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 with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 10-12, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Green et al. (U.S. Patent Number: 8,175,614).
Consider claim 1; Green discloses a method for determining theft of services using geolocation information, the method comprising:
obtaining, by a service provider system from an access device at a premises [e.g. telecommunications provider (col. 8, lines 56-60)], access device (e.g. modem) geolocation information (col. 6, line 58 – col. 7, line 6);
obtaining, by the service provider system [e.g. telecommunications provider (col. 8, lines 56-60)] from a location server (col. 6, lines 18-19), premises geolocation information defining a geographic area corresponding to an address of the premises [e.g. registered address (col. 6, lines 58-60)]; and
granting, by the service provider system [e.g. telecommunications provider (col. 8, lines 56-60)], service provider services (e.g. call) to the access device (e.g. modem) in response to the access device (e.g. modem) geolocation information meeting or being within the premises geolocation information (col. 6, line 58 – col. 7, line 6; col. 8, lines 32-34).
Consider claim 2; Green discloses the premises geolocation information is a defined set of longitude and latitude pairs (col. 7, lines 13-16).
Consider claim 5; Green discloses comparing (col. 6, line 58 – col. 7, line 6), by the service provider system [e.g. telecommunications provider (col. 8, lines 56-60)], the access device (e.g. modem) geolocation information with the premises geolocation information (e.g. registered address) (col. 6, line 58 – col. 7, line 6).
Consider claim 10; Green discloses obtaining, by the service provider system [e.g. telecommunications provider (col. 8, lines 56-60)] from the access device (col. 6, line 58 – col. 7, line 6), up-to-date access device (e.g. modem) geolocation information (col. 8, lines 56-60) to confirm granting of the service provider services (col. 8, lines 32-34).
Consider claim 11; Green discloses a system, comprising:
a service provider system [e.g. telecommunications provider (col. 8, lines 56-60)] connected to an access device (e.g. modem) at a premises [e.g. registered address (col. 6, lines 58-60)], the service provider system configured to:
receive access device geolocation information (e.g. registered address) from the access device (e.g. modem) (col. 6, lines 58-60);
receive premises geolocation information [e.g. registered address (col. 6, lines 58-60)] from a location server (col. 6, lines 18-19), the premises geolocation information defining a geographic area corresponding to an address of the premises [e.g. registered address (col. 6, lines 58-60)]; and
enable services at the access device (e.g. modem) (col. 8, lines 32-34) in response to the access device geolocation information meeting or being within the premises geolocation information (col. 6, line 58 – col. 7, line 6; col. 8, lines 56-60).
Consider claim 12; Green discloses the premises geolocation information is a defined set of longitude and latitude pairs (col. 7, lines 13-16).
Consider claim 19; Green discloses a method for determining theft of services using geolocation information, the method comprising:
requesting, by a service provider system [e.g. telecommunications provider (col. 8, lines 56-60)] from a modem at a premises, modem geolocation information [e.g. the registered address is received (col. 6, lines 58-60)];
requesting, by the service provider system from a location database (col. 8, lines 56-60), premises geolocation information defining a geographic area corresponding to an address of the premises [e.g. registered address (col. 6, lines 58-60)];
performing, by the service provider system [e.g. telecommunications provider (col. 8, lines 56-60)], a comparison between the modem geolocation information and the premises geolocation information (e.g. registered address) (col. 6, line 58 – col. 7, line 6; col. 8, lines 56-60); and
granting (col. 8, lines 32-34), by the service provider system [e.g. telecommunications provider (col. 8, lines 56-60)], services (e.g. call) to the modem in response to the comparison indicating that the modem geolocation information matches or is inside the premises geolocation information (col. 6, line 58 – col. 7, line 6; col. 8, lines 56-60).
Consider claim 20; Green discloses requesting, by the service provider system [e.g. telecommunications provider (col. 8, lines 56-60)] from the modem (col. 8, lines 47-52), device geolocation information for at least one device connected to or attempting to connect to the modem [e.g. via the serving base station identifier (col. 8, lines 47-52)]; granting (col. 8, lines 32-34), by the service provider system [e.g. telecommunications provider (col. 8, lines 56-60)], services (e.g. call) to the at least one device in response to a comparison indicating the device geolocation information meets or is within the premises geolocation information (col. 8, lines 56-60); and requesting, by the service provider system [e.g. telecommunications provider (col. 8, lines 56-60)] from the modem, up-to-date modem geolocation information and up-to-date device geolocation information [e.g. via the comparison (col. 6, line 58 – col. 7, line 6; col. 8, lines 56-60)] to confirm granting of the services (e.g. call) to the modem and the at least one device (col. 8, lines 32-34), respectively (col. 8, lines 32-34).
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 of this title, 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 3, 6-9, 13, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green et al. (U.S. Patent Number: 8,175,614) in view of Hefetz (U.S. Patent Number: 8,770,477).
Consider claim 3, as applied in claim 1; Green discloses the claimed invention except: the access device geolocation information is determined using a Wi-Fi Positioning System.
In an analogous art Hefetz discloses the access device geolocation information is determined using a Wi-Fi Positioning System (col. 5, line 63 – col. 6, line 3).
It is an object of Green’s invention to provide a method of location determination. It is an object of Hefetz’s invention to provide a method of obtaining geographic location. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Green by including Wi-Fi, as taught by Hefetz, for the purpose of effectively providing location information in a telecommunications network.
Consider claim 6; Green discloses the claimed invention except: denying, by the service provider system, the service provider services to the access device in response to the access device geolocation information being outside the premises geolocation information.
In an analogous art Hefetz discloses denying (e.g. blocking), by the service provider system (col. 4, lines 45-52), the service provider services to the access device in response to the access device geolocation information being outside the premises geolocation information (col. 4, lines 45-52).
It is an object of Green’s invention to provide a method of location determination. It is an object of Hefetz’s invention to provide a method of obtaining geographic location. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Green by including denying, as taught by Hefetz, for the purpose of effectively managing services in a network.
Consider claim 7, as applied in claim 1; Green discloses the claimed invention except: obtaining, by a service provider system from the access device at the premises, device geolocation information for at least one device connected to or attempting to connect to the access device; and granting, by the service provider system, service provider services to the at least one device in response to the device geolocation information meeting or being within the premises geolocation information.
In an analogous art Hefetz discloses obtaining, by a service provider system from the access device at the premises (col. 4, lines 31-43), device geolocation information for at least one device connected to or attempting to connect to the access device (col. 4, lines 31-43); and granting, by the service provider system (col. 27, lines 60-62), service provider services to the at least one device in response to the device geolocation information meeting or being within the premises geolocation information (col. 27, lines 60-62).
It is an object of Green’s invention to provide a method of location determination. It is an object of Hefetz’s invention to provide a method of obtaining geographic location. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Green by including a connecting attempt, as taught by Hefetz, for the purpose of effectively managing services in a network.
Consider claim 8, as applied in claim 7; Hefetz discloses denying (e.g. blocking), by the service provider system (col. 4, lines 45-52), service provider services to the device in response to the device geolocation information being outside the premises geolocation information (col. 4, lines 45-52).
Consider claim 9, as applied in claim 8; Hefetz discloses disconnecting (e.g. blocking), by the service provider system (col. 4, lines 45-52), the device from the access device in response to the device geolocation information being outside the premises geolocation information (col. 4, lines 45-52).
Consider claim 13, as applied in claim 11; Green discloses the claimed invention except: the access device geolocation information is determined using a Wi-Fi Positioning System.
In an analogous art Hefetz discloses the access device geolocation information is determined using a Wi-Fi Positioning System (col. 5, line 63 – col. 6, line 3).
It is an object of Green’s invention to provide a method of location determination. It is an object of Hefetz’s invention to provide a method of obtaining geographic location. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Green by including Wi-Fi, as taught by Hefetz, for the purpose of effectively providing location information in a telecommunications network.
Consider claim 15, as applied in claim 11; Green discloses the claimed invention except: denying, by the service provider system, the service provider services to the access device in response to the access device geolocation information being outside the premises geolocation information.
In an analogous art Hefetz discloses denying (e.g. blocking), by the service provider system (col. 4, lines 45-52), the service provider services to the access device in response to the access device geolocation information being outside the premises geolocation information (col. 4, lines 45-52).
It is an object of Green’s invention to provide a method of location determination. It is an object of Hefetz’s invention to provide a method of obtaining geographic location. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Green by including denying, as taught by Hefetz, for the purpose of effectively managing services in a network.
Consider claim 16, as applied in claim 11; Green discloses the claimed invention except: receive, from the access device, device geolocation information for at least one device connected to or attempting to connect to the access device; enable services to the device in response to the device geolocation information meeting or being within the premises geolocation information; and deny the services to the device in response to the device geolocation information being outside the premises geolocation information.
In an analogous art Hefetz discloses receive (col. 4, lines 31-43), from the access device (col. 4, lines 31-43), device geolocation information for at least one device connected to or attempting to connect to the access device (col. 4, lines 31-43); enable services to the device in response to the device geolocation information meeting or being within the premises geolocation information (col. 27, lines 60-62); and deny (e.g. block) the services to the device in response to the device geolocation information being outside the premises geolocation information (col. 4, lines 45-52).
It is an object of Green’s invention to provide a method of location determination. It is an object of Hefetz’s invention to provide a method of obtaining geographic location. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Green by including a connecting attempt, as taught by Hefetz, for the purpose of effectively managing services in a network.
Consider claim 17, as applied in claim 16; Hefetz discloses disconnect the device from the access device (e.g. block) in response to the device geolocation information being outside the premises geolocation information (col. 4, lines 45-52).
Consider claim 18, as applied in claim 16; Hefetz discloses receive (col. 4, lines 31-43), from the access device (col. 4, lines 31-43), up-to-date device geolocation information (col. 4, lines 31-43) to confirm enabling of the services (col. 27, lines 60-62); and receive (col. 4, lines 31-43), from the access device (col. 4, lines 31-43), up-to-date access device geolocation information (col. 4, lines 31-43) to confirm granting of the services (col. 27, lines 60-62).
Claims 4, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hefetz (U.S. Patent Number: 8,770,477) in view of Linhardt (U.S. Patent Application Number: 2011/0016494).
Consider claim 4, as applied in claim 1; Green discloses the claimed invention except: the service provider system accesses the access device via a lightweight web server located on the access device.
In an analogous art Linhardt discloses the service provider system accesses the access device via a lightweight web server located on the access device (par. 175).
It is an object of Green’s invention to provide a method of location determination. It is an object of Linhardt’s invention to provide a method of communicating signals between devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Green by including a lightweight web server, as taught by Linhardt, for the purpose effectively managing communications in a network.
Consider claim 14, as applied in claim 11; Green discloses the claimed invention except: the service provider system accesses the access device via a lightweight web server located on the access device.
In an analogous art Linhardt discloses the service provider system accesses the access device via a lightweight web server located on the access device (par. 175).
It is an object of Green’s invention to provide a method of location determination. It is an object of Linhardt’s invention to provide a method of communicating signals between devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Green by including a lightweight web server, as taught by Linhardt, for the purpose effectively managing communications in a network.
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
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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
Examiner should be directed to Joel Ajayi whose telephone number is (571) 270-1091. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7:30am to 5:00pm and Friday 7:30am to 4:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Anderson can be reached on (571) 272-4177. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free) or 703-305-3028.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist/customer service whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/JOEL AJAYI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646