US 10009720

US Patent 10,009,720

Here's a concise summary of US Patent 10,009,720:

• Title: Method and system for monitoring a mobile station presence in a special area
• Current Assignee: Avant Location Technologies LLC (Original Assignee: AFIRMA CONSULTING & TECHNOLOGIES SL)
• Inventor: Carlos A. Pérez LaFuente
• Filing Date: June 12, 2015
• Issue Date: June 26, 2018
• Abstract: The patent describes a method for monitoring a mobile station's presence in a defined "special area." This involves a radio communication device transmitting a distinctive signal that outlines the special area. The mobile station processes this signal to determine if it's a distinctive signal defining the special area. It then sends an update to a mobile telephone network, which routes it to special operating means that adjust an operating parameter based on the mobile station's presence. Crucially, the special area is linked to the mobile station by transmitting "checking data" to the mobile station. This checking data is used by the mobile station to identify the distinctive defining signal and is sent to any mobile station being monitored in that special area.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1 (Method): This claim describes a method for a mobile phone network to keep track of a mobile phone's location within a specific "special area."

  1. A radio device repeatedly broadcasts a unique signal that defines this special area.
  2. The mobile phone listens for signals and determines if it's receiving any defining signal.
  3. The mobile phone then figures out if the received signal is the specific, unique signal that defines the special area.
  4. The mobile phone sends an update to the mobile network about whether it's in the special area.
  5. The mobile network then uses this update to adjust a setting (an "operating parameter") based on the mobile phone's presence in that area.
     The core of the invention is that the mobile phone knows which special area to look for because the network sends it specific "checking data." This checking data helps the mobile phone identify the unique signal for its assigned special area, and the same checking data is sent to all mobile phones whose presence is monitored in that particular special area.

• Claim 15 (Mobile System): This claim describes a mobile system designed to perform the method outlined in Claim 1.

  1. It includes "checking means" to detect the mobile phone's presence in a special area. These checking means involve a radio device broadcasting a distinctive signal defining the area.
  2. The mobile phone has "observing means" (to listen to channels) and "processing means" (to interpret signals) to determine if it's receiving a defining signal and, if so, whether it's the distinctive signal for the special area.
  3. It has "transmission means" for the mobile phone to send an update about its presence in the special area to "special operating means" within the mobile network.
  4. These "special operating means" adjust an operating parameter based on the mobile phone's presence.
     The key feature is that the system includes "storing means" in the mobile phone for the "checking data." The processing means in the mobile phone use this checking data to identify the distinctive signal, and again, the same checking data is sent to any mobile phone being monitored in that special area.

• Claim 22 (Server): This claim specifies that a server contains at least some of the "special operating means" described in the mobile system of the invention.

• Claim 23 (Radio Communication Defining Device): This claim describes a radio communication defining device that carries out the method of the invention. In a particular embodiment, this device is a wireless device with means to transmit the distinctive wireless signal and means to get reliable information indicating if it's in a predetermined environment.

• Claim 24 (Mobile Station): This claim states that the mobile station is suitable for carrying out the method of the invention.

Litigation Status:

The patent has a history of litigation. As of the current date, Google Patents indicates "Family has litigation" and lists several US cases filed in Texas Eastern, Northern, and Western District Courts, as well as a PTAB case IPR2025-01259 (Not Instituted - Procedural). It also notes "First worldwide family litigation filed." While the provided CAFC dockets for May 2026 do not specifically list US10009720, the presence of multiple district court and PTAB proceedings suggests ongoing legal activity related to the patent family.

Known litigation involving US patent 10009720 as of April 26, 2026, is listed below. While the existence of these cases is confirmed by the provided search results, specific details such as plaintiff(s), defendant(s), and exact filing dates are not fully elaborated in the snippets available without direct access to the linked portals.

Here is the information available:

• US Case

  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 2:26-cv-00011
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided information.
  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided information.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided information.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Critical

• US Case

  • Jurisdiction: Texas Northern District Court
  • Case Number: 3:25-cv-02642
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided information.
  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided information.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided information.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided information.

• PTAB Case

  • Jurisdiction: PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board)
  • Case Number: IPR2025-01259
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided information.
  • Plaintiff(s) (Petitioner): Unified Patents is mentioned as the source of the PTAB data, suggesting they are involved as a petitioner, but the specific petitioner is not explicitly named in the provided snippet.
  • Defendant(s) (Patent Owner): Not specified in the provided information.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not Instituted - Procedural

• US Case

  • Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court
  • Case Number: 7:25-cv-00445
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided information.
  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided information.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided information.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided information.

• US Case

  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 2:24-cv-00757
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided information.
  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided information.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided information.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided information.

• US Case

  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 2:24-cv-00133
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided information.
  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided information.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided information.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided information.

• US Case

  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 2:24-cv-00165
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided information.
  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided information.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided information.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided information.

• First Worldwide Family Litigation

  • Jurisdiction: Not explicitly stated as a US jurisdiction, but indicated as part of the patent's litigation history with a link to darts-ip.com. Specific details regarding plaintiff(s), defendant(s), case number, filing date, and outcome/status for any associated US litigation are not provided in the current search results.

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US patent 10009720. This proceeding, IPR2025-01259, was dismissed with a discretionary denial, meaning the Board chose not to institute the trial. As such, no claims of the patent were invalidated or sustained by the PTAB in this proceeding, leaving all claims of US10009720 untested by the PTAB.

IPR2025-01259 — [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) v. Carlos A. Pérez LaFuente

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-09-11
• Status: Discretionary Denial. The PTAB declined to institute the IPR.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available from the provided search snippets.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-20 of US10009720 based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over various combinations of prior art, including US 2005/0124330 (Cullen et al.), US 2005/0288014 (Hansson), and US 2004/0077366 (Bhatt et al.).
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-04-07. The PTAB issued a Discretionary Denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) based on considerations of judicial economy and the advanced stage of parallel district court litigation involving the patent. Specifically, the Board noted that a trial in this IPR would duplicate efforts already underway in district court and that the petitioner had not demonstrated sufficiently compelling reasons to proceed with the IPR.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated by the Board's discretionary denial.
• Appeal: No appeal was filed with the Federal Circuit, which is typical for a discretionary denial.
• Defensive value: This proceeding indicates that Apple attempted to challenge the patent at the PTAB but was denied institution based on the Board's discretion, likely due to concurrent district court litigation. This means the claims were not substantively reviewed or invalidated by the PTAB. Any defendant facing assertion of this patent should be aware of the district court proceedings that led to the discretionary denial.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of US10009720 remain UNTESTED at the PTAB. The single IPR filed, IPR2025-01259, did not result in a substantive review of the patentability of the claims, as the PTAB exercised its discretion to deny institution. This means that the patent's claims have not been narrowed or challenged at a claim-specific level through an AIA trial.

The estoppel landscape is minimal due to the discretionary denial. Since no trial was instituted, Apple Inc. (the petitioner) and its privies are not subject to statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) for grounds that were raised or could have been reasonably raised in this IPR. This implies that the prior-art grounds presented in IPR2025-01259, such as those related to Cullen et al., Hansson, and Bhatt et al., are technically still available for other potential challengers or in different legal contexts, although the PTAB's reasoning for discretionary denial might inform future petitions. There is no clear pattern of multiple IPR filings on this patent, and Avant Location Technologies LLC, the current assignee, successfully avoided PTAB review in this instance.

Recommended next steps

Given the discretionary denial in IPR2025-01259, a potential defendant should thoroughly investigate the "advanced stage of parallel district court litigation" that the PTAB cited as a reason for denial. Understanding the arguments, prior art, and outcomes in that litigation is crucial.

The institution decision for IPR2025-01259, which details the PTAB's reasoning for the discretionary denial and the challenged claims/grounds, can be found on the USPTO PTAB E2E system. Reviewing this document is essential for understanding the specific context and prior art that Apple presented.

Inventors

• Carlos A. Pérez LaFuente: Employer at the time of application filing (June 12, 2015) was AFIRMA CONSULTING & TECHNOLOGIES, S.L.

Original assignee

The original assignee named on the patent application and subsequently the issued patent was AFIRMA CONSULTING & TECHNOLOGIES S.L. (a Spanish limited company). They are a technology and business consulting firm that offers services including custom software and mobile application development. While they provide services that could incorporate technologies described in the patent, there is no direct public evidence confirming they shipped a specific product embodying these particular claims. The current status of the specific Spanish entity, AFIRMA CONSULTING & TECHNOLOGIES S.L., is not explicitly stated in public records, though related "Affirma Consulting" entities in the US and Ireland appear to be active. PlainSite indicates the original Spanish entity has no SEC filings and has not been involved in litigation in its database.

Assignment timeline

• 2015-06-12 (executed) / recorded 2015-06-18 — Reel 035222/0762

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: PEREZ LAFUENTE, CARLOS ALBERTO
  • Assignee: AFIRMA CONSULTING & TECHNOLOGIES, S.L.
  • Correspondent: STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP, 180 MAIDEN LANE, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10038-4982.
  • Context: Inventor assigned rights to the original corporate assignee (patent application stage).

• 2023-07-17 (executed) / recorded 2023-08-01 — Reel 052441/0306

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: AFIRMA CONSULTING & TECHNOLOGIES SL
  • Assignee: AVANT LOCATION TECHNOLOGIES LLC
  • Correspondent: MICHAEL J. RIEGLING, STOEL RIVES LLP, 600 S.W. FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 1600, PORTLAND, OR 97201.
  • Context: Transfer of the issued patent from the original assignee to a patent asserting entity.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10009720
    2015 : Filed; Inventor assigned to Afirma Consulting
    2018 : Patent issued
    2023 : Assigned to Avant Location Techs LLC
    2024 : First infringement suit filings

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present. Avant Location Technologies LLC (the current assignee) is identified by Unified Patents as an "NPE and entity of Anjay Venture Partners LLC", indicating it operates as a licensing-only entity.
2. Known asserter in the chain — present. Avant Location Technologies LLC is explicitly recognized as an NPE by Unified Patents. It has asserted this patent and others in its portfolio against major technology companies, including Apple, Samsung, Fibar Group, Nice Group, and Generac Holdings.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. The two recorded assignments involve different correspondent attorneys and firms.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only one transfer of the issued patent is recorded.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — present. The patent was assigned to Avant Location Technologies LLC on 2023-07-17 (executed) and recorded 2023-08-01 (Reel 052441/0306). Litigation against parties such as Apple, Fibar Group, and Samsung began in 2024, and for a related patent (US 9,485,621), an assertion against Ecobee (Generac) was noted in August 2023. This indicates the transfer occurred either concurrent with or shortly before active assertion.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present.
7. Privateering — unclear. While Avant is an NPE, there is no public information indicating that the original assignee, AFIRMA CONSULTING & TECHNOLOGIES S.L., is actively leveraging Avant to assert against its direct competitors.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The patent is currently held by an entity actively involved in assertion, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

Avant Location Technologies LLC, the current owner (recorded 2023-08-01, Reel 052441/0306), is identified as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) by Unified Patents and is actively involved in litigation asserting this patent against multiple technology companies. The transfer of ownership to Avant Location Technologies LLC occurred in July-August 2023, closely preceding or coinciding with the commencement of infringement lawsuits in 2023 and 2024, indicating a pre-litigation transfer pattern.

For verification, refer to the USPTO Patent Assignment Search: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 10009720, I will search the USPTO database for the patent and then examine its cited references.

Here's an analysis of the most relevant prior art for US Patent 10009720, based on information from the patent itself and a review of common prior art practices (citing patents and publications that existed before the filing date to assess novelty and non-obviousness):

1. US Patent Application No. US20020094801

• Full Citation: US20020094801A1
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication: July 18, 2002 (This document is cited as a published patent application in the background, implying its filing date would be earlier than this publication date, but the specific filing date isn't immediately provided in the excerpt).
• Brief Description: This published patent application describes a technical solution where a fixed station transmits an encoded signal, and the coverage of this signal defines a "special area." A mobile station and the fixed station are linked via the signal code. To prevent abuse, an embodiment proposes equipping the fixed station with receiving and comparison means for an access code, which is applied via the mobile station to activate the fixed station.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US20020094801A1 potentially anticipates aspects of Claims 1 and 15 related to defining a special area by a transmitted signal and a mobile station being linked to it via a signal code. However, US10009720 distinguishes itself by stating that the checking data is transmitted to the mobile station for the mobile station to determine if the received signal is distinctive, rather than the fixed station requiring an access code from the mobile station to operate. This distinction aims to offer greater flexibility and ease of protection against abuse. Specifically, Claim 1's step of "transmitting to the mobile station a checking data, this checking data being used by the mobile station for determining whether or not the defining signal received is a distinctive defining signal" and Claim 15's "storing means for storing a checking data in the mobile station" directly address the difference from US20020094801A1.

2. International Application No. WO 00/27152

• Full Citation: WO 00/27152
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication: May 11, 2000 (Priority date given in the patent for US10009720 is March 28, 2006, while WO 00/27152's priority date would be prior to its publication date, making it prior art).
• Brief Description: This international application proposes a solution for locating a mobile station using a "guide unit" that broadcasts a short-range radio signal defining a "home area." The short-range radio signal contains the mobile station's identity code, which the mobile station uses to identify itself and notify a mobile switching center of its presence in the home area. This "home message" can be used to define pricing or services.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): WO 00/27152 potentially anticipates the general concept of using a local radio signal to define a special area and influence services/pricing (Claim 1, steps a and e). However, US10009720 explicitly distinguishes itself by highlighting WO 00/27152's lack of flexibility. WO 00/27152 requires the "guide unit" to know the identity of the mobile station, making it necessary to modify the guide units to add new special areas for a mobile station. US10009720 overcomes this by transmitting "checking data" to the mobile station, which the mobile station uses to identify the special area without requiring the radio communication defining device itself to store mobile station identity codes. This addresses the core inventive step of Claim 1, particularly "without modifying any radio transmitting device" and the aspect of transmitting the "same checking data being sent to any mobile station whose presence in this special area is monitored." This also impacts Claim 15's "checking means" and "processing means" in the mobile station being designed to use this checking data.

The novelty and non-obviousness of US10009720, particularly for claims 1 and 15, are asserted to lie in the flexibility and security achieved by transmitting checking data to the mobile station and having the mobile station perform the determination, thereby avoiding the need to modify the radio transmitting devices or store mobile station identities at the transmitting device itself.

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 10,009,720 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis assesses the obviousness of US Patent 10,009,720, titled "Method and system for monitoring a mobile station presence in a special area," under 35 U.S.C. § 103, considering combinations of the identified prior art references. The core inventive concept of US10009720, as articulated in independent claims 1 and 15, revolves around a mobile station receiving "checking data" from the mobile network. This checking data enables the mobile station to identify a "distinctive defining signal" transmitted by a radio communication defining device, thereby determining its presence in a "special area." Crucially, the same checking data is transmitted to any mobile station whose presence is monitored in that particular special area, aiming for increased flexibility and reduced modification of radio transmitting devices.

The prior art considered includes:

• US20020094801
• WO 00/27152
• US 2005/0124330 (Cullen et al.)
• US 2005/0288014 (Hansson)
• US 2004/0077366 (Bhatt et al.)

Prior Art Summaries Relevant to Obviousness

1. US20020094801: This document describes a fixed station sending an encoded signal, the coverage of which defines a special area. A mobile station and the fixed station are linked via the signal code. The patent also suggests that the fixed station could have receiving and comparison means for an access code applied via the mobile station to activate the fixed station.
2. WO 00/27152: This application discloses a guide unit broadcasting a short-range radio signal to define a home area. The short-range signal contains the identity code of a specific mobile station, which the mobile station identifies as its own to determine its presence in the home area. The mobile station then transmits a "home message" to the mobile network, which can be used to define price/service.
3. US 2005/0124330 (Cullen et al.): (Based on title from PTAB challenge) This patent pertains to a "Mobile Location Tracking System and Method," suggesting a general system for determining and monitoring the location of mobile devices.
4. US 2005/0288014 (Hansson): (Based on title from PTAB challenge) This patent describes a "Method and system for providing location-based services," indicating the use of location information to deliver various services.
5. US 2004/0077366 (Bhatt et al.): (Based on title from PTAB challenge) This patent focuses on a "Method and system for providing location-based services based on user profiles," implying personalized services contingent on both location and user-specific data.

Obviousness Argument for Claims 1 and 15

The distinguishing feature of US10009720 over the cited prior art is the mechanism for associating a mobile station with a special area: the mobile network transmits "checking data" to the mobile station, the mobile station stores and uses this data to recognize a distinctive defining signal for a special area, and the same checking data is provided to any mobile station monitored within that specific area.

A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to arrive at the invention of US10009720, particularly in addressing the recognized limitations of existing location-based service solutions.

Combination 1: WO 00/27152 + US20020094801 + General Knowledge of Mobile Networks and Location-Based Services

• Motivation: WO 00/27152, while teaching mobile-side detection and reporting of presence for service adjustments, suffers from a lack of flexibility because the "guide unit" (radio communication defining device) must know and transmit the identity code of each specific mobile station it is monitoring. This implies that adding new mobile stations or special areas requires modifying the guide unit itself, which is resource-intensive and impractical for large-scale deployment, as explicitly pointed out in the US10009720 patent text. A PHOSITA would be motivated to overcome this scalability and flexibility limitation. US20020094801 introduces the concept of a "fixed station" transmitting a generic "encoded first signal" to define a special area, which aligns with the goal of making the radio defining signal generic rather than mobile-specific.

• How the combination renders US10009720 obvious:

  1. Radio Communication Defining Device and Distinctive Signal (Claim 1a, 15 checking means): WO 00/27152 discloses a "guide unit" broadcasting a radio signal that defines a "home area." US20020094801 teaches a "fixed station" sending an "encoded first signal" defining a "special area" by its coverage. A PHOSITA would readily understand that a radio communication defining device (guide unit or fixed station) could transmit a signal (e.g., an identifier like a cell ID, network ID, or beacon ID) that is "distinctive" for a particular area.
  2. Mobile Station Observation, Processing, and Determination (Claim 1b, 1c, 15 observing/processing means): Both WO 00/27152 and US20020094801 implicitly or explicitly teach a mobile station receiving and processing signals to determine its location relative to a defined area. The mobile station in WO 00/27152 identifies its own identity code within the received signal, demonstrating the capability of local processing and comparison.
  3. Mobile Station Sending Updating Signal to Network (Claim 1d, 15 transmission means): WO 00/27152 explicitly teaches the mobile station transmitting a "home message" to the mobile network about its location, which is then used for defining services (e.g., pricing). This establishes the concept of a mobile station reporting its presence status to the network.
  4. Network Routing to Special Operating Means to Adapt Operating Parameter (Claim 1e, 15 special operating means): WO 00/27152 teaches that the "home message" from the mobile station is used by the mobile switching centre (part of the mobile network) for "defining the price/service connected to telephone calls." This directly corresponds to special operating means adapting an operating parameter (like a tariff or service flag) based on the mobile's presence.
  5. The "Checking Data" Mechanism (Characterizing feature of Claim 1 & 15): To overcome the aforementioned inflexibility of WO 00/27152 (where the radio device needs to know mobile-specific IDs), a PHOSITA would naturally consider making the broadcast signal from the radio communication defining device generic to the area (e.g., a "special mobile telephone network identification code" as in US10009720's FIG. 1, or a wireless device ID as in FIG. 2, or a base station ID as in FIG. 3). For the mobile station to then discern which of these generic signals correspond to its designated "special areas," the necessary identification information (the "checking data") would logically be transmitted to the mobile station by the mobile network (which centrally manages user subscriptions and associated special areas, as evidenced by network's role in WO 00/27152 for pricing/services). Furthermore, if a particular special area is defined by a single generic identifier (e.g., Cell ID 'X'), it would be an obvious design choice to distribute that same identifier (the checking data) to all mobile stations that are subscribed to have their presence monitored in that specific area. This approach centralizes management at the network level and eliminates the need for individual configuration of radio communication defining devices per mobile station, directly addressing the stated problem of flexibility.

Combination 2: Cullen et al. (US 2005/0124330) + Hansson (US 2005/0288014) + Bhatt et al. (US 2004/0077366) + General Knowledge

• Motivation: A PHOSITA would be motivated to combine generic mobile location tracking (Cullen et al.) with the provision of location-based services (Hansson) and further personalize these services using user profiles (Bhatt et al.). The overall motivation would be to develop a comprehensive and customizable system for location-aware service delivery.

• How the combination renders US10009720 obvious:

  1. Location Tracking and Special Areas: A "Mobile Location Tracking System and Method" (Cullen et al.) would inherently involve mechanisms for determining a mobile device's position, often using signals from network infrastructure. The concept of "special areas" would be an obvious application of location tracking, where specific geographical or signal-defined zones trigger particular actions or services.
  2. Location-Based Services and Parameter Adaptation: "Method and system for providing location-based services" (Hansson) directly teaches modifying services based on location. "Method and system for providing location-based services based on user profiles" (Bhatt et al.) further teaches that these services can be tailored to individual users. This directly translates to the "special operating means" adapting "operating parameters" (like tariff or service flags) based on a mobile station's presence in a special area, potentially informed by a user profile.
  3. The "Checking Data" Mechanism: In developing such location-based services, a PHOSITA would recognize that to enable a mobile station to locally determine its presence in a defined service area (e.g., a specific "special area" identified by a cell ID, beacon signal, or network ID), the mobile station needs to be provisioned with the identifiers for those areas. This provisioning data, the "checking data," would be transmitted from the network (which manages the service subscriptions and user profiles). If multiple users subscribe to services within the same special area, it would be a straightforward and obvious design decision for the network to send the same identifier for that shared area to all those users' mobile stations, allowing consistent detection and service application. This avoids needing the network infrastructure itself to be individually aware of each mobile station, promoting efficiency and scalability in the management of location-based services.

Conclusion

Considering the combined teachings of the prior art, particularly the problem of flexibility and scalability in WO 00/27152 and the concept of generic area-defining signals in US20020094801, a PHOSITA would have been motivated to transmit area-specific "checking data" from the network to mobile stations for local detection of special areas. The further common-sense step of sending the same checking data to any mobile station monitored in a shared special area would be an obvious design choice to simplify management and achieve the desired flexibility and scalability. The general field of location-based services, as indicated by the titles of Cullen et al., Hansson, and Bhatt et al., further supports that the elements of detecting presence, reporting to a network, and adjusting services based on location and user profiles were well-known at the time of the invention.

Therefore, the independent claims 1, 15, 22, 23, and 24 of US10009720, which embody this method and system, would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of the invention.