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 the Claims
This action is in response to Applicant’s amendment of 13 July 2026 and Request for Continued Examination (RCE) of 20 July 2026. Claims 1-8, 13-16 and 20-27 are pending. Claims 1-8 and 13-16 are withdrawn. Claims 9-12 and 17-19 are cancelled. Claims 20-27 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the objections and rejections as set forth in the office action of 13 April 2026 have been considered and are moot as each and every limitation in the claims of 22 January 2026 previously presented (that were objected to and/or rejected as set forth in the office action of 13 April 2026) has been crossed out and the currently amended claims all recite completely new/different/underlined limitations. See corresponding objections and rejections for the new limitations below with respect to Applicant’s amendment of 13 July 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because it is a method claim and the use of the word “if” in a method claim renders the clause conditional and not required, it is recommended that Applicant instead use “when” to show that applicant intends the limitation to not be contingent/conditional.
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 25 should be amended to recite “. Appropriate correction is required.
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 22-24 and 26 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 22 recites “wherein the pose consistency report is based on a covariance of the blended pose and a fitting score of a last scan to a map”. There is no support in Applicant’s specification for the “pose consistency report” to be based on the covariance and the fitting score. Applicant in their remarks of 13 July 2026 points to support for “a covariance of the [blended/current] pose and a fitting score of a last scan to a map” which Examiner can see such support in paragraph [0037] of the published specification; however, the lack of support issue with the limitation in claim 22 is that no where in Applicant’s specification is the pose consistency report specifically associated to be based on such covariance and fitting score (e.g. pose consistency report is mentioned later on such as in paragraph [0044] without any link or association to the previously stated covariance and fitting score).
Claim 23 recites “updating a global map when the pose consistency report indicates that a localization quality is above a threshold”. There is no support in Applicant’s specification for the global map to be updated specifically when the “pose consistency report” indicates that a localization quality is above a threshold. Applicant in their remarks of 13 July 2026 points to support for “when the localization quality is sufficiently high, based on a validated points localization monitor metric, then the map updates are allowed to be made on the localization map” which Examiner can see such support in paragraph [0031] of the published specification; however, the lack of support issue with the limitation in claim 23 is that nowhere in Applicant’s specification is the “pose consistency report” specifically associated with indicating a localization quality above a threshold that would be used to update specifically a “global” map.
Claim 24 recites “wherein determining whether correction is required comprises determining whether a scan matching pose is aligned with a map”. There is no support in Applicant’s specification for the determining whether a scan matching pose is aligned with a map to be directly associated with (comprised by) the determining whether correction is required. Applicant in their remarks of 13 July 2026 points to support for “determining whether a scan matching pose is aligned with a map” which Examiner can see such support in paragraph [0043] of the published specification; however, the lack of support issue with the limitation in claim 24 is that nowhere in Applicant’s specification is the determining whether correction is required specifically associated with to “comprise” determining whether a scan matching pose is aligned with a map.
Claim 26 recites “the correcting with scan matching comprises correcting the pose of the device against a map maintained by the probabilistic occupancy grid”. There is no support in Applicant’s specification for the correcting with scan matching comprising correcting the pose of the device against a map to be for a map “maintained by the probabilistic occupancy grid”. Applicant in their remarks of 13 July 2026 points to support for the probabilistic occupancy grid comprising a global map and a local map and a general SLAM use of a map maintained by the probabilistic occupancy grid; however, nowhere in Applicant’s specification is the correcting with scan matching comprising correcting the pose of the device against a map to be for a map “maintained by the probabilistic occupancy grid”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 20-27 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.
First Note: The claims, when read in light of the specification, are unclear in their entireties. The examiner herein below attempts to provide as significant a number of examples of indefinites as reasonably possible. The applicant should understand that the following list is not a complete list, and the applicant was, at the time of application preparation, in the best position to avoid this situation. All terms and limitations of claims 20-27 are merely repeated in the specification without any further clarification.
Second Note: during prosecution of this application starting from the rejection of 10 December 2024, Examiner has pointed out to a few repeated indefiniteness issues with certain limitations and has asked Applicant to explain such limitations and clarify the scope if they believe that the rejected limitations are in fact definite. However, Applicant has only ever amended the limitations to be spelled differently and/or pointed to the specification of where such exact limitation is recited (aka “specification’s own verbatim terminology” as stated by Applicant in remarks of 13 July 2026). Mere support in the specification for the limitations are not enough to overcome the corresponding indefiniteness issues (35 USC 112(b) rejection) since such limitations are merely repeated in the specification without any further clarification. Examiner has read Applicant’s remarks of 13 July 2026 with respect to the continuous 35 USC 112(b) indefiniteness issues with the currently amended limitations and it is still unclear, to the Examiner, what these certain limitations mean to claim (e.g. scope and meaning of these certain limitations stay unclear and it appears Applicant cannot provide any explanation to further clarify them either). Examiner has made a thorough analysis and has ensured that these limitations are not common terms in the art, are not used/clarified in other prior art references and are not clarified by Applicant’s specification and/or remarks during the prosecution. See the 35 USC 112(b) rejections below –
Regarding claim 20-
The limitation “an autonomous indoor semi-autonomous device” is indefinite due to it being contradictory, is the indoor device claimed to be autonomous or semi-autonomous or either/or?
The limitations “synched odometry data” and “previous synched odometry data” are indefinite for multiple reasons never explained/clarified by the Applicant. 1) are any of these two limitations in any way connected to the previously recited limitation “odometry data” or not? 2) What does Applicant mean by “synched” odometry data particularly in each limitation, for example, how is just the odometry data synched, synched to what, synched with what, etc.? 3) what is considered “previous” synched odometry data particularly, what makes it “previous”?
The limitation “copying synched odometry data to previous synched odometry data”. What does Applicant mean by “copying [to]” in this limitation? How are the odometry data copied to some other previous odometry data? For example, what’s the actual action happening (being claimed) that reads on “copying to” when it’s copying synched odometry data to previous synched odometry data.
The limitations “determining whether correction is required” and “if correction is required” are indefinite, 1) it is unclear, to the Examiner, what Applicant particularly means by “correction” in each limitation, e.g. correction of what? 2) are the two “correction” limitations connected/related to each other or not?
The limitation “a visible distribution field submap” is indefinite, because it is unclear, to the Examiner, what Applicant particularly means by “visible distribution field submap”, what exactly is it? e.g. visible to who? “visible distribution field” submap is not a common term and is not further explained or clarified by Applicant’s specification.
The limitation “downsampling merged scans” is indefinite, because it is unclear, to the Examiner, 1) what exactly Applicant means by downsampling in this limitation? There is no resolution that’s being downsampled? 2) What merged scans is Applicant referring to? 3) is it related to the previously recited “sampling” limitation in any way or not?
The limitation “copying the predicted pose to a scan match input pose” is indefinite because it is unclear, to the Examiner, 1) what does Applicant mean by “copying [to]” in this limitation? How is a pose copied to another scan match pose? For example, what’s the actual action happening (being claimed) that reads on “copying to” when it’s copying the predicted pose to a scan match input pose. 2) what does Applicant mean by “a scan match input pose”?
The limitation “correcting with scan matching” is indefinite, because it is unclear, to the Examiner, what Applicant particularly means by correcting? e.g. correcting what?
The limitation “pose consistency report” is indefinite because it is unclear, to the Examiner, what Applicant particularly means by “pose consistency report”, e.g. what does the report contain? “pose consistency” report is not a common term and is not further explained or clarified by Applicant’s specification.
Regarding claim 24
Connection or lack thereof between the limitation “a scan matching pose” and the previously recited “a scan match input pose” is unclear, to the Examiner.
Regarding claim 26
Claim 26 is indefinite because of the recited limitations “the pose of the device”. 1) The previously recited “pose” limitations were never recited to be directly associated with the semi-autonomous device (e.g. to be of the semi-autonomous device), were they all meant to be of the semi-autonomous device or is this a different limitation? and 2) “the device” is using a different wording than the consistent language of “the semi-autonomous device” previously and consistently used.
Claims 21-23, 25 and 27 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 20-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 20 is directed to a method. Therefore, claim 20 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 20 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 20 recites:
A computer-implemented method for hybrid mapping and localization using a localization framework for an autonomous indoor semi-autonomous device, the semi-autonomous device comprising a processor, memory, a particle filter, and a 2D laser scan matcher, the method comprising the steps of:
predicting a pose with odometry data and sampling particles using the odometry data;
copying synched odometry data to previous synched odometry data;
determining whether correction is required;
if correction is required:
setting the pose as uncorrected;
creating a visible distribution field submap;
downsampling merged scans;
copying the predicted pose to a scan match input pose;
correcting the pose with the particle filter;
correcting with scan matching to produce a corrected pose;
blending the predicted pose and the corrected pose to produce a blended pose; and
generating a pose consistency report
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, the bolded limitations in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, collected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, matching, drawing/generating/marking, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A computer-implemented method for hybrid mapping and localization using a localization framework for an autonomous indoor semi-autonomous device, the semi-autonomous device comprising a processor, memory, a particle filter, and a 2D laser scan matcher, the method comprising the steps of:
predicting a pose with odometry data and sampling particles using the odometry data;
copying synched odometry data to previous synched odometry data;
determining whether correction is required;
if correction is required:
setting the pose as uncorrected;
creating a visible distribution field submap;
downsampling merged scans;
copying the predicted pose to a scan match input pose;
correcting the pose with the particle filter;
correcting with scan matching to produce a corrected pose;
blending the predicted pose and the corrected pose to produce a blended pose; and
generating a pose consistency report
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations underlined above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the copying, downsampling and correcting limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering and/or post solution actions, which are form(s) of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claim 20 further recites the “A computer-implemented method for hybrid mapping and localization using a localization framework for an autonomous indoor semi-autonomous device, the semi-autonomous device comprising a processor, memory, a particle filter, and a 2D laser scan matcher, the method comprising the steps of ...” which merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements and/or additional limitations in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 20 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations above are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), 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 and the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicate that the mere performances are well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 21-27 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 21-27 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 20.
Therefore, claims 20-27 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Regarding claims 20-27, Examiner notes that where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. Therefore a lack of §102/103 rejections to claims rejected under §112(b) should not be construed to imply that said claims are allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAHAR MOTAZEDI whose telephone number is (571)272-0661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10a.m. - 6p.m..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/SAHAR MOTAZEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights