DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the application filed on 04/08/2026, with claims 1-20 pending.
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 .
Drawings
In light of Applicant’s remarks, the drawing objection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
In light of the amendments, the 35 USC § 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In light of the amendments, the 35 USC § 102 rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In light of the amendments, the 35 USC § 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
Specification
The amendment filed is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: The term “spatially offsetting” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 1-20 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.
The term “spatially offsetting” in claims 1, 9, and 16 renders the claims indefinite. The term “spatially offsetting” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. According to the remarks the cited section of [0006], [0009], [0023], [0027]-[0029] and [0164] allegedly supports this newly amended language; however, in light of the original specification this newly claim term of spatially offsetting is not supported. Furthermore, the claimed phrase of “spatially offsetting” is absent from the originally filled specification. In other words, to quantify how to spatially offsetting as being claimed is unclear.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Claims 2-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are rejected for incorporating the error(s) of claims 1, 9 and 16 by dependency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 12 of 14 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that “…Adams does not use the known landmark location for "spatially offsetting an absolute location of the reference object, extracted from a semantic map of the environment, by the one or more relative locations of the one or more objects to the reference object" as recited in amended claim 1.” Examiner disagrees.
In response, Adams describes spatially offsetting using equivalent wording as such, “For example, an image may be received and semantically segmented to associate pixels of the image with a label representing an object of an object type (e.g., extracting only those portions of the image which represent lane boundary markings). Features may then be extracted, or otherwise determined, which are limited to those portions of the image. In some examples map data indicating a previously mapped location of a corresponding portion of the object may be used to determine a difference. The difference (or sum of differences for multiple observations) are then used to localize the vehicle with respect to the map. See the Abstract”. Also, the remarks state that sections [0006], [0009], [0023], [0027]-[0029] and [0164] of the specification support this newly amended feature. However, in light of the original specification, the newly amended claim term of “spatially offsetting” is not supported.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zavoli, US 2008/0243378—this reference teaches digital maps for vehicle navigation and piloting using absolute and relative coordinates.
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 ANA D THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-8549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 - 5.
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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at 571-272-6011. 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.
/A.D.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RUSSELL FREJD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights