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-15, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2014/0267247)(Hereinafter referred to as Chen).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches an information processing system (FIG. 1 illustrates a computing device 100 configured to implement one or more aspects of the present invention. As shown, computing device 100 includes an interconnect (bus) 140 that connects a processing unit 150, an input/ output (I/0) device interface 160 coupled to input/output (I/0) devices 180, a memory 110, a storage 130, and a network interface 170. Processing unit 150 may be a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), or a combination of different processing units, such as a CPU configured to operate in conjunction with a GPU. In general, processing unit 150 may be any technically feasible hardware unit capable of processing data and/or executing software applications. Further, in the context of this disclosure, the computing elements shown in computing device 100 may correspond to a physical computing system ( e.g., a system in a data center) or may be a virtual computing instance executing within a computing cloud. See paragraph [0024] ) comprising:
one or a plurality of processors (FIG. 1 illustrates a computing device 100 configured to implement one or more aspects of the present invention. As shown, computing device 100 includes an interconnect (bus) 140 that connects a processing unit 150, an input/ output (I/0) device interface 160 coupled to input/output (I/0) devices 180, a memory 110, a storage 130, and a network interface 170. Processing unit 150 may be a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), or a combination of different processing units, such as a CPU configured to operate in conjunction with a GPU. In general, processing unit 150 may be any technically feasible hardware unit capable of processing data and/or executing software applications. Further, in the context of this disclosure, the computing elements shown in computing device 100 may correspond to a physical computing system ( e.g., a system in a data center) or may be a virtual computing instance executing within a computing cloud. See paragraph [0024] ) configured to:
identify at least one revised part changed between before and after editing of three-dimensional shape data representing a three-dimensional shape (The collage engine 128 may also generate a "progress collage" that represents the 3D model 112 from a fixed viewpoint after each save point. Collage engine 128 may generate a snapshot of the 3D model 112 each time that model is saved, and may color the surface of the 3D model 112 using a heat-map based on the editing time change relative a previous snapshot. See paragraph [0057]); and
control a specific image that is based on the three-dimensional shape data and is obtained by viewing the three-dimensional shape from a specific viewpoint at which a feature value of the at least one revised part satisfies a predetermined condition to be displayed (Further, the collage engine 128 could display the accumulated sculpting times of the vertices as a heat-map on the surface of the 3D model 122. For instance, the collage engine 128 could assign a color to each vertex based upon the accumulated sculpting time or the percentage of total accumulated sculpting time of the vertex. See paragraph [0039])( The collage engine 128 may also generate a "progress collage" that represents the 3D model 112 from a fixed viewpoint after each save point. Collage engine 128 may generate a snapshot of the 3D model 112 each time that model is saved, and may color the surface of the 3D model 112 using a heat-map based on the editing time change relative a previous snapshot. A progress collage may illustrate different sequential snapshots with associated heat maps that illustrate which parts of the 3D model 112 have changed between saved versions. The end-user may also click any of the snapshots, and the collage engine 128 is configured to revert the 3D model 112 to a previous state associated with the clicked snapshot, thereby starting from a desired save point. See paragraph [0057])( The 3D modeling tool 120 is configured to generate a 2D rendering of the 3D model 122 and display that rendering within a viewport included in the display space of the GUI. The 3D modeling tool 120 may create the 2D rendering from the viewpoint of a virtual camera positioned within the 3D coordinate space. See paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 2, Chen teaches The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the feature value is an area of the at least one revised part in an image (Further, the collage engine 128 could display the accumulated sculpting times of the vertices as a heat-map on the surface of the 3D model 122. For instance, the collage engine 128 could assign a color to each vertex based upon the accumulated sculpting time or the percentage of total accumulated sculpting time of the vertex. See paragraph [0039]) (Surface area).
Regarding claim 3, Chen teaches the information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the predetermined condition is a condition that the area is displayed to be the largest (Once the segments are determined, the collage engine selects a viewpoint used during an editing operation and a viewpoint used during a camera operation associated with each segment. See paragraph [0098])(based on viewpoint during editing operation particular segment, surface area will be the largest).
Regarding claim 4, Chen teaches The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the feature value is a number of the at least one revised part in an image (Further, the collage engine 128 could display the accumulated sculpting times of the vertices as a heat-map on the surface of the 3D model 122. For instance, the collage engine 128 could assign a color to each vertex based upon the accumulated sculpting time or the percentage of total accumulated sculpting time of the vertex. See paragraph [0039])( The collage engine 128 may also generate a "progress collage" that represents the 3D model 112 from a fixed viewpoint after each save point. Collage engine 128 may generate a snapshot of the 3D model 112 each time that model is saved, and may color the surface of the 3D model 112 using a heat-map based on the editing time change relative a previous snapshot. A progress collage may illustrate different sequential snapshots with associated heat maps that illustrate which parts of the 3D model 112 have changed between saved versions. The end-user may also click any of the snapshots, and the collage engine 128 is configured to revert the 3D model 112 to a previous state associated with the clicked snapshot, thereby starting from a desired save point. See paragraph [0057])( The 3D modeling tool 120 is configured to generate a 2D rendering of the 3D model 122 and display that rendering within a viewport included in the display space of the GUI. The 3D modeling tool 120 may create the 2D rendering from the viewpoint of a virtual camera positioned within the 3D coordinate space. See paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 5, Chen teaches The information processing system according to claim 4, wherein the predetermined condition is a condition that the number of the at least one revised part is displayed to be the largest (The view at which the part was revised can be utilized for looking at the changes thus it is clear if would be the largest as the changes are in view)( The 3D modeling tool 120 is configured to record the edit and camera operations used to modify the 3D model 122 and manipulate the camera position, respectively, in the editing log 125. The 3D modeling tool 120 is configured to implement a collage engine 128 that generates a collage of 2D renderings of the 3D Model 122. The collage engine 128 selects viewpoints from the editing log 125, and generates the collage of 2D rendering from the selected viewpoints. The selected viewpoints may be associated with edit and/or camera operations. See paragraph [0029]).
Regarding claim 6, Chen teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the feature value is an area of a specific revised part among a plurality of revised parts in an image ( The 3D modeling tool 120 is configured to record the edit and camera operations used to modify the 3D model 122 and manipulate the camera position, respectively, in the editing log 125. The 3D modeling tool 120 is configured to implement a collage engine 128 that generates a collage of 2D renderings of the 3D Model 122. The collage engine 128 selects viewpoints from the editing log 125, and generates the collage of 2D rendering from the selected viewpoints. The selected viewpoints may be associated with edit and/or camera operations. See paragraph [0029]) (Further, the collage engine 128 could display the accumulated sculpting times of the vertices as a heat-map on the surface of the 3D model 122. For instance, the collage engine 128 could assign a color to each vertex based upon the accumulated sculpting time or the percentage of total accumulated sculpting time of the vertex. See paragraph [0039])( The collage engine 128 may also generate a "progress collage" that represents the 3D model 112 from a fixed viewpoint after each save point. Collage engine 128 may generate a snapshot of the 3D model 112 each time that model is saved, and may color the surface of the 3D model 112 using a heat-map based on the editing time change relative a previous snapshot. A progress collage may illustrate different sequential snapshots with associated heat maps that illustrate which parts of the 3D model 112 have changed between saved versions. The end-user may also click any of the snapshots, and the collage engine 128 is configured to revert the 3D model 112 to a previous state associated with the clicked snapshot, thereby starting from a desired save point. See paragraph [0057])( The 3D modeling tool 120 is configured to generate a 2D rendering of the 3D model 122 and display that rendering within a viewport included in the display space of the GUI. The 3D modeling tool 120 may create the 2D rendering from the viewpoint of a virtual camera positioned within the 3D coordinate space. See paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 7, Chen teaches the information processing system according to claim 6, wherein the specific revised part is a revised part with the largest difference between before and after a change among the plurality of revised parts (User selects revised part as multiple edits are stored, user can select largest difference based on the heat map.) (Further, the collage engine 128 could display the accumulated sculpting times of the vertices as a heat-map on the surface of the 3D model 122. For instance, the collage engine 128 could assign a color to each vertex based upon the accumulated sculpting time or the percentage of total accumulated sculpting time of the vertex. See paragraph [0039])( The collage engine 128 may also generate a "progress collage" that represents the 3D model 112 from a fixed viewpoint after each save point. Collage engine 128 may generate a snapshot of the 3D model 112 each time that model is saved, and may color the surface of the 3D model 112 using a heat-map based on the editing time change relative a previous snapshot. A progress collage may illustrate different sequential snapshots with associated heat maps that illustrate which parts of the 3D model 112 have changed between saved versions. The end-user may also click any of the snapshots, and the collage engine 128 is configured to revert the 3D model 112 to a previous state associated with the clicked snapshot, thereby starting from a desired save point. See paragraph [0057])( The 3D modeling tool 120 is configured to generate a 2D rendering of the 3D model 122 and display that rendering within a viewport included in the display space of the GUI. The 3D modeling tool 120 may create the 2D rendering from the viewpoint of a virtual camera positioned within the 3D coordinate space. See paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 8, Chen teaches The information processing system according to claim 6, wherein the predetermined condition is a condition that the area is displayed to be the largest (Once the segments are determined, the collage engine selects a viewpoint used during an editing operation and a viewpoint used during a camera operation associated with each segment. See paragraph [0098])(based on viewpoint during editing operation particular segment, surface area will be the largest).
Regarding claim 10, Chen teaches The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the one or the plurality of processors are configured to perform control in such a manner that, after controlling an image obtained by viewing the three-dimensional shape from a predetermined viewpoint to be displayed, when a predetermined event occurs, the specific image is displayed (Further, the collage engine 128 could display the accumulated sculpting times of the vertices as a heat-map on the surface of the 3D model 122. For instance, the collage engine 128 could assign a color to each vertex based upon the accumulated sculpting time or the percentage of total accumulated sculpting time of the vertex. See paragraph [0039])( The collage engine 128 may also generate a "progress collage" that represents the 3D model 112 from a fixed viewpoint after each save point. Collage engine 128 may generate a snapshot of the 3D model 112 each time that model is saved, and may color the surface of the 3D model 112 using a heat-map based on the editing time change relative a previous snapshot. A progress collage may illustrate different sequential snapshots with associated heat maps that illustrate which parts of the 3D model 112 have changed between saved versions. The end-user may also click any of the snapshots, and the collage engine 128 is configured to revert the 3D model 112 to a previous state associated with the clicked snapshot, thereby starting from a desired save point. See paragraph [0057])( The 3D modeling tool 120 is configured to generate a 2D rendering of the 3D model 122 and display that rendering within a viewport included in the display space of the GUI. The 3D modeling tool 120 may create the 2D rendering from the viewpoint of a virtual camera positioned within the 3D coordinate space. See paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 11, Chen teaches The information processing system according to claim 10, wherein the predetermined event is an event in which a predetermined time passes (Further, the collage engine 128 could display the accumulated sculpting times of the vertices as a heat-map on the surface of the 3D model 122. For instance, the collage engine 128 could assign a color to each vertex based upon the accumulated sculpting time or the percentage of total accumulated sculpting time of the vertex. See paragraph [0039])( The collage engine 128 may also generate a "progress collage" that represents the 3D model 112 from a fixed viewpoint after each save point. Collage engine 128 may generate a snapshot of the 3D model 112 each time that model is saved, and may color the surface of the 3D model 112 using a heat-map based on the editing time change relative a previous snapshot. A progress collage may illustrate different sequential snapshots with associated heat maps that illustrate which parts of the 3D model 112 have changed between saved versions. The end-user may also click any of the snapshots, and the collage engine 128 is configured to revert the 3D model 112 to a previous state associated with the clicked snapshot, thereby starting from a desired save point. See paragraph [0057])( The 3D modeling tool 120 is configured to generate a 2D rendering of the 3D model 122 and display that rendering within a viewport included in the display space of the GUI. The 3D modeling tool 120 may create the 2D rendering from the viewpoint of a virtual camera positioned within the 3D coordinate space. See paragraph [00