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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS(es) submitted on 7/13/2026 has/have been considered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment made dated 7/13/2026 does not contain any new matter, and has been accepted.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 10 and 12 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Independent claims 1 and 6 requires Y being greater than X, and having X being greater than Y would change how the invention inherently operate, which would be drawn to another invention; therefore, claims 10 and 12 have been restricted.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 10 and 12 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1, 6, 7, 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that the newly added limitations are not disclosed by the previous references of Westfield and Hammarberg.
Examiner would like to introduce the newly cited reference of Choti et al. to disclose the newly amended claims, as shown below.
Westfield in view of Hammarberg discloses all the particulars of the claim but is unclear about the limitation of wherein the first estimate of the confidence of the wireless terminal exceeding a threshold value X, wherein the threshold X is less than a threshold value Y what is associated with un-blocking service to the wireless terminal.
However, Choti does disclose the limitation of
the first estimate of the confidence of the wireless terminal exceeding a threshold value X, wherein the threshold X is less than a threshold value Y what is associated with un-blocking service to the wireless terminal (Col 6, lines 35-67: wherein applying restrictions to subscriber on goods and services is based on the geographical location of subscriber and the confidence factor of said location compared to the first and second threshold).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Choti’s disclosure to provide plurality of positioning confidence thresholds to restriction and regulate various services based on subscriber’s location.
Due to the broadness of the claim language, and the explanation provided above, the claims are still not yet in condition for allowance, and are still rejected as shown below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westfield (US 7,917,159) in view of Hammarberg et al. (US 2024/0214971; hereinafter Hammarberg) in further view of Choti et al. (US 8,849,255; hereinafter Choti).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 11, Westfield discloses a method comprising:
transmitting, to a wireless terminal, a definition of a proscribed area (Col 6, lines 46-67: the mobile device receiving hush mode options), wherein:
(i) the wireless terminal is a native user of a wireless switching center (switching center 22), and
(ii) the wireless terminal is being provided telecommunications service by a wireless telecommunications system that comprises the wireless switching center (Col 5, lines 8-38; Col 6, lines 8-24; quiet zone controller receiving signal from mobile device being within the quiet zone, and informing the switching center that the mobile device is within the quiet zone, and when it is determined that the mobile device is within the quiet zone and blocking incoming calls to the mobile device);
receiving, from the wireless terminal, (i) a first location estimate of whether the wireless terminal is inside of the proscribed area at a first time (Col 5, lines 8-38; Col 6, lines 8-24; quiet zone controller receiving signal from mobile device being within the quiet zone, and informing the switching center that the mobile device is within the quiet zone, and when it is determined that the mobile device is within the quiet zone and blocking incoming calls to the mobile device); and
transmitting, to an operator determined barring module associated with the wireless switching center, a request to block service to the wireless terminal (i) when the first location estimate is that the wireless terminal is inside of the proscribed area (Col 5, lines 8-38; Col 6, lines 8-24; quiet zone controller receiving signal from mobile device being within the quiet zone, and informing the switching center that the mobile device is within the quiet zone, and when it is determined that the mobile device is within the quiet zone and blocking incoming calls to the mobile device).
Westfield discloses all the particulars of the claim, but is unclear about the limitations of
receiving (ii) a first estimate of the confidence of the wireless terminal that the first location estimate is correct; and
blocking service based on the estimate of the confidence of the wireless terminal.
However, Hammarberg does disclose the limitations of,
receiving (ii) a first estimate of the confidence of the wireless terminal that the first location estimate is correct ([0015], [0017]: wherein the UE obtaining positioning parameters corresponding to positioning quality of service, which includes an estimated accuracy, confidence interval and geographical area or cell within which the positioning information is valid); and
blocking service based on the first estimate of the confidence of the wireless terminal ([0015], [0017]: wherein service action includes terminating/blocking a service based on the positioning QoS being below a threshold for the service; wherein other service actions can be allowing services that were previously restricted based on the positioning QoS data).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Hammarberg’s disclosure to provide positioning quality of service to improve handling of critical services (Hammarberg: [0012]).
Westfield in view of Hammarberg discloses all the particulars of the claim but is unclear about the limitation of wherein the first estimate of the confidence of the wireless terminal exceeding a threshold value X, wherein the threshold X is less than a threshold value Y what is associated with un-blocking service to the wireless terminal.
However, Choti does disclose the limitation of
the first estimate of the confidence of the wireless terminal exceeding a threshold value X, wherein the threshold X is less than a threshold value Y what is associated with un-blocking service to the wireless terminal (Col 6, lines 35-67: wherein applying restrictions to subscriber on goods and services is based on the geographical location of subscriber and the confidence factor of said location compared to the first and second threshold).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Choti’s disclosure to provide plurality of positioning confidence thresholds to restriction and regulate various services based on subscriber’s location.
Regarding claim 2, Westfield discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising: receiving, from the wireless terminal, a second location estimate of whether the wireless terminal is inside of the proscribed area at a second time (Col 6, lines 57-67: wherein the mobile device his determined to have moved out of the quiet zone and therefore returning the mobile device to normal operation); and
transmitting, to the operator determined barring module, a request to un-block service to the wireless terminal when the second estimate is that the wireless terminal is outside of the proscribed area (Col 6, lines 57-67: wherein the mobile device his determined to have moved out of the quiet zone and therefore returning the mobile device to normal operation).
Westfield in view of Hammaberg discloses all the particulars of the claim but is unclear about the limitation wherein the terminal is outside of the proscribed area based on a second estimate of the confidence of the wireless terminal exceeding the threshold (Col 6, lines 35-67: wherein applying restrictions to subscriber on goods and services is based on the geographical location of subscriber and the plurality of confidence factors of said location compared to the first and second threshold).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Choti’s disclosure to provide plurality of positioning confidence thresholds to restriction and regulate various services based on subscriber’s location.
Regarding claim 3, Westfield discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the first time is before the second time (moving into the quiet zone is the first time and moving out of the quiet zone is the second time; Col 5, lines 8-38; Col 6, lines 8-24; quiet zone controller receiving signal from mobile device being within the quiet zone, and informing the switching center that the mobile device is within the quiet zone, and when it is determined that the mobile device is within the quiet zone and blocking incoming calls to the mobile device).
Regarding claim 4, Westfield discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the second time is before the first time (moving into and out of the quiet zone and moving back into the quiet zone; Col 5, lines 8-38; Col 6, lines 8-24; quiet zone controller receiving signal from mobile device being within the quiet zone, and informing the switching center that the mobile device is within the quiet zone, and when it is determined that the mobile device is within the quiet zone and blocking incoming calls to the mobile device).
Regarding claim 6, Westfield discloses a method comprising:
transmitting, to a wireless terminal, a definition of a proscribed area (Col 5, lines 8-38; Col 6, lines 8-24; quiet zone controller receiving signal from mobile device being within the quiet zone, and informing the switching center that the mobile device is within the quiet zone, and when it is determined that the mobile device is within the quiet zone and blocking incoming calls to the mobile device), wherein:
(i) the wireless terminal is a native user of a wireless switching center (switching center 22), and
(ii) an operator determined barring module associated with the wireless switching center is blocking service to the wireless terminal center (Col 5, lines 8-38; Col 6, lines 8-24; quiet zone controller receiving signal from mobile device being within the quiet zone, and informing the switching center that the mobile device is within the quiet zone, and when it is determined that the mobile device is within the quiet zone and blocking incoming calls to the mobile device);
receiving, from the wireless terminal, an estimate of whether the wireless terminal is inside of the proscribed area (Col 6, lines 57-67: wherein the mobile device his determined to have moved out of the quiet zone and therefore returning the mobile device to normal operation); and
transmitting, to the operator determined barring module, a request to un-block service to the wireless terminal when the estimate is that the wireless terminal is outside of the proscribed area (Col 6, lines 57-67: wherein the mobile device his determined to have moved out of the quiet zone and therefore returning the mobile device to normal operation).
Westfield discloses all the particulars of the claim, but is unclear about the limitations of
receiving (ii) an estimate of the confidence of the wireless terminal that the first positioning estimate is correct; and
blocking service based on the estimate of the confidence of the wireless terminal.
However, Hammarberg does disclose the limitations of,
receiving (ii) an estimate of the confidence of the wireless terminal that the first positioning estimate is correct ([0015], [0017]: wherein the UE obtaining positioning parameters corresponding to positioning quality of service, which includes an estimated accuracy, confidence interval and geographical area or cell within which the positioning information is valid); and
blocking service based on the estimate of the confidence of the wireless terminal ([0015], [0017]: wherein service action includes terminating/blocking a service based on the positioning QoS being below a threshold for the service; wherein other service actions can be allowing services that were previously restricted based on the positioning QoS data) .
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Hammarberg’s disclosure to provide positioning quality of service to improve handling of critical services (Hammarberg: [0012]).
Westfield in view of Hammarberg discloses all the particulars of the claim but is unclear about the limitation of based on the estimate of the confidence of the wireless terminal exceeding a threshold value of Y, wherein the threshold value of Y is greater that a threshold value of X that is associated with blocking service to the wireless terminal.
However, Choti does disclose the limitation of
based on the estimate of the confidence of the wireless terminal exceeding a threshold value of Y, wherein the threshold value of Y is greater that a threshold value of X that is associated with blocking service to the wireless terminal (Col 6, lines 35-67: wherein applying restrictions to subscriber on goods and services is based on the geographical location of subscriber and the confidence factor of said location compared to the first and second threshold).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Choti’s disclosure to provide plurality of positioning confidence thresholds to restriction and regulate various services based on subscriber’s location.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Westfield discloses a method comprising:
receiving a first signal that is evidence of the location of a wireless terminal at a first time (Col 5, lines 8-38; Col 6, lines 8-24; quiet zone controller receiving signal from mobile device being within the quiet zone, and informing the switching center that the mobile device is within the quiet zone, and when it is determined that the mobile device is within the quiet zone and blocking incoming calls to the mobile device), wherein:
(i) the wireless terminal is a native user of a wireless switching center (switching center 22), and
(ii) the wireless terminal is being provided telecommunications service by a wireless telecommunications system that comprises the wireless switching center (Col 5, lines 8-38; Col 6, lines 8-24; quiet zone controller receiving signal from mobile device being within the quiet zone, and informing the switching center that the mobile device is within the quiet zone, and when it is determined that the mobile device is within the quiet zone and blocking incoming calls to the mobile device);
generating, based on the first signal, a first estimate of whether the wireless terminal is inside of a proscribed area at the first time (Col 5, lines 8-38; Col 6, lines 8-24; quiet zone controller receiving signal from mobile device being within the quiet zone, and informing the switching center that the mobile device is within the quiet zone, and when it is determined that the mobile device is within the quiet zone and blocking incoming calls to the mobile device);
transmitting, to an operator determined barring module associated with the wireless switching center, a request to block service to the wireless terminal when the first estimate is that the wireless terminal is inside of the proscribed area (Col 5, lines 8-38; Col 6, lines 8-45; quiet zone controller receiving signal from mobile device being within the quiet zone, and informing the switching center that the mobile device is within the quiet zone, and when it is determined that the mobile device is within the quiet zone and blocking incoming calls to the mobile device);
transmitting a definition of the proscribed area to the wireless terminal (Col 6, lines 46-67: the mobile device receiving hush mode options);
receiving, from the wireless terminal, a second estimate of whether the wireless terminal is inside of the proscribed area at a second time (Col 6, lines 57-67: wherein the mobile device his determined to have moved out of the quiet zone and therefore returning the mobile device to normal operation); and
transmitting, to the operator determined barring module associated with the wireless switching center, a request to un-block service to the wireless terminal when the second estimate is that the wireless terminal is outside of the proscribed area; wherein the first time is before the second time (Col 6, lines 57-67: wherein the mobile device his determined to have moved out of the quiet zone and therefore returning the mobile device to normal operation).
Westfield discloses all the particulars of the claim, but is unclear about the limitations of
receiving (ii) an estimate of the confidence of the wireless terminal that the first positioning estimate is correct; and
blocking service based on the estimate of the confidence of the wireless terminal.
However, Hammarberg does disclose the limitations of,
receiving (ii) an estimate of the confidence of the wireless terminal that the first positioning estimate is correct ([0015], [0017]: wherein the UE obtaining positioning parameters corresponding to positioning quality of service, which includes an estimated accuracy, confidence interval and geographical area or cell within which the positioning information is valid); and
blocking service based on the estimate of the confidence of the wireless terminal ([0015], [0017]: wherein service action includes terminating/blocking a service based on the positioning QoS being below a threshold for the service; wherein other service actions can be allowing services that were previously restricted based on the positioning QoS data).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Hammarberg’s disclosure to provide positioning quality of service to improve handling of critical services (Hammarberg: [0012]).
Westfield in view of Hammarberg discloses all the particulars of the claim but is unclear about the limitation of wherein a first estimate of the confidence of the wireless terminal being inside the proscribed area is based on the first location estimate confidence exceeds a threshold X, and a second estimate of confidence of the wireless terminal being outside the proscribed area when the confidence exceeds a threshold Y, wherein X and Y are different from each other.
However, Choti does disclose the limitation of
wherein a first estimate of the confidence of the wireless terminal being inside the proscribed area is based on the first location estimate confidence exceeds a threshold X, and a second estimate of confidence of the wireless terminal being outside the proscribed area when the confidence exceeds a threshold Y, wherein X and Y are different from each other (Col 6, lines 35-67: wherein applying restrictions to subscriber on goods and services is based on the geographical location of subscriber and the confidence factor of said location compared to the first and second threshold).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Choti’s disclosure to provide plurality of positioning confidence thresholds to restriction and regulate various services based on subscriber’s location.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westfield in view of Hammarberg in further view of Choti in further view of Grego et al. (US 7,046,990; hereinafter Grego).
Regarding claim 5, Westfield in view of Hammarberg discloses all the particulars of the claim but is unclear about the method of claim 1 wherein the wireless terminal is absent from a list of wireless terminals authorized to operate inside of the proscribed area.
However, Grego does disclose the limitation of wherein the wireless terminal is absent from a list of wireless terminals authorized to operate inside of the proscribed area (Col 4, lines 36-58; wherein the mobile device entering a restricted area A is checked against a list of authorized users and failed, hence the mobile device is unauthorized).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Grego’s disclosure to provide authorized personnel service within a restricted area.
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 CHUCK HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-7866. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am - 6pm.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 571-270-5371. 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.
/CHUCK HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
