DETAILED ACTION
This FINAL action is responsive to the amendment filed 6/3/2026.
In the amendment Claims 1-2, 5-14 and 16 are pending. Claims 3-4 and 15 were canceled. Claim 1 is the independent claim.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Please note allowability status of claims are subject to change should relevant prior art be discovered anytime during prosecution.
Withdrawn Objections
5. The objection to the abstract has been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
Withdrawn Rejections
6. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 15-16 has been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
7. The 35 U.S.C. 101 abstract idea rejection of claims 1-16 has been withdrawn in light of the amendment which outlines that the vehicle is automatically guided by using the localization/mapping. This is further described in Applicant’s specification paragraph 60 which outlines that it improves the accuracy of guiding of the vehicle along the road section based on the improved localization.
8. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1-4, 8 and 10-16 with cited reference of Holz (U.S. Pub 2018/0306589) has been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
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 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.
9. Claims 1-2, 8, 10-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holz (U.S. Pub 2018/0306589, filed Apr. 21, 2017) in view of Breach (U.S. Pub 2021/0080566, filed Sep. 18, 2020).
Regarding Independent claim 1, Holz discloses A method performed by a control unit for localizing and/or mapping during operation of a vehicle in an environment, wherein the vehicle comprises at least one environment perception sensor for the localizing and/or mapping, the method comprising:
obtaining at least one measurement of the environment from the environment perception sensor (see abstract & paragraphs 82-83, 91-93 and 113, discloses an environment perception sensor 602 on a robotic vehicle that obtains a measurement of the environment via landmark 604 location),
searching for and identifying a plurality of objects in the at least one measurement which correspond to a predefined pattern (see paragraphs 82 and 91-98, discloses that received signals are associated with landmarks 604 that are distributed in the environment via retroreflective markers. Signals are associated with the candidate landmarks and may correspond to a mapped landmark. Further disclosing sampling candidate landmarks and matching them to mapped landmarks (predefined pattern)),
in response to determining that the plurality of objects correspond to the predefined pattern, filtering the at least one measurement so that only the plurality of objects which correspond to the predefined pattern are used for the localizing and/or mapping (see paragraphs 103-104 and 107-109, discloses determining inliers has only candidate landmarks within threshold distance of mapped landmarks are used. Any transformed candidate landmark within the threshold distance of a neighboring mapped landmark may be considered an inlier. Furthermore, any outlier associated with the sample set may be determined to correspond to false detections that are filtered out. Thus, candidate landmark 1120 is an outlier not used for pose estimation), and
localizing and/or mapping based on the filtered at least one measurement (see paragraph 108-109, discloses determining four inliners that is indicative of a transformation that adequately aligns candidate landmarks. Further disclosing that the pose of the robotic vehicle may be estimated based on the inliers associated with the selected sample set),
automatically guiding the vehicle by use of the localizing and/or mapping (see paragraphs 125-126, discloses using localization that includes landmarks to determine the path for navigating the robot). Holz teaches an upper distance threshold for accepting detected landmarks as valid correspondences (see paragraph 104). Holz fails to teach or suggest designating landmark patterns with a minimum spacing.
Breach discloses:
wherein the predefined pattern is defined by a plurality of separate objects which are offset from each other, wherein the separate objects are offset from each other by a minimum distance and by a maximum distance, and wherein the minimum distance and the maximum distance between the plurality of objects define a predefined range, wherein the predefined pattern is identified when the plurality of objects are offset from each other according to the predefined range (see paragraphs 26-27 & fig. 1B, discloses predefined pattern of separate objects comprising retroreflectors offset from each other in a predetermined sequence and including a minimum lateral and longitudinal spacing). At the time of the invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have included both lower and upper spatial constraints when identifying valid landmark patterns to define an acceptable range of inter-object relationships for localization. Doing so avoids localizing landmarks that are too close/far apart from each other which improves recognition and localization of “predefined patterns” has outlined by Breach in paragraphs 26-27.
Regarding Dependent claim 2, with dependency of claim 1, Holz discloses wherein the predefined pattern is defined by a plurality of static objects (see paragraphs 83 and 90-91, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 8, with dependency of claim 1, Holz discloses wherein identifying the plurality of objects in the at least one measurement comprises identifying a machine-readable visual identifier on at least one of the plurality of objects which fulfils a predefined identification criterion (see paragraphs 82 and 91, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 10, with dependency of claim 1, Holz discloses wherein the predefined pattern is defined by at least three objects (see paragraphs 96-97 and 107, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 11, with dependency of claim 10, Holz discloses wherein the at least three objects form a triangle pattern or a substantially linear pattern (see paragraph 97, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 12, with dependency of claim 1, Holz discloses wherein the predefined pattern is defined in that at least one object of the plurality of objects is surrounded by a free space which fulfils a predefined free space criterion (see paragraph 104, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claims 13-14 and 16, recite similar subject matter has in claim 1 and are rejected under the same rationale.
It is noted that any citation [[s]] to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. [[See, MPEP 2123]]
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant’s arguments filed 6/3/2026 has been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANGLESH M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5937. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 10:30 am to 7:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin D. Bishop, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-3713. 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 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).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Manglesh M Patel/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
8/4/2026
Prosecution Insights