DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant amends the claim and argues that the applied reference fails to teach “in response to determining that a mobile unit has entered a zone, a processor configured to disable the mobile unit's ability to communicate wirelessly with one network and enable the mobile unit's ability to communicate wirelessly with a different private network.”. In response, examiner points to the prior art teaching that anticipates the limitations. In Para 25-29, Ravi teaches zones that a mobile unit can operate in. Access points are associated with these zones for communications (Para 25… each of the APs provide coverage to a particular operating zone). Different network access policies can be provisioned for the mobile units, for instance, a policy can stipulate that when a unit enters a first zone, communication with the access point of that first zone/network is enabled/permitted while communication with an access point of a second zone/network different from the first zone is disabled/restricted. These zones/networks can be private zones/networks formed by the AP in the zone. This teaching by Ravi clearly anticipates the argued limitations.
In light of the explanation above, the rejection is maintained as the combination of reference teaches the claimed limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-7, 10-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravi et al. (US-20090077620), and further in view of Beckman et al. (US-20210360037).
a. Referring to claims 1, 11 and 19:
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 19, Ravi teaches a device comprising: a processor configured to: determine, based on a first location of the device, using a map of a secure space, whether the device has entered the secure space (Para 25-27… determining when a device is in a secure operating zone); in response to the determining, based on the first location of the device, that the device has entered the secure space: disable an ability of the device to communicate wirelessly with a first network different from a private network (Para 27 and 39…. based on zone/location, disable communication with any other zone other than the zone it is in); enable an ability of the device to communicate wirelessly with the private network (Para 27 and 39… enable wireless communication with the operating zone); connect the device wirelessly to the private network (Para 28 and 29…. connecting the device to the operating zone); and run an application hosted on the private network (Para 39… run programs in a retail operating zone).
Ravi teaches the secure space but fails to explicitly recite a geofence or geolocation of the secure space. However, determining secure spaces based on the geolocation/geofence information is well known in the art and disclosed by Beckman in Para 14 (secure space determined by geographical location information). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Ravi by determining the secure space on its geographical location information as taught by Beckman for the purpose of ensuring that the device is operating in or has entered the specific location for enforcement.
a. Referring to claims 2 and 12:
Regarding claims 2 and 12, the combination of Ravi and Beckman teaches the device of claim 1, wherein when the processor determines whether the device has entered the secure space, the processor is configured to: determine a current location of the device based on external signals (See Ravi, Para 16 and 21…. location determination); and determine whether the current location is within an area specified by the secure space information (See Ravi, Para 27… determine if device is located in the operating zone).
a. Referring to claims 3 and 13:
Regarding claims 3 and 13, the combination of Ravi and Beckman teaches the device of claim 2, wherein the device further comprises at least one of: a receiver for receiving external signals from one or more beacons (See Ravi, Para 20…. location data receiver); or a receiver for receiving external signals from one or more Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) satellites (See Ravi, Para 16 and 21…... GPS).
a. Referring to claims 4 and 14:
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the combination of Ravi and Beckman teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: receive the secure space information of the secure space from a network (See Ravi, Para 24 and 25… AP location data from various zones).
a. Referring to claims 5 and 15:
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the combination of Ravi and Beckman teaches the device of claim 1, wherein when the processor disables the ability of the device to communicate with the first network different from the private network, the processor is configured to: disable a user profile stored in an embedded Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) of the device (See Ravi, Para 31 and 32…. profile stored on device and used disabling/enabling access).
a. Referring to claims 6 and 16:
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the combination of Ravi and Beckman teaches the device of claim 1, wherein when the processor connects the device to the private network, the processor is configured to: wirelessly attach the device to an access node that is located within the secure space (See Ravi, Para 27 and 28…... wirelessly attach the device to an AP located in the zone).
a. Referring to claims 7 and 17:
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the combination of Ravi and Beckman teaches the device of claim 6, wherein the access node includes one of: a Closed Subscriber Group (CSG) base station; a Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) device; or a Fixed Wireless Access (FWA) device (See Ravi, Para 16).
a. Referring to claims 10:
Regarding claims 10, the combination of Ravi and Beckman teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine, based on the secure space information, whether the device has exited the secure space; and if it is determined that the device has exited the secure space: re-enable the ability of the device to communicate with the networks (See Ravi, Para 28, 29 and 39…. enabling access to other zones when the device moves out from the operating zone); disconnect the device from the private network; and disable the ability of the device to communicate with the private network (See Ravi, Para 28, 29 and 39…... disconnecting and disabling the access to the vacated zone).
Claim(s) 8, 9, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravi et al. (US-20090077620) and Beckman et al. (US-20210360037), and further in view of Jin et al. (US-20240007375).
a. Referring to claims 8 and 20:
Regarding claims 8 and 20, Ravi teaches the device of claim 1 connecting to a private network but fails to teach a session between a Virtual Mobile Infrastructure (VMI) client hosted on the device and a VMI server hosted on a virtual machine running on the private network. However, a session between a VMI client and server on a virtual machine is well known in the art and disclosed by Jin in Para 48 and 49 (virtual meeting application on a device and virtualization environment on a virtual machine). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ravi and Jin by modifying the device of Ravi to incorporate a VMI client on the device which establishes a session with a server as taught by Jin for the purpose of providing secure communication and session when the device is in the private network.
a. Referring to claims 9 and 18:
Regarding claims 9 and 18, the combination of Ravi and Jin teaches the device of claim 8, wherein the session includes a Web Real Time Communication (WebRTC) session (Para 50… WebRTC session).
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 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 IZUNNA OKEKE whose telephone number is (571)270-3854. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8 - 4 EST.
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, ELENI SHIFERAW can be reached at (571) 272-3867. 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.
/IZUNNA OKEKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights