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 Claims
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 13, 16-17, and 19-20 are pending in this instant application per claim amendments and remarks filed on 02/09/2026. Claims 1, 16, and 17 are independent claims reciting method, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and system claims. Claims 2-4/7-11/13, none, and 19-20 are respective dependent claims. Claims listing of 02/09/2026 have amended all independent claims 1, 16 and 17. Claims 5-6, 12, 14-15, 18 and 21-23 are cancelled.
This Office Action is a final rejection in response to the claim amendments and the remarks filed on 09 FEBRUARY 2026 for its original application of 31 DECEMBER 2019 that is titled: “Feature Coverage Analysis”.
Accordingly, claims 1-4, 7-11, 13, 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected herein.
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 1-4, 7-11, 13, 16-17, and 19-20 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions of (in all independent claims at least): “controlling navigation of the autonomous vehicle using the visual localization model.” The Specification does not demonstrate that Applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention; for example but not limited to, the Specification does not recite “controlling”/ “control” in it Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner notes that the Applicant consider adding a similar limitation, supported by its Specification, about autonomous vehicle’s navigation.
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.
(NOTE: Latest ‘amendments to the claims’ filed by the Applicant on 02/09/2026 are shown as bold and underlined additions, and all deletions may not be shown, or may not be underlined when stricken through. Underlined amendments to the claims that are shown below are from previously submitted claim amendments by the Applicant.)
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 13, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more, wherein Claims 1, 16 and 17 are independent method, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and system claims respectively.
Exemplary Analysis.
Claim 1: Ineligible.
The claim recites a series of steps. The claim is directed to a method reciting a series of steps describing a procedure, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1 -- YES).
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites a method comprised of: selecting a first area within a map; receiving images of a plurality of landmark features in the first area captured from a plurality of viewpoints; determining one or more feature matching probabilities of the one or more landmark features from each of a plurality of positions based on the plurality of visual descriptors; and using the one or more feature matching probabilities per position to generate a plurality of localization probabilities per position; and using the heatmap to identify a particular subsection having a particular localization quality below a threshold, indicative of a need for one or more additional visual descriptors to improve the particular localization quality in the particular subsection, directing one or more vehicles to the particular subsection for collecting additional image data. In other words, the claim describes a method for identifying and/or deciding when a map is of sufficient quality to perform localization (per ‘Field of the Invention’ in para [0001]). These limitations, as drafted, are steps of a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via a method made up of concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). These limitations fall under the “mental processes” group (Step 2A1 -- YES).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of: using a computing device; using one or more cameras of one or more autonomous vehicle driving along the first area including the autonomous vehicle; wherein each of the matching probabilities comprises one or more estimates of a probability of successfully localizing within the map using the one or more views of the one or more landmarks; and causing a vehicle in the area to perform localization with the map updated based on the one or more localization probabilities, generating, by the computing device, visual representation of the plurality of localization probabilities using different colors, with a higher localization probability using a first color and a lower localization probability using a second color; and overlaying, by the computing device, the visual representation on a two-dimensional overhead view of the first area in the map to obtain a heatmap visualizing the plurality of localization probabilities on the map thereby indicating subsections with higher and lower localization quality; generating, based on the additional image data, the additional visual descriptors for additional landmark features within the particular subsection and updating the visual localization model based on the additional visual descriptors to increase the localization probabilities associated with the particular subsection and controlling navigation of the autonomous vehicle using the visual localization model. These additional elements are considered extra-solution activities. The processors recited as computing device and visual localization model in the steps are implied at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer/s functions of processing data. These generic processors (computing device and visual localization model) are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2 -- NO). Furthermore, Examiner notes that these additional elements recite and imply mathematical calculations (based on probability calculations and localization probabilities using the visual localization model).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional elements in this claim that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer and/or computer components over a network cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Because the additional elements recited above, were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. The disclosure does not provide any indication that these implied processors are anything other than generic processors and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Also, paras [0083]-[0085] of the Applicant’s own Specification describe the features of this invention as follows, and these paras don’t describe a “new technology solution”, at least as described in these paras ---
{[0083] In one example use of the method, system and apparatus described herein may be used in relation to localizing one or more driverless vehicles. Driverless vehicles may comprise one or more sensors. The one or more sensors may include one or more of: proximity sensors; image sensors optionally including optical character recognition; laser detection systems; a global positioning system (GPS); and/or a LIDAR system. ……………………………………..
[0084] The one or more image sensors may comprise one or more video cameras. The image sensors are operable to receive image data as an input derived from the view adjacent the driverless vehicle. The image data may then be transmitted to a processor to analyse the image data in accordance with any one or more of the method steps described herein. If the image data comprises a landmark, for example if the vehicle is passing a notable skyscraper, then the map may be localized according to that landmark. …………………………………………….
[0085] However, in areas which are poorer candidates for localization, fewer landmarks may be observed visually from an image sensor mounted on a driverless vehicle. Therefore, the vehicle may less accurately localize its position. In such environments further work may be required to localize the vehicle with respect to a known map to a sufficient degree of accuracy.”}; ---
and indicate that the concept/s described by extra-solution additional elements is conventional. Accordingly, a conclusion that the aforementioned extra-solution additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer options 2 and 3, respectively.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B -- NO), and the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of the invention including independent non-transitory computer-readable storage medium Claim 16 and independent system Claim 17, which perform the steps similar to those of the independent method Claim 1. Furthermore, the limitations of dependent method Claims 2-4/7-11/13, further narrow the independent method Claim 1 with additional steps and limitations (e.g., approval/s comprises a unique cryptographic signature; a NFC transceiver; a chip comprising an apple; NFC reader; etc.), and do not resolve the issues raised in rejection of the independent method Claim 1. Similarly, dependent system Claims 19-20 also further narrow its independent Claim 17, which are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis as method dependent Claims 2-4/7-11/13.
Therefore, said Claims 1-4, 7-11, 13, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks (on Pages 7-10) and claim amendments dated 02/092026 with respect to the rejection of amended Claims 1-4, 7-11, 13, 16-17, and 19-20 have been carefully considered, but they are not persuasive and do not place the claims in a condition ready for Allowance. Thus, the rejection of amended Claims 1-4, 7-11, 13, 16-17, and 19-20 is being maintained herein under 35 USC 101, as described above, with some changes in this Office Action to respond to the claim amendments and remarks of 09 FEBRUARY 2026.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments of 02/09/2026 that steps of: “capturing image data from multiple viewpoints with cameras on a vehicle,” can be done by a person or persons with camera/s also; “encoding those images into visual descriptors using a feature transform, computing feature matching probabilities for landmarks at many grid positions across an area” can be done by overlaying photos and/or their negatives on a light table and/or a display screen; and “aggregating those probabilities into localization success scores and a heatmap.” can be done by comparing maximum and minimum overlays, etc. of photo negatives for estimating maximum and minimum probabilities.
In further response to the Applicant’s arguments of 02/09/2026 stating:
{“On this record, it is a concrete, technical feedback mechanism for improving and using a visual localization system in autonomous driving, and it is improper to characterize the claim as a "mental process" plus insignificant post-solution activity.”}, Examiner notes the instant claims do not attempt to solve an unconventional technological solution, but rather use the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea. The instant claims provide a generically computer-implemented solution to a business-related problem. The focus of the claimed invention in the present is not on an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.
In further response to the Applicant’s arguments. Examiner notes that the processor limitations and the claim as a whole do not add significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because the claim does not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claim does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. A generic recitation of a processor performing its generic computer functions does not make the claims less abstract. A claim may be found to be eligible if it integrates a judicial exception into a practical application as cited by Applicant. However, examiner notes that "claiming the improved efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not provide an inventive concept (see MPEP §2106.05(f)(2).) Claiming improved data processing efficiency inherent with applying any improvement to the judicial exception itself on a computer does not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
In further response to the Applicant’s arguments that “the amended independent claims incorporate specific technical features such as the multi-color visual representation of localization probabilities and a heatmap visualization, which are not merely directed to the organization or presentation of information, but provide a technical solution to the problem of enhancing the accuracy and efficiency of digital maps for autonomous vehicle navigation”, and Examiner respectfully disagrees. In further response, Examiner notes that the goggle search for heat map (attached as Appendix) that this technique has been well-known for decades with origins of using darker shades of gray in Paris originated in 1873. Also, attached as Appendix is the Wikipedia information on heat maps (5-6 pages) as Examiner’s disagreement with the Applicant’s arguments.
NOTE: Examiner notes that the previous Responses to Arguments from more than one previous Office Actions are incorporated herein (from 10/14/2024 and earlier), but such previous Responses have not been retained herein for brevity.
The courts found that “… if a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . . a computer,’ that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2358. The claimed invention does not indicate that specialized computer hardware is necessary to implement the claimed systems, similar to the claims at issue in Alice Corp. See Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2360 (determining that the hardware recited in the claims was “purely functional and generic,” and did not “offer [] a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers”).
Furthermore, Examiner relies on what the courts have recognized, or those of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, as elements that describe well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields. For example, receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added)). In this case, the use of devicess and networks is described at a high level of generality, or as an insignificant extra-solution activity that cannot be considered as an improvement to network/computer technology.
Conclusion
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See at least MPEP §706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, listed in Form 892, that is considered pertinent to the Applicant's disclosure and review for not traversing already issued patents and/or claimed inventions by the claims of the current invention of the Applicant. Examiner notes that Form 892 contains more references than those cited in the rejection above under 35 USC 103, and that all the references cited on said Form 892 are relevant to this application and form a part of the body of prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Sanjeev Malhotra whose telephone number is (571) 272-7292. The Examiner can normally be reached during Monday-Friday between 8:30-17:00 hours on a Flexible schedule.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached on (571) 270-1836. The facsimile/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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, 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.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with an Examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP §502.03(II). All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record. The Examiner’s e-mail address is provided below at the end of this Office Action.
/S.M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3691
sanjeev.malhotra@uspto.gov
/HANI M KAZIMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights