Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/838,391

Grid Map-Based Robot Pathfinding Method and Apparatus, Robot and Storage Medium

Non-Final OA §101
Filed
Aug 14, 2024
Examiner
INGRAM, THOMAS P
Art Unit
3668
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Suzhou Cleva Precision Machinery & Technology Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
512 granted / 585 resolved
+35.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
11 currently pending
Career history
596
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
21.1%
-18.9% vs TC avg
§103
45.7%
+5.7% vs TC avg
§102
16.6%
-23.4% vs TC avg
§112
9.4%
-30.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 585 resolved cases

Office Action

§101
DETAILED ACTION Status of Claims This action is in response to the application No. 18/838391 filed on 8/14/2024. Claims 1-10 are pending for examination. 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 . Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: -“an obtaining module”; -“a planning unit”; and -“a processing unit” in claim 8. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 8, 9, and 10 (although not verbatim, but contain the same concept) recite the following: A grid map-based robot pathfinding method, comprising the steps of: obtaining a first grid map and a second grid map, wherein the second grid map is generated by merging grids in the first grid map, and the resolution of the second grid map is lower than that of the first grid map; planning a travel path of a robot from a current position to a preset target point according to the second grid map; and determining an obstacle position if the travel path is impassable, determining a first path of the robot from the current position to the obstacle position based on the second grid map, and determining a second path of the robot from the preset target point to the obstacle position based on the second grid map; planning a transition path from an endpoint of the first path to an endpoint of the second path according to the first grid map; and obtaining a target path of the robot according to the first path, the second path, and the transition path. The aforementioned bolded steps have been determined to be an abstract idea of a mental process that obtains and generates multiple grid maps and further plans a travel path of a robot from a current position to a target point by utilizing a combination of the first and second grid maps. This is similar to the concepts deemed by the courts to be abstract such as collecting, analyzing, and displaying available data in Electric Power Group. Each of the steps can be performed in the mental realm or particularly by using pen and paper to utilize two grid maps of an area to be traversed and plan out a travel path from a current position to a target position. One could readily use the grid maps to plan a generic path from point A to point B just as a cartographer can use multiple maps of an area to plan a path for a vehicle. The claims are absent any details regarding the complexity of the maps being used, so broadly planning a path for a vehicle from an origin to a target can be performed in the mental realm. The claims do contain the additional elements of a robot or a processing unit to perform the planning. However, each of the additional elements are claimed at such a high generality that they merely function as tools to apply the abstract idea, or more particularly, as insignificant extra-solution activity. The courts have determined 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 do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. For at least the reasons above, the additional elements, in combination with the abstract idea of itself, are not integrated into a practical application. Furthermore, dependent claims 2-7 do not recite and further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. The limitations of the dependent claims are directed towards additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine, and convention additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, claims 1-10 are ineligible under §101. Allowable Subject Matter While claims 1-10 are currently rejected under 101 for being directed to an abstract idea of itself, the subject matter of claims 1-10 is not covered by any of the prior art of record. Therefore, if the present 101 rejection were to be overcome by persuasive argument or amendment, then the claims would be otherwise indicated as allowable. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS P INGRAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 ET. 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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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. /Thomas Ingram/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 14, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602056
AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE SOCIALIZATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12591250
ROBOT TASK EXECUTION METHOD AND APPARATUS, ROBOT, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12591251
Navigation Method and System Using Color Codes
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590437
SYSTEMS AND METHODS OF PROVIDING RIDE CONTROL WITH A POWER MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585286
MAP GENERATION SYSTEM AND MAP GENERATION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+6.0%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 585 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

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

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month