Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 17/873,528

TRAINING A MACHINE-LEARNING MODEL TO PREDICT LOCATION USING WHEEL MOTION DATA

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jul 26, 2022
Examiner
WU, PAYSUN
Art Unit
3665
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Maplebear INC. (Dba Instacart)
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
59 granted / 92 resolved
+12.1% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+17.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
121
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.9%
-29.1% vs TC avg
§103
47.4%
+7.4% vs TC avg
§102
24.9%
-15.1% vs TC avg
§112
15.1%
-24.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 92 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/29/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are currently pending and examined below. Claims 1, 10 and 20 have been amended. 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 . Response to Amendment Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-13, filed 09/29/2025, with respect to claims 1-4 and 6-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1-4 and 6-20 have been withdrawn. Claim Objections Claims 15 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 15, “orientation of a wheels” appears to be typographical errors of “orientation of the wheel”. In claim 19, “the plurality of wheel” appears to be typographical errors of “the plurality of wheels”. Appropriate corrections are required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 1-4 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In claims 1-4, 9-12, 14 and 19-20, the recitations “training wheel motion data”, “prior wheel motion data” and “wheel motion data” are unclear. It is unclear why training wheel motion data is received, but then prior wheel motion data is used for training and not the received training wheel motion data. Also, that the prior wheel motion data is used for training but the trained model is based on the wheel motion data and not the prior wheel motion data. They appear to be the same thing – wheel motion data or a segment of wheel motion data partitioned from the wheel motion data for training a machine-learning location model. The scope of the invention is thus indefinite. In claim 2, line 6, the recitations “the one or more signals” and “the one or more external wireless devices” are unclear. It is unclear whether these signals and external wireless devices are referring to the signals and external wireless devices in claim 1, lines 10-11 or the signals and external wireless devices in claim 2, lines 4-5. The scope of the invention is thus indefinite. In claim 4, line 6, the recitation “the translation of the shopping cart from the first baseline location” is unclear. It is unclear whether the translation is referring to the translation in claim 1, line 16 or the translation in claim 2, line 4. The scope of the invention is thus indefinite. In claim 9, line 6, the recitation “the translation of the shopping cart” is unclear. It is unclear whether the translation is referring to the translation in claim 1, line 16 or the translation in claim 9, line 3. The scope of the invention is thus indefinite. In claim 12, line 2, the recitation “a machine-learning location model” is unclear. It is unclear whether this model is the same as the model in claim 10, lines 9-10. The scope of the invention is thus indefinite. In claim 12, line 6, the recitation “the translation of the shopping cart from the first baseline location” is unclear. It is unclear whether the translation is referring to the translation in claim 10, lines 26-27 or the translation in claim 12, line 4. The scope of the invention is thus indefinite. In claim 14, line 6, the recitation “the translation of the shopping cart” is unclear. It is unclear whether the translation is referring to the translation in claim 10, lines 26-27 or the translation in claim 14, line 3. The scope of the invention is thus indefinite. In claim 20, line 28, the recitation “one or more external wireless devices” is unclear. It is unclear whether these devices are the same as the external wireless devices in claim 20, line 8. The scope of the invention is thus indefinite. Dependent claims depending on rejected claims are also rejected as their scopes are indefinite. Appropriate corrections are required. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-4 and 6-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Regarding independent claim 1, closest prior arts Carter et al. (US 20200017135 A1; hereinafter Carter) and Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. (US 11254002 B1; hereinafter EA) fail to teach the claimed invention. In particular, the amended language of independent claim 1 “receiving ground truth locations of the shopping cart determined by one or more signals from one or more external wireless devices in the indoor environment; generating one or more training examples, each training example comprising a segment of prior wheel motion data and a corresponding ground truth location of the shopping cart; training the machine-learning location model with the training examples, wherein the machine-learning location model is trained to predict a translation of the shopping cart based on the wheel motion data to output an estimated location of the shopping cart, wherein the translation includes a direction and a distance traveled” overcomes previously cited prior arts. The closest art Carter teaches at [0046] to use information communicated from a marker 130 a -130 c to reset the cart's position (e.g., to reduce accumulated dead reckoning errors). The closest art EA teaches at col. 6, line 49 – col. 7, line 35 to use wheel encoder to reduce tracking error and improve the performance of the motion model in predicting the position of the robotic device. However, neither Carter nor EA teaches a model to train with wheel motion data and signals from wireless devices and output a more precise positioning of the cart that would reflect wheel motion due the each wheel’s physical changes (e.g., gum getting stuck in a wheel, wheel coming loose, hair getting caught in wheel, wheel losing lubricant, etc.)(see [0089] of the as-filed specification). Therefore, claim 1 would be allowable. Claims 10 and 20 would be allowable for the same reasons. Dependent claims 2-4, 6-9 and 11-19 would be allowable as they depend upon allowable subject matter. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAYSUN WU whose telephone number is (571)272-1528. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM. 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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached on (571)272-7298. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /PAYSUN WU/Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /DONALD J WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 26, 2022
Application Filed
Mar 06, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Apr 02, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 02, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 25, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 25, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Sep 17, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Sep 17, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 29, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 05, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Mar 27, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12576881
METHOD FOR POLYNOMIAL BASED PREDICTIONS OF EGO VEHICLES AND ADVERSARIAL AGENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12559129
CAPTURING AND SIMULATING RADAR DATA FOR AUTONOMOUS DRIVING SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12545288
DEPOT BEHAVIORS FOR AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12529574
DISPLAY CONTROL DEVICE AND DISPLAY CONTROL METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12509119
SERVICE AREA MAPS FOR AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+17.2%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 92 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month