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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/18/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS(es) submitted on 2/18/2026 has/have been considered.
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 Grego.
Examiner would like to introduce the newly cited reference of Hammarberg et al. to disclose the newly amended claims, as shown below.
Westfield and Grego disclose all the particulars of the claim(s), 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])
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).
Regarding claim 1, 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, a first 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 when the first 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) 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])
Regarding claim 2, Westfield discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising: 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, 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).
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])
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])
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westfield in view of Hammarberg 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
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
Prosecution Insights