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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 10, 2025 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Related applications
Applicant should amend the cross-reference to related applications portion of the specification to update the current status of the cited applications.
35 USC § 101 Statutory Analysis
The claims do not recite any of the judicial exceptions enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Further, the claims do not recite any method of organizing human activity, such as a fundamental economic concept or managing interactions between people. Finally, the claims do not recite a mathematical relationship, formula, or calculation. Thus, the claims are eligible because they do not recite a judicial exception.
Claim rejections - 35 U.S.C. §112(b)
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-8 fail to recite a critical element described in the specification. The claims recite “a computer system comprising a hardware memory, wherein the computer system is configured to execute software instructions stored on nontransitory machine-readable storage media”, however the claims fail to recite a processor for executing the software instructions. See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 1233, 188 USPQ 356, 358 (CCPA 1976).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
Claims 9-16 are allowed.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of the record fail to teach or suggest singly and/or in combination a system and method which provides for encoding video streams from a plurality of cameras into respective latent manifolds using one or more Lorentzian autoencoders, each latent manifold preserving spatiotemporal coherence for a corresponding camera view, registering the latent manifolds from the plurality of cameras into a unified fused manifold through weighted geodesic interpolation that aligns latent trajectories across different viewpoints, generating compression pressure fields within the fused manifold reflecting semantic density derived from contributions of the plurality of cameras, computing geodesic trajectories through the fused manifold for continuous traversal across both scale and viewpoint axes, the geodesic trajectories defined by minimization of a functional balancing kinetic energy, compression pressure, and goal potential, restoring occluded or degraded regions in the fused manifold by exploiting cross-view correlations between the plurality of cameras, computing posterior probabilities for reconstructing unobserved viewpoints using Bayesian fusion of geometric priors, simulated rollouts, and historical outcomes, and rendering video output by decoding latent representations along the computed geodesic trajectories, including synthesized content for regions not directly captured by any camera when posterior probabilities exceed a threshold as prescribed for in the claimed invention.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Law and Kabra both disclose systems similar to applicant’s claimed invention.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jose L. Couso whose telephone number is (571) 272-7388. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 5:30am to 1:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Bella, can be reached on 571-272-7778. 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 Center information webpage on the USPTO website. For more information about the Patent Center, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions about access to the Patent Center, contact the Patent Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 571-272-4100 or via email at: ebc@uspto.gov .
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.
/JOSE L COUSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
July 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights