DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 02/04/2026 has been entered.
3. Claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 15 and 19 have been amended; claims 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18 and 20 have been canceled. Thus, claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, 13, 15, 16, 19 and 21-23 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. Non-Statutory (Directed to a Judicial Exception without an Inventive Concept/Significantly More)
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 1-3, 6, 8-10, 13, 15, 16, 19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1)
The current claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (MPEP 2106.03).
(Step 2A) [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong-One:
The claim(s) recite a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea, as shown below:
— Considering each of claims 1, 8 and 15 as representative claims, the following claimed limitations recite an abstract idea (note that the term “video” is construed as a “content item” since a video is itself a content item):
receive a request for a [content item] illustrating an event at a target location and a target time frame;
determine one or more requirements for the [content item];
[collect], based on the one or more requirements, a plurality of crowdsourced [content items] illustrating the event;
extract a set of metadata from the plurality of crowdsourced [content items], the set of metadata including geographical information, orientation of capture, and time range of capture;
analyze the set of metadata from each crowdsourced [content item] to determine angle [parameter], direction [parameter], and identify captured objects;
cluster the plurality of crowdsourced [content items] into location clusters based on a geographical proximity defined by a pre-set threshold distance from the target location;
determine, based on the temporal information, a chronological sequence of the clustered [content items] within the location cluster during the target time frame;
determine a first temporal image set of the plurality of crowdsourced [content items] that form a closed loop contour from different orientations of capture at the target time frame and directed toward at a target location;
construct a three-dimensional (3D) model of the event from synchronized content of the first temporal image set;
create [content item] of the event, the [content item] including sequentially arranging multiple 3D models from a plurality of temporal image sets including the first temporal image set, the [content item] meeting the one or more requirements.
Thus, the limitations identified above recite an abstract idea since the limitations correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes, which are part of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas identified according to the current eligibility standard (see MPEP 2106.04(a)).
The claims correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity, wherein a content item—such as a video—is created, in response to a request received from a user, including on one or more requirements; and wherein the content item is created based on analyzing information gathered from content items that other users provided, including: identifying geographical data and timing data; identifying various parameters (i.e., angle of video capture, direction of video capture) and captured objects; grouping the content items based on location—such as, a geometrical proximity defined by a preset threshold distance from the target location; determining, using the timing data, the chronological sequence of the content items in the group above; determining a first image set that forms a closed loop contour from different orientation of capture at the target time frame and directed toward the target location; constructing a 3D model of the event from synchronized content of the first temporal image set; and creating the content item of the event, the content item including sequentially arranging multiple 3D models from a plurality of temporal image sets, including the first image set above, etc.
Note that the finding above—certain methods of organizing human activity—is consistent with the specification. For instance, the specification describes that a user provides a set of content, including a request to create media-based case study for an educational topic; and wherein, once a requirement(s) is determined for the educational topic, a search query is constructed, so that one or more relevant media content items are identified—using the search query—from media items that other users provided; and thereby, a customized content item (a customized video) is created by considering one or more factors, including: the location of capture, the direction of capture, the timing of the capture, etc., and eventually the end result is presented to the user (e.g., see [0031] to [0035]).
The current claims aslo correspond to a mental process; such as, a process that can be performed in the human mind and/or using a pen and paper, given the limitations that recites the process of: determining one or more requirements for a given content item (e.g. a video); analyzing a set of metadata, which includes a set of attributes (i.e., geographical information, orientation of capture, and time range of capture), in order to determine a set of results (i.e., determining an angel and direction of video capture; identifying captured objects); and determining, based on temporal information, a chronological sequence of clustered content items (e.g., videos) within the location clusters during the target time frame, etc.
Thus, given such limitations that recite the process of evaluation, observation, and/or judgement, etc., the current claims do recite a mental process.
(Step 2A) [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong-Two
The claim(s) recite additional element(s), wherein a computer-based system is utilized as a tool to facilitate the recited steps/functions regarding: receiving input or a request (e.g., “receiving, by a content creation program, a request for a volumetric video illustrating an event at a target location and target time frame”); determining one or more requirement(s) (e.g., “determining, by the content creation program, one or more requirements for the volumetric video”); collecting content items from sources over a network (e.g., “retrieving, based on the one or more requirements, a plurality of crowdsourced videos illustrating the event from a social media network”); analyzing the collected content items (e.g., “extracting, by the content creation program, a set of metadata from the plurality of crowdsourced videos, the set of metadata including geographical information, orientation of capture, and time range of capture; analyzing the set of metadata from each crowdsourced video frame to determine an angle of video capture, a direction of capture, and identify captured objects; clustering the plurality of crowdsourced videos into location clusters based on a geographical proximity defined by a pre-set threshold distance from the target location”); determining one or more results (e.g., “determining, based on temporal information, a chronological sequence of clustered videos within the location clusters during the target time frame; determining a first temporal image set of the plurality of crowdsourced videos that form a closed loop contour from different orientations of capture at the target time frame and directed toward the target location”); generating a customized content (e.g., “constructing, by the content creation program, a three-dimensional (3D) model of the event from synchronized media content of the first temporal image set”; “creating the volumetric video of the event, the volumetric video including sequentially arranging multiple 3D models from a plurality of temporal image sets including the first temporal image set, the volumetric video meeting the one or more requirements”), etc.
However, the claimed additional element(s) fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional element(s) are utilized merely as a tool to facilitate the abstract idea. Thus, when each claim is considered as a whole, the additional element(s) fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since they fail to impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. For instance, when each of the claims is considered as a whole, none of the claims provides an improvement over the relevant existing technology.
The observations above confirm that the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
(Step 2B)
Accordingly, when the claim(s) is considered as a whole (i.e., considering all claim elements both individually and in combination), the claimed additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself (also see MPEP 2106). The claimed additional elements are directed to conventional computer elements, which are serving merely to perform conventional computer functions. Thus, none of the claims, considered as a whole, recites an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept.
It is also worth to note that use of the conventional computer/network technology to facilitate the process of generating pertinent content to a user (e.g., one or more customized videos, etc.), based on a request and/or parameters received from the user, etc., is already directed to a well-understood, routine or conventional activity in the art (see US 2016/0105708; US 2015/0143239; US 2013/0117780, etc.).
Of course, the same is true regarding the process of identifying, using metadata, related scenes from one or more videos; including generating a customized video based on compiling the identified scenes, etc. (e.g., see US 2016/0080835; US 2013/0325869; US 2009/0132924, etc.).
The above observation confirms that each of the current claims fails to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
It is worth noting that the above analysis already encompasses each of the current dependent claims (i.e., claims 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 13, 16, 19 and 21-23). Particularly, each of the dependent claims also fails to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea since each dependent claim is directed to a further abstract idea, and/or a further conventional computer element utilized to facilitate the abstract idea.
Thus, the findings above demonstrate that none of the claims is implementing an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept (e.g., none of the current claims is reciting an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement over the existing/conventional technology).
► Applicant’s arguments directed to section §101 have been fully considered (the RCE filed on 02/04/2026, which includes the arguments filed on 01/05/2026). Thus, while attempting to summarize some of the features of current claim 1, Applicant is asserting that “[w]ithout conceding that claim 1 can be interpreted as being directed to an abstract idea of managing personal behavior, amended claim 1, when considered as a whole, includes additional elements that integrate the idea of managing personal behavior into a practical application of such . . . provides meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of managing personal behavior. Specifically, claim 1 recites ‘receiving, by a content creation program, a request for a volumetric video illustrating an event at a target location and target time frame,’ ‘extracting, by the content creation program, a set of metadata from the plurality of crowdsourced videos, the set of metadata including geographical information, orientation of capture, and time range of capture,’ . . . Amendments made herein are supported in the as-filed Specification at least at paragraphs 31, 45, 50, and 53-56 . . . The additional elements presented in amended claim 1 go beyond merely managing personal behavior and provide for meaningful limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, the limitations ‘analyzing the set of metadata from each crowdsourced video frame . . . ‘determining a first temporal image set of the plurality of crowdsourced videos that form a closed loop . . . ‘constructing, by the content creation program, a three-dimensional (3D) model . . . ‘creating the volumetric video of the event . . . introduce specific technical language relating to processing the extracted metadata to generate a requested volumetric video. It is respectfully submitted that the claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 21-23 have been amended to be clearly directed to patent-eligible subject matter” (emphasis added).
However, despite asserting that the current claims recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application, Applicant does not identify an element (if any)—or a combination of elements (if any)—that provides a technological improvement over the relevant existing technology. Instead, Applicant is identifying the claimed limitations, which are already part of the existing computer and/or network technology (e.g., the use of a computer/network system to: receive a request regarding a volumetric video to be created; extract metadata from plurality of videos that other users provided, wherein the metadata comprises various attributes; analyze the set of metadata from each video frame to determine one or more parameters, etc., see above the findings presented under prong-two of Step 2A). In contrast, a given claim is considered to integrate a judicial exception into a patent-eligible practical application, if the claim implements an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement over the relevant existing technology. In particular, given the fact that Applicant’s currently claimed (and originally disclosed) system/method is directed to the existing computer/network technology, an integration (if any) of the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application is demonstrated if the claimed—and/or the disclosed—system/method is providing a technological improvement over the existing computer/network technology. In the instant case, the disclosure as a whole, which already includes the paragraphs that Applicant has identified (i.e., [0031]; [0045]; 0050] and [0053] to [0056]), does not implement any structural/functional feature—or any combination of structural/functional features—that is arguably an advance over the existing computer/network technology. Instead, the claimed (and the disclosed) system/method as a whole is relying on the existing computer/network technology—merely as a tool—to facilitate an abstract idea; such as, providing to a user, responsive to the user’s request, customized content regarding an event based on the analysis content items gathered from other users. Consequently, Applicant’s assertions regarding the alleged “additional elements that integrate the idea of managing personal behavior into a practical application”, and/or the alleged “meaningful limitations [that] transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application”, are not persuasive.
Note also that Applicant’s assumption regarding the “specific technical language”, which the current claims are supposedly introducing with respect to “processing the extracted metadata to generate a requested volumetric video”, is also not persuasive. In particular, regardless of the “specific technical language” that Applicant is alleging above, neither the current claims nor the original disclosure as a whole implements any technical feature—or a combination of technical features—that provides a technological improvement over the existing computer/network technology. Of course, the lack of technological improvement confirms that none of the current claims, when considered as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application (i.e., none of the claims—when considered as a whole—implements additional elements that impose meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea). Consequently, Applicant’s arguments regarding the alleged “specific technical language” are not persuasive. Furthermore, the lack of technological improvement, along with the generic and conventional arrangement of the claimed (and/or the disclosed) additional elements confirms that none of the claims—when considered as a whole—implements an inventive concept that amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
Accordingly, at least for the reasons above, the Office concludes that the current claims fail to be patent-eligible per section §101.
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.
● Claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, 13, 15, 16, 19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.112(b), or second paragraph (pre-AIA ), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Each of claims 1, 8 and 15 currently recites the limitation, “determining, based on the temporal information, a chronological sequence of clustered videos within the location clusters during the target time frame” (emphasis added).
However, the limitation, “the temporal information”, lacks sufficient antecedent basis per each of claims 1, 8 and 15. Thus, the current claims are ambiguous at least for the reason above.
Applicant is also recommended to evaluate each of the current claims and make appropriate corrections if additional discrepancies exist.
Prior Art
● Considering each of the current claims as a whole, the prior art does not teach or suggest the current claims (regarding the state of the prior art, see the office-action dated 05/21/2025).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3079. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, DAVID LEWIS can be reached on (571) 272-7673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715