DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to the remarks filed on June 11, 2026.
Claims 23-44 are pending.
Claims 23-43 are allowed.
Claim 44 is rejected.
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, see page 8-11, filed June 11, 2026, with respect to the rejection of Claims 23-43 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claims 23-43 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see page 8-11, filed June 11, 2026 with respect to the rejection of Claim 44 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Patel in view of Leung have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues as follows:
Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection because Leung is not analogous art to the claimed fixed wireless access mobility-enforcement technology, and, even if considered, Leung does not teach or suggest the limitation relied upon by the Office Action.
Leung fails to teach or suggest the missing limitations, and the Office Action has mischaracterized Leung's disclosure.
Firstly, Leung does not disclose a "captive portal configured to control communications. " The Office Action equates Leung's "communication portal 1001 " to the claimed "captive portal. " However, Leung explicitly defines the communication portal 1001 as "a web application which enables the users 10 to communicate with other MCD 1000 users... register personal information, perform software upgrade ", and customize device settings.
Furthermore, while the Office Action states that Leung's portal allows an administrator to "control the access right of the MCD 1000 users ", Leung is actually describing the control of physical access rights, not network communications. Specifically, Leung states that the communication portal 1001 may "enable an administrator to control the access right of the MCD 1000 users 10 with the specified door, entrance, turnstile at specified times, dates and periods." A web application used to unlock physical doors and turnstiles is fundamentally different from a captive portal configured to intercept and "control communications of the device using the fixed wireless access service," as required by Claim 23.
Secondly, Leung does not disclose the "initiation of a service access process" for network use. Claim 23 requires initiating a service access process "configured to support use of the fixed wireless access service" when the device is outside the approved region. The Office Action points to Leung's teaching that if a Mobile Communication Device (MCD) is outside the wireless coverage area of a fixed sensor node, "information may be provided to the MCD by all the other components in the system and texted to a mobile phone whose number is bound to the MCD by the SMS server".
Sending an SMS text alert to a bound mobile phone when a device leaves a coverage area is merely a notification. It does not initiate any access process that actually supports or provisions the device's continued use of the fixed wireless network outside of its approved region.
Because Patel lacks the limitation and Leung only discloses a web application for physical access control (doors/turnstiles) and SMS alerting, the proposed combination fails to teach or suggest the activation of a captive portal to control communications and the initiation of a service access process to support fixed wireless access outside an approved region. Therefore, the combination of Patel and Leung fails to render Claim 23 obvious, and Applicant respectfully requests the withdrawal of the rejection of Claim 23 and its dependent claims.
For at least these reasons, it is respectfully submitted that claims 23, 42 - 44, and claims that depend therefrom are patentable over the cited references.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with regard to the arguments of independent claim 23 in which independent Claim 44 recites different features.
Examiner notes the claim language of independent Claim 44 merely discloses detecting of a an event and supporting in response to the event that a current location of the device is outside an approved region for the device for fixed wireless access service enforcement of the mobility of the device with respect to the approved region for the device for the fixed wireless access service.
That is Applicants arguments regarding the captive portal and initiation of a service access process for network use does not apply to the claim language of independent claim 44.
In response to applicant's argument that prior art reference Leung is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In this case, prior art reference Leung is directed to a universal mobile communication system for a wireless and wireline sensor network. The system has a mobile communication device wirelessly, operatively coupling a fixed sensor node, a backend server, a short messaging system server and a communication portal to provide communication transmissions between the node, the servers and the portal. The node provides information to the device within a wireless coverage area or via the short messaging system server via a mobile phone number bound and associated to the device. A mobile kiosk is operatively coupled to the device, the node and the backend server. The system is integrated with mobile phone network e.g. global system for mobile communication network, to enhance the coverage area of the system to facilitate launching more comprehensive applications. The portability of the mobile communication device is improved to avoid the user from carrying so many electronic devices at a time when he/she goes out. The system uses communication portal released software and released standardized hardware to allow an interested party to develop his own application to highly improve and encourage different parties to join in the system development, so that system applications can become more comprehensive, and the communication portal can have higher accessing rate, thus facilitating the extendibility and flexibility of the system (Leung Abstract; Paragraph [0001-0024]).
Prior art reference Leung provides a communication portal for mobile communication devices (MCD) outside of the wireless coverage area of a fixed sensor node. The system of Leung provides the ability for a MCD to connect to the communication portal for data upload, access to vibration sensor data, data download, software upgrades as a few non-exhaustive examples. The access right of the MCD 1000 may be configured by an administrator through the communication portal (Paragraph [0041-0064]).
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 teachings of Patel with the teachings of Leung. The system is integrated with mobile phone network e.g. global system for mobile communication network, to enhance the coverage area of the system to facilitate launching more comprehensive applications. The portability of the mobile communication device is improved to avoid the user from carrying so many electronic devices at a time when he/she goes out. The system uses communication portal released software and released standardized hardware to allow an interested party to develop his own application to highly improve and encourage different parties to join in the system development, so that system applications can become more comprehensive, and the communication portal can have higher accessing rate, thus facilitating the extendibility and flexibility of the system (Leung Abstract; Paragraph [0001-0025]).
The system of Prior art references Patel and the analogous art Leung provides a solution to support enforcement of mobility of the device with respect to the approved region for the device for the fixed wireless access service.
Patel discloses an apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor (Abstract; Figure 1-5), cause the apparatus at least to:
detect, by a device configured to communicate based on a fixed wireless access service, an event (Figure 5; Paragraph [0054-0060] Reception of a network service related request);
and support, by the device based on a determination in response to the event that a current location of the device is outside of an approved region for the device for the fixed wireless access service, enforcement of mobility of the device with respect to the approved region for the device for the fixed wireless access service (Figure 5; Paragraph [0054-0068] Determination of location of the device in response to the event and determining whether the device is within the geo-fencing area for the fixed wireless access device designated service address to enable an end device to access a network service; Enforcement and enabling network services when the device is within the geo-fencing area of the FWA and denying, disabling, restricting services when outside the geo-fencing in which case the network connection may be disabled or redirected, for example, to a particular web portal, and/or data usage associated with requested network services may be restricted and/or bandwidth throttled).
Patel readily discloses the limitations of the independent claim but may not explicitly disclose how the enforcement of mobility of the device with respect to the approved region for the device for the fixed wireless access.
However, Leung more specifically teaches enforcement of mobility of the device with respect to the approved region for the device for the fixed wireless access (Abstract; Paragraph [0005-0014 and 0061-0105] If the MCD is outside of the wireless coverage area of the fixed sensor node, information may be provided to the MCD by all the other components in the system and texted to a mobile phone whose number is bound to the MCD by the SMS server. While online, the MCD 1000 may connect to the communication portal 1001 for data upload, such as transaction data, step data, vibration sensor data, etc., for selected data download, such as instant-information, ready-alert, security, daily-alert, service-request etc; for software upgrade; for battery charging; and for serving as a fixed sensor node 500, as a few non-exhaustive examples; The communication portal 1001 may enable an administrator to control the access right of the MCD 1000 users; That is outside of the approved region for the device a captive portal is provided to support the use of the fixed wireless access service by the device outside of the approved region).
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 teachings of Patel with the teachings of Leung. The system is integrated with mobile phone network e.g. global system for mobile communication network, to enhance the coverage area of the system to facilitate launching more comprehensive applications. The portability of the mobile communication device is improved to avoid the user from carrying so many electronic devices at a time when he/she goes out. The system uses communication portal released software and released standardized hardware to allow an interested party to develop his own application to highly improve and encourage different parties to join in the system development, so that system applications can become more comprehensive, and the communication portal can have higher accessing rate, thus facilitating the extendibility and flexibility of the system (Leung Abstract; Paragraph [0001-0025]).
Thus the references do teach the limitations of independent claim 44. The rejection is maintained.
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.
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.
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0167114, hereinafter Patel, in view of Leung U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0133908, hereinafter Leung.
Regarding Claim 44, Patel discloses an apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor (Abstract; Figure 1-5), cause the apparatus at least to:
detect, by a device configured to communicate based on a fixed wireless access service, an event (Figure 5; Paragraph [0054-0060] Reception of a network service related request);
and support, by the device based on a determination in response to the event that a current location of the device is outside of an approved region for the device for the fixed wireless access service, enforcement of mobility of the device with respect to the approved region for the device for the fixed wireless access service (Figure 5; Paragraph [0054-0068] Determination of location of the device in response to the event and determining whether the device is within the geo-fencing area for the fixed wireless access device designated service address to enable an end device to access a network service; Enforcement and enabling network services when the device is within the geo-fencing area of the FWA and denying, disabling, restricting services when outside the geo-fencing in which case the network connection may be disabled or redirected, for example, to a particular web portal, and/or data usage associated with requested network services may be restricted and/or bandwidth throttled).
Patel readily discloses the limitations of the independent claim but may not explicitly disclose how the enforcement of mobility of the device with respect to the approved region for the device for the fixed wireless access.
However, Leung more specifically teaches enforcement of mobility of the device with respect to the approved region for the device for the fixed wireless access (Abstract; Paragraph [0005-0014 and 0061-0105] If the MCD is outside of the wireless coverage area of the fixed sensor node, information may be provided to the MCD by all the other components in the system and texted to a mobile phone whose number is bound to the MCD by the SMS server. While online, the MCD 1000 may connect to the communication portal 1001 for data upload, such as transaction data, step data, vibration sensor data, etc., for selected data download, such as instant-information, ready-alert, security, daily-alert, service-request etc; for software upgrade; for battery charging; and for serving as a fixed sensor node 500, as a few non-exhaustive examples; The communication portal 1001 may enable an administrator to control the access right of the MCD 1000 users; That is outside of the approved region for the device a captive portal is provided to support the use of the fixed wireless access service by the device outside of the approved region).
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 teachings of Patel with the teachings of Leung. The system is integrated with mobile phone network e.g. global system for mobile communication network, to enhance the coverage area of the system to facilitate launching more comprehensive applications. The portability of the mobile communication device is improved to avoid the user from carrying so many electronic devices at a time when he/she goes out. The system uses communication portal released software and released standardized hardware to allow an interested party to develop his own application to highly improve and encourage different parties to join in the system development, so that system applications can become more comprehensive, and the communication portal can have higher accessing rate, thus facilitating the extendibility and flexibility of the system (Leung Abstract; Paragraph [0001-0025]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-43 are allowed.
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 IVAN O LATORRE whose telephone number is (571)272-6264. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at (571) 270-3618. 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.
IVAN O. LATORRE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2409
/IVAN O LATORRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights