DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
1. This action is responsive to the following communication: Listing of the Claims and Remarks/Arguments, filed on January 27, 2026. Claims 1-9 are pending in the case; Claim 1 is independent claim; no amendments were made in the reply filed on January 27, 2026. This action is made final.
2. Please note that there was a typographical error in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on August 26, 2025 on page 2 – item number 2 should have stated “Claims 1-9 are pending in the case. Claim 1 is independent claim.” The correct claim numbering was indicated/used elsewhere in the Non-Final Rejection.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments with respect to § 103 rejections, see Remarks filed on January 27, 2026 (hereinafter Remarks) (see pgs. 5-7), have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Under subheading “A.” Applicant argues that the cited combination of references “omits core architectural cooperation and controls” by “gloss[ing] over specific, interlocking controls in the claimed architecture” as recited in Claim 1 (see Remarks, pgs. 5-6). First, Applicant argues that the cited references fail to disclose “a tri-module architecture with a distinct government verification loop that determines what subset of contractor submissions is transmitted to drivers.”
With respect to this point, Examiner notes that independent Claim 1 merely recites “management module computer-readable instructions which when executed by a management servicer processor cause said management module to receive and store road work data from said road work contractor module and transmit at least selected road work data to said driver module,” and that it appears that the Applicant is arguing for a particular interpretation of this limitation, even though it is recited more broadly. Note that there is nothing in Claim 1 stating what comprises “at least selected road work data” and/or how this selection is made – it appears that Applicant is arguing that such “selection” requires a “distinct government verification loop that determines what subset of contractor submissions is transmitted to drivers” (see Remarks, pg. 5), but this is not required by (or recited in) the claim as currently presented. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims (see In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993)).
Second, Applicant argues that “the contractor module in the application collects structured work-zone attributes, including lane counts, shoulder status, and worker presence, which are then used downstream to inform driver alerts and routing choices” (see Remarks, pgs. 5-6). However, Claim 1 merely recites “said road work contractor module comprising contractor module computer readable instructions which when executed by a contractor device processor cause a contractor device to present a login screen to a contractor use, receive contractor input from the contractor user concerning location, date, and time of road work, and transmit said contractor input to said management server,” without any mention of “structured work-zone attributes” as argued by the Applicant. Again, it appears that the Applicant is arguing that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, but such features are not recited in the rejected claims.
Third, Applicant argues that “the application teaches a driver feedback loop (post-passage voice validation) and a connected-vehicle dissemination path (V2I/V2V via DSRC) with on-route storage and cross-validation, delivering alerts at least five miles ahead” and that “these technical features are absent from Waze’s consumer navigation and partner-closure tooling” (see Remarks, pg. 6). Examiner respectfully disagrees with this conclusion because Applicant is arguing that limitations from the Specification should be read into Claim 1 even though such interpretation is not required by Claim 1.
Applicant should consider further clarifying Claim 1 to ensure that it is interpreted in the argued-for manner. Applicant's arguments appear to amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Under subheading “B.” Applicant addresses dependent Claims 2-9 but similarly to the discussion above, appears to argue that limitations from the Specification (which are not explicitly required by the recited limitations) should be read into the claims (see Remarks, pgs. 6-7). For example, with respect to dependent Claim 2 (which merely recites “wherein the management module is cloud-based”), Applicant appears to argue that it claims/requires “managed selection/verification flow controlled by the cloud module” (see Remarks, pg. 6). As discussed above, Applicant should consider further clarifying the claims to ensure that they are interpreted in the argued-for manner and/or should specifically point out how the language of the claims is patentably distinct from the combination of cited references.
Under subheading “C.” Applicant argues that instant Application’s technical effects are not achieved by the cited references (see Remarks, pg. 7). As noted above, “limitations from the specification are not read into the claims” and Applicant should ensure that the recited claims clearly reflect the technical effects that are distinguishable from the cited references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
4. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Plan road closures with the Closure Tool” (hereinafter ClosureTool), Google Support, published at https://support .google.com/waze/partners, retrieved by the Wayback Machine on or before October 6, 2022 (pages 1-4), in view of “Get to Know Waze” (hereinafter WazeVideo), Waze, published on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNjFngFhts8) on June 14, 2018 (duration 7 minutes and 5 seconds).
With respect to independent Claim 1, ClosureTool teaches a computer-implemented navigation system for providing drivers with accurate and real-time road work information comprising:
a management server … comprising a management module, a road work contractor module and a driver module (see pgs. 1-4, showing “Waze Map Editor” (contractor module) and Waze App (driver module), which are part of Waze system – a skilled artisan would understand that different computer systems and/or machines can be utilized in order to implement the entire system and corresponding modules).
said road work contractor module comprising contractor module computer readable instructions which when executed by a contractor device processor cause a contractor device to present a login screen to a contractor use, receive contractor input from the contractor user concerning location, date, and time of road work, and transmit said contractor input to said management server (see pg. 4, showing login into the screen; see also pgs. 1-3, describing information that can be inputted via the Waze Map Editor by an authorized partner, such as a government entity or a contractor; see also discussion of WazeVideo, below).
said driver module comprising driver module computer-readable instructions which when executed by a driver contractor device processor cause a driver device to prompt a driver for a driving destination, compute at least one navigation route to the driver input driving destination, receiving road work data from said management server, determine whether said road work data intersects with said at least one navigation route, calculate at least one alternative road work avoiding navigation route and present said at least one alternative road work avoiding navigation route to said driver on said driver device (see pgs. 1-2, showing that submitted road closures are reflected in the Waze App and that drivers are not routed through closed streets; although ClosureTool does not illustrate “inputting driving destination,” it would have been apparent to a skilled artisan that a navigation application, such as Waze App, Google Maps, etc., at the time the instant Application was filed, would provide such functionality, as was well known in the art).
said management module comprising management module computer-readable instructions which when executed by a management servicer processor cause said management module to receive and store road work data from said road work contractor module and transmit at least selected road work data to said driver module (see pgs. 1-2, showing that the submitted information is reflected in the Waze App for the drivers to use).
While ClosureTool does not explicitly illustrate that the management server “compris[es] a processor and non-transient memory comprising computer-readable instructions, said computer-readable instructions comprising…,” a skilled artisan would understand that the Waze system (i.e., management module) connects the Waze Map Editor (i.e., contractor module) with the Waze app (i.e., driver module), and that such modules are implemented on a computer system(s).
In addition, WazeVideo further describes the features described in ClosureTool and explicitly illustrates logging into the Waze Map Editor and adding/editing road closure information to be reflected in the Waze App (see WazeVideo, 0:12 – 6:47).
With respect to dependent Claim 2, ClosureTool in view of WazeVideo teaches the computer-implemented navigation system according to claim 1, as discussed above, and while ClosureTool does not appear to explicitly state that the management module is cloud-based, a skilled artisan would understand that the Waze system is a cloud based system that operates on a continuously updated crowdsourcing model, as was well-known in the art at the time the instant Application was filed.
With respect to dependent Claim 3, ClosureTool in view of WazeVideo teaches the computer-implemented navigation system according to claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests said management servicer further comprising a government agency module, said government agency module comprising government agency module computer readable instructions which when executed by a government agency device processor cause a government agency device to present a login screen to a government user, receive road work data from said management server, receive verification input from said government user, and transmit said verification input to said management server (see ClosureTool, pgs. 1-4, WazeVideo 0:12 – 6:47, showing that an authorized used/partner, such as a government entity, can provide road work data that is reflected in the Waze App; a skilled artisan would understand that only authorized/pre-approved users would be allowed to edit road work data in order to ensure that accurate information is displayed to the drivers).
With respect to dependent Claim 5, ClosureTool in view of WazeVideo suggests the computer-implemented navigation system according to claim 3, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein said driver module, said contractor module, and said government agency module are downloadable from said management server to a driver device, a contractor device, and a government device, respectively (see ClosureTool, pgs. 1-4).
With respect to dependent Claim 7, ClosureTool in view of WazeVideo teaches the computer-implemented navigation system according to claim 3, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein communication between said management module, said driver module, said contractor module and said government module takes place over a wide-area distributed wireless network (see ClosureTool, pgs. 1-4).
With respect to dependent Claim 9, ClosureTool in view of WazeVideo teaches the computer-implemented navigation system according to claim 3, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein said driver device is a mobile device, wherein said contractor device is a mobile device, a desktop computer, a laptop computer or a kiosk, and wherein said government agency device is a mobile device, a desktop computer, a laptop computer or a kiosk (see ClosureTool, pgs. 1-4).
With respect to Claims 4, 6, and 8, these claims recite steps and/or features similar to those recited in Claims 5, 7, and 9, respectively, and are thus rejected under a similar rationale as those claims, above.
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1,215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 DINO KUJUNDZIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5188. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Thomas Worden can be reached on 571-272-4876. 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.
/DINO KUJUNDZIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights