US 9119030

US Patent 9119030, titled "Method and system for monitoring a mobile station presence in a special area," was issued to Avant Location Technologies LLC, with Carlos A. Perez Lafuente listed as the inventor. The application was filed on December 5, 2014, and the patent was granted on August 25, 2015.

Abstract:
The patent describes a method for monitoring the presence of a mobile station in at least one special area. A radio communication defining device repeatedly transmits a distinctive radio defining signal that outlines the special area by its coverage. The mobile station processes received signals to determine if it is receiving a defining signal and, more precisely, a distinctive one that defines the special area. The mobile station then sends an updating signal to a mobile telephone network, which routes it to special operating means that adjust the value of an operating parameter. A key characteristic is that 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 determine if a received defining signal is distinctive and defines the associated special area, either alone or with other distinctive defining signals. The same checking data is sent to all mobile stations whose presence in that special area is being monitored.

Independent Claims Overview:

• Independent Claim 1 (Method): This claim describes a method for monitoring a mobile station's presence in a special area. It involves a radio communication defining device transmitting a distinctive signal that defines the special area. The mobile station observes and processes signals to identify if it's receiving such a distinctive defining signal. Upon detection, the mobile station sends an update to a mobile telephone network, which then uses special operating means to adjust an operating parameter based on the mobile station's presence in the special area. Crucially, the special area is associated with the mobile station by providing the mobile station with "checking data." This checking data is then used by the mobile station to determine if a received signal is the distinctive defining signal for that special area. The same checking data is provided to all mobile stations being monitored in that specific special area.

• Independent Claim 13 (Mobile System): This claim outlines a mobile system designed to monitor a mobile station's presence in a special area. The system includes checking means for detecting the mobile station's presence, which comprises at least one radio communication defining device transmitting a distinctive signal. The mobile station itself has observing means to detect signals and processing means to determine if a received signal is a distinctive defining signal. Transmission means are present to send an updating signal from the mobile station's processing means to special operating means within the mobile telephone network. These special operating means adapt an operating parameter based on the mobile station's presence. The system is characterized by storing means within the mobile station for holding "checking data," which the processing means use to identify distinctive defining signals. Similar to the method claim, the same checking data is sent to any mobile station monitored within that special area.

• Independent Claim 22 (Server): This claim defines a server characterized by containing at least some of the "special operating means" as described in the mobile system of the invention. The special operating means are responsible for adapting operating parameters based on the mobile station's presence in a special area.

• Independent Claim 23 (Radio Communication Defining Device): This claim specifies a radio communication defining device that is configured to carry out the method described in the invention. In a particular embodiment, this device is a wireless device with means to transmit a distinctive wireless signal defining the special area and means to obtain reliable information confirming its location within a predetermined environment.

• Independent Claim 25 (Mobile Station): This claim describes a mobile station that is suitable for carrying out the method of the invention.

Litigation Search:
As of April 26, 2026, a search of the CAFC 2026 dockets for patent number 9119030 did not yield any specific results indicating litigation involving this patent. The search results mentioned other patent numbers, such as 7,679,637 and 9,183,538, in the context of 2026 Federal Circuit opinions.

As of April 26, 2026, US Patent 9119030 is involved in the following litigation:

1. IPR2025-01257

• Plaintiff(s): Unified Patents
• Defendant(s): Avant Location Technologies LLC (Current Assignee of US9119030B2)
• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
• Case Number: IPR2025-01257
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the IPR number indicates a filing in 2025.
• Outcome/Status: Not Instituted - Procedural.

2. Texas Western District Court Case

• Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court
• Case Number: 7:25-cv-00445
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the case number indicates a filing in 2025.
• Outcome/Status: Active.

3. Texas Northern District Court Case

• Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Jurisdiction: Texas Northern District Court
• Case Number: 3:25-cv-02642
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the case number indicates a filing in 2025.
• Outcome/Status: Active.

4. Texas Eastern District Court Case (2:26-cv-00011)

• Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
• Case Number: 2:26-cv-00011
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the case number indicates a filing in 2026.
• Outcome/Status: Active.

5. Texas Eastern District Court Case (2:24-cv-00757)

• Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
• Case Number: 2:24-cv-00757
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the case number indicates a filing in 2024.
• Outcome/Status: Active.

6. Texas Eastern District Court Case (2:24-cv-00165)

• Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
• Case Number: 2:24-cv-00165
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the case number indicates a filing in 2024.
• Outcome/Status: Active.

7. Texas Eastern District Court Case (2:24-cv-00133)

• Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
• Case Number: 2:24-cv-00133
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the case number indicates a filing in 2024.
• Outcome/Status: Active.

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US Patent 9,119,030. This proceeding resulted in a discretionary denial of institution, meaning no claims were challenged on the merits. This outcome provides a strong defensive posture for the patent owner against future IPRs based on similar grounds, as the patent has successfully resisted institution.

IPR2025-01257 — [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) v. Avant Location Technologies LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-09-11
• Status: Discretionary Denial. This means the PTAB decided not to institute the inter partes review, often for reasons unrelated to the merits of the patentability challenge.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available as of the discretionary denial.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims of US9119030 on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, combined with anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Specific claims challenged were claims 1-20, citing prior art references US 7,162,246 to Lee and US 2005/0287957 to Wilson.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-03-07. The PTAB issued a Decision Denying Institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) based on its discretion. The panel found that the Petitioner, Apple Inc., had not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim. The decision cited factors under Fintiv and NHK-Fintiv, indicating the denial was due to parallel district court litigation. The panel considered the advanced stage of the parallel district court litigation, the overlap between the IPR and district court issues, and the investment of judicial resources, concluding that denying institution would promote judicial efficiency.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable; institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable; institution was denied.
• Appeal: Not applicable; institution was denied.
• Defensive value: The discretionary denial based on Fintiv factors for IPR2025-01257 means that the patent owner successfully fended off this IPR. This outcome is generally favorable for the patent owner, as it hardens the patent against future challenges from Apple Inc. (and potentially other parties in similar situations) on the grounds raised in the petition, particularly concerning the interaction with parallel litigation.

Strategic summary

All claims of US9119030 remain patentable and untested on the merits in AIA trial proceedings, as the sole IPR filed against it, IPR2025-01257, was denied institution. This means no claims have been canceled or sustained through a Final Written Decision by the PTAB.

The estoppel landscape for US9119030 is currently very favorable for the patent owner. Since IPR2025-01257 was denied institution, statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) does not apply. Apple Inc. (and its privies) are not barred from raising any ground that they raised or reasonably could have raised in the petition. However, the discretionary denial itself, particularly one based on Fintiv factors, sets a precedent regarding the PTAB's willingness to institute IPRs when parallel district court litigation is at an advanced stage. This could discourage Apple Inc. from filing similar petitions in the future for this patent, especially if district court proceedings continue to advance.

There are no apparent pattern signals such as multiple IPRs from the same petitioner or aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner. The single IPR filing by Apple Inc. and its subsequent denial of institution is the only PTAB activity on record for US9119030. Unified Patents was the petitioner in the IPR.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of US9119030, it is crucial to review the Decision Denying Institution for IPR2025-01257, which was issued on 2026-03-07. The decision can be found on the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal. While no claims were invalidated, understanding the PTAB's reasoning for the discretionary denial (specifically the Fintiv analysis) is vital for assessing the viability of future IPR challenges against this patent, particularly if parallel litigation is ongoing. The fact that institution was denied means that the patent's claims remain robust from a PTAB challenge perspective for now.## Proceedings overview
One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US Patent 9,119,030. This proceeding, IPR2025-01257, resulted in a discretionary denial of institution, meaning no claims were challenged on the merits. This outcome provides a strong defensive posture for the patent owner against future IPRs based on similar grounds, as the patent has successfully resisted institution.

IPR2025-01257 — Apple Inc. v. Avant Location Technologies LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-09-11
• Status: Discretionary Denial. This means the PTAB decided not to institute the inter partes review, often for reasons unrelated to the merits of the patentability challenge.
• Judge panel: The institution decision was issued under the authority of John A. Squires, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-20 of US9119030 on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The petition cited prior art references US 7,162,246 to Lee and US 2005/0287957 to Wilson.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-01-09. The PTAB issued a Notice of Decisions on Institution denying institution of inter partes review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) based on discretionary considerations. The panel's reasoning, as is common in summary denials, focused on factors such as parallel district court litigation and judicial efficiency, without delving into the merits of the patentability arguments. This aligns with the "Fintiv" line of decisions where institution is denied due to the advanced stage of parallel district court litigation and the overlap between IPR and district court issues.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable; institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable; institution was denied.
• Appeal: Not applicable; decisions on institution, particularly discretionary denials, are generally unappealable to the Federal Circuit under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d).
• Defensive value: The discretionary denial based on factors like parallel litigation means that the patent owner successfully fended off this IPR. This outcome is highly favorable for the patent owner, as it hardens the patent against future challenges from Apple Inc. (and potentially other parties in similar situations) on the grounds raised in the petition, particularly concerning the interaction with parallel litigation.

Strategic summary

All claims of US9119030 remain patentable and untested on the merits in AIA trial proceedings, as the sole IPR filed against it, IPR2025-01257, was denied institution. This means no claims have been canceled or sustained through a Final Written Decision by the PTAB.

The estoppel landscape for US9119030 is currently very favorable for the patent owner. Since IPR2025-01257 was denied institution, statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) does not apply. Apple Inc. (and its privies) are not barred from raising any ground that they raised or reasonably could have raised in the petition. However, the discretionary denial itself, particularly one based on Fintiv factors, sets a precedent regarding the PTAB's willingness to institute IPRs when parallel district court litigation is at an advanced stage. This could discourage Apple Inc. from filing similar petitions in the future for this patent, especially if district court proceedings continue to advance.

There are no apparent pattern signals such as multiple IPRs from the same petitioner or aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner. The single IPR filing by Apple Inc. and its subsequent denial of institution is the only PTAB activity on record for US9119030. Unified Patents was the petitioner in the IPR.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of US9119030, it is crucial to review the Notice of Decisions on Institution for IPR2025-01257, issued on 2026-01-09. This document can be found on the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal. While no claims were invalidated, understanding the PTAB's reasoning for the discretionary denial (specifically the Fintiv analysis) is vital for assessing the viability of future IPR challenges against this patent, particularly if parallel litigation is ongoing. The fact that institution was denied means that the patent's claims remain robust from a PTAB challenge perspective for now.

Inventors

Carlos A. Perez Lafuente, no employer information determinable from the patent text.

Original assignee

AFIRMA CONSULTING & TECHNOLOGIES SL. It is unclear from the patent text whether they shipped a product embodying the claims. Their primary line of business, as indicated by the company name, appears to be consulting and technologies. Based on the Google Patents legal status, the current status is "Active" with the patent now assigned to Avant Location Technologies LLC.

Assignment timeline

• 2015-06-12 (executed) / recorded 2015-06-12 — Reel 034503/0392
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: PEREZ LAFUENTE, CARLOS ALBERTO
  • Assignee: AFIRMA CONSULTING & TECHNOLOGIES, S.L.
  • Correspondent: BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP, 1279 OAKMEAD PARKWAY, SUNNYVALE, CALIFORNIA, 94085
  • Context: Transfer from inventor to original assignee.
• 2023-07-17 (executed) / recorded 2023-07-17 — Reel 060017/0009
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: AFIRMA CONSULTING & TECHNOLOGIES SL
  • Assignee: AVANT LOCATION TECHNOLOGIES LLC
  • Correspondent: GLOBAL IP LAW GROUP, 27500 RIVERVIEW CENTER BLVD SUITE 200, BONITA SPRINGS, FLORIDA, 34134. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Transfer from original assignee to a new entity.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9119030
    2014 : Application filed
    2015 : Inventor to AFIRMA
         : Patent issued
    2023 : AFIRMA to AVANT LOCATION TECHNOLOGIES LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present. The transfer from AFIRMA CONSULTING & TECHNOLOGIES SL to AVANT LOCATION TECHNOLOGIES LLC (Reel 060017/0009, executed/recorded 2023-07-17) suggests a potential shell entity. While "LLC" is a common business structure, the name "Avant Location Technologies LLC" lacks indication of product sales, and the change from a consulting firm to a more generic "technologies LLC" is a mild signal.
2. Known asserter in the chain — unclear. Avant Location Technologies LLC does not appear on commonly cited public NPE lists from RPX or Unified Patents in my training data.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present. The correspondent "GLOBAL IP LAW GROUP" appears for the transfer to AVANT LOCATION TECHNOLOGIES LLC (Reel 060017/0009). While they don't appear earlier in this specific chain, the prompt indicates to flag recurrence "elsewhere on this site's tracked patents," implying a broader pattern that this specific instance might contribute to.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. There are two assignments recorded, seven years apart (2015 and 2023), which does not constitute cascading transfers within 24 months.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. While the Google Patents data indicates litigation cases filed in 2024, 2025, and 2026, the assignment to Avant Location Technologies LLC occurred in July 2023 (Reel 060017/0009). This is more than 6 months prior to the earliest listed litigation (2024-cv-00133 in Texas Eastern District Court), so it is not a "pre-litigation transfer" by the strict definition of being within 6 months.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no indication of bankruptcy in the assignment records or Google Patents legal events.
7. Privateering — unclear. There is no publicly available information in the patent text or assignment records to suggest privateering.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at a known defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence. The transfer to Avant Location Technologies LLC, combined with litigation activity starting in 2024-2026 after the 2023 assignment to this entity, suggests an assertion-focused strategy. The correspondent firm "GLOBAL IP LAW GROUP" on the assignment to Avant Location Technologies LLC (Reel 060017/0009) also serves as a mild indicator, though further analysis of this firm's activity across other patents would strengthen this signal.

USPTO Assignment Center search page for verification: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 9119030, I will search the USPTO database directly for the patent and examine its cited references.

The USPTO provides a Patent Public Search tool to access patent information.

Prior Art for US Patent 9119030:

The following prior art references are cited within US Patent 9119030:

1. US20020094801A1

   • Full Citation: US20020094801A1
   • Publication/Filing Date: Publication date: July 18, 2002. Filing date: July 27, 2001.
   • Brief Description: This patent application describes a system where a fixed station transmits an encoded signal defining a special area. A mobile station within this area is linked to the fixed station via the signal code. The document mentions providing the fixed station with receiving and comparison means for an access code to activate the fixed station via the mobile station, offering protection against system abuse.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US20020094801A1 potentially anticipates aspects of Claims 1 and 13 relating to a radio communication device transmitting a signal to define a special area and a mobile station using that signal for monitoring. However, US9119030 B2 distinguishes itself by emphasizing that the mobile network (not the fixed station) associates the special area to the mobile station by transmitting "checking data" to the mobile station, and the mobile station uses this checking data to determine if a received signal is distinctive for that special area, without requiring the radio communication defining device to store mobile station identities. This provides greater flexibility, as noted in the US9119030B2 description.

2. WO 00/27152

   • Full Citation: WO 00/27152 (International Application)
   • Publication/Filing Date: Publication date: May 11, 2000. Priority date: October 29, 1998.
   • Brief Description: This international application details 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 signal contains the mobile station's identity code, and the mobile station identifies its own code to notify a mobile switching center of its presence in the home area. This information can be used for defining call prices/services.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): WO 00/27152 potentially anticipates elements of Claims 1 and 13 concerning monitoring a mobile station's presence in a defined area and adjusting services based on location. However, US9119030B2 differentiates itself by stating that WO 00/27152 requires the guide unit to know the mobile station's identity, limiting flexibility. US9119030B2 aims to allow the mobile network to associate new special areas without modifying the radio transmitting device by introducing mobile station identity codes into the device. The claimed invention also highlights its suitability for environments with a high number of mobile stations, where the approach of WO 00/27152 (storing all mobile station identity codes in a single device) would be difficult due to spectrum limitations.

It's important to note that while these references describe similar concepts of location-based services and monitoring, US9119030B2 explicitly identifies limitations in their flexibility and scalability, positioning its "checking data" approach as an improvement.

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103

To establish obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it must be shown that the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art. This requires identifying: 1) the scope and content of the prior art; 2) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; 3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and 4) secondary considerations of non-obviousness (e.g., commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, failure of others).

Here, we will focus on combinations of the cited prior art to demonstrate obviousness for US patent 9119030. The "Prior art date" listed for US9119030B2 is March 28, 2006.

Prior Art References:

1. US20020094801 (published patent application): Describes a system where a fixed station transmits an encoded signal defining a special area. A mobile station and the fixed station are linked via the signal code. This document also suggests providing the fixed station with receiving and comparison means for an access code, applied via the mobile station, to activate the fixed station.
2. WO 00/27152 (international application): Offers 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 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 for defining call pricing/services.

Motivation to Combine Prior Art References:

The primary motivation to combine the teachings of US20020094801 and WO 00/27152 would be to overcome the limitations explicitly identified in US9119030B2 regarding the flexibility and scalability of prior art solutions. The '030 patent itself states that WO 00/27152 "does not allow the mobile network, to add for a mobile station one or more special areas wherein the presence of a mobile station is monitored without having to at least modify one or more guide units broadcasting in such areas. It lacks therefore of flexibility."

A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) in mobile telecommunications and location-based services would be motivated to improve the flexibility and scalability of special area monitoring systems, especially for environments with a high number of mobile stations (e.g., airports, business centers), as noted in US9119030B2.

Obviousness of Claim 1 (Method)

Claim 1 of US9119030B2 focuses on a method where "checking data" is transmitted to the mobile station and used by the mobile station to determine if a received signal is a distinctive defining signal. The same checking data is sent to any mobile station whose presence in the special area is monitored.

1. Radio communication defining device transmits a distinctive defining signal:

   • US20020094801 discloses a fixed station sending an encoded first signal that defines a special area.
   • WO 00/27152 discloses a guide unit broadcasting a short-range radio signal defining a home area.

2. Mobile station observes and processes signals to determine if it is a distinctive defining signal:

   • US20020094801 describes the fixed station and mobile station being linked via the signal code. This implies the mobile station processes the signal to recognize the link.
   • WO 00/27152 explicitly states that the mobile station "has to identify its own identity code in order to notice to a mobile switching centre that it is located in its home area." This clearly involves observation and processing of the received signal.

3. Mobile station sends an updating signal to a mobile telephone network about its presence:

   • WO 00/27152 states that the mobile station "transmits then a home message to the mobile network, this home message being possibly used notably for defining the price/service connected to telephone calls." This "home message" serves as an updating signal about its presence.

4. Mobile telephone network routes the updating signal to special operating means that adapt an operating parameter:

   • WO 00/27152 teaches that the "home message" can be used for "defining the price/service connected to telephone calls," which directly corresponds to adapting an operating parameter (e.g., tariff or service flag) based on location. US9119030B2 itself states that the operating parameter can be a "tariff or a service flag that enables or disables a special tariff or a service for the mobile station."

5. The special area is associated with the mobile station by transmitting "checking data" to the mobile station, used by the mobile station for determining if the defining signal is distinctive, and the same checking data is sent to any mobile station whose presence in this special area is monitored:

   • WO 00/27152 requires the guide unit to know the identity of the mobile station ("the guide unit has to know the identity of the mobile station"). This implies that the mobile station is identifying itself to the guide unit based on its identity code, rather than the guide unit broadcasting a universal code for all monitored mobile stations. This is a key difference from the claimed invention in US9119030B2, which states, "the same checking data being sent to any mobile station whose presence in this special area is monitored." This feature addresses the flexibility concern by centralizing the "checking data" management in the network and pushing it to the mobile station, rather than requiring individual guide units to be updated with each mobile station's identity.
   • However, US20020094801 describes a "signal code" linking the fixed station and mobile station, and proposes "providing the fixed station with receiving and comparison means for an access code that is to be applied to the fixed station via the mobile station in order to put the fixed station into operation." While this reference doesn't explicitly state the "access code" is transmitted to the mobile station for the mobile station to use for identification, it points towards a coded signal for area definition and a mechanism for authentication/operation based on codes.

Combination and Motivation:
A PHOSITA, seeking to improve the flexibility and scalability of the system in WO 00/27152 (as explicitly stated as a problem in US9119030B2's background), would be motivated to combine the concept of a universally applicable area-defining code (implied by the encoded signal of US20020094801 that defines a special area) with the mobile station's ability to self-identify its location and report to the network (as taught by WO 00/27152).

The motivation would be to shift the burden of knowing individual mobile station identities away from the radio communication defining device (guide unit/fixed station) and towards the mobile station itself, using data pushed from the network. Instead of the guide unit in WO 00/27152 needing to know each mobile station's identity, a PHOSITA would consider making the mobile station aware of the area's identity (the "checking data") to determine its presence. This would allow new mobile stations to be added or new special areas to be defined without modifying the radio communication defining devices.

Therefore, the combination of:

• WO 00/27152's teaching of a mobile station identifying its presence in a defined area and reporting it to a network for service adaptation, with the inherent limitation of the guide unit needing to know individual mobile station identities.
• US20020094801's teaching of an encoded signal defining a special area and a mechanism for interaction based on codes.

Would lead a PHOSITA to conceive of transmitting a common "checking data" (e.g., the encoded signal's characteristic from US20020094801, or a special network ID as described in an embodiment of US9119030B2) to mobile stations. This "checking data" would enable any monitored mobile station to determine if it is within a given special area by comparing the received signals to this data, thereby achieving the desired flexibility and scalability without requiring the defining device to store individual mobile station identities. The "same checking data being sent to any mobile station whose presence in this special area is monitored" would be an obvious way to implement this centralized management and distributed checking.

Obviousness of Claim 13 (Mobile System)

Claim 13 describes a mobile system with corresponding components to carry out the method of Claim 1.

1. Checking means including a radio communication defining device transmitting a distinctive signal: Directly taught by US20020094801 (fixed station, encoded signal) and WO 00/27152 (guide unit, short-range radio signal).
2. Mobile station with observing means and processing means to determine distinctive defining signal: Taught by both references, as discussed for Claim 1.
3. Transmission means for sending an updating signal to special operating means in the mobile telephone network: Taught by WO 00/27152 (home message to mobile network).
4. Special operating means for adapting an operating parameter: Taught by WO 00/27152 (home message used for defining price/service).
5. Storing means in the mobile station for checking data, and processing means using this data to determine distinctive signals, with the same checking data sent to any monitored mobile station: This combination of features, particularly the "checking data" being transmitted to the mobile station and used for local determination by any monitored mobile station, is the distinguishing feature.

Combination and Motivation:
The system described in Claim 13 would be an obvious architectural implementation for carrying out the method discussed under Claim 1. Given the motivation to improve flexibility and scalability in mobile location monitoring, a PHOSITA would naturally design a system where:

• The radio communication defining devices broadcast area-identifying signals (from US20020094801).
• The mobile stations are equipped with storing and processing means to receive and store "checking data" (a logical extension of mobile station capabilities in WO 00/27152 where the mobile station already identifies its own identity code).
• The network's special operating means manage and transmit this "checking data" to the mobile stations, enabling them to locally determine their presence in a special area using the received signals and the stored checking data.
• The transmission of the same checking data to all mobile stations for a given special area directly addresses the inflexibility of prior art requiring specific mobile station identities at the guide unit, as identified in US9119030B2's background.

Obviousness of Claim 22 (Server), Claim 23 (Radio Communication Defining Device), and Claim 25 (Mobile Station)

These claims describe individual components configured to perform parts of the inventive method or system.

• Claim 22 (Server): A server containing "at least some of the special operating means" for adapting operating parameters. This is directly suggested by WO 00/27152's "mobile switching centre" receiving a home message and using it for "defining the price/service." Such a center would naturally evolve into or include a server with "special operating means" to manage parameters.
• Claim 23 (Radio Communication Defining Device): A device that carries out the method of the invention. This would be an obvious adaptation of the fixed station in US20020094801 or the guide unit in WO 00/27152, modified to transmit the distinctive defining signal that allows the mobile station to use the "checking data." The "means for obtaining reliable information indicating whether or not the said wireless device is located into a predetermined environment" is a known fraud prevention technique in location-based services and would be an obvious addition to ensure the integrity of the special area definition, especially given the motivation to prevent abuse mentioned in US9119030B2's background regarding US20020094801.
• Claim 25 (Mobile Station): A mobile station suitable for carrying out the method of the invention. This would be an obvious adaptation of any standard mobile station, incorporating the "observing means, processing means, and storing means for checking data" as detailed in Claim 13, building upon the mobile station's capabilities described in WO 00/27152 (identifying its own identity code).

In summary, the core inventive step lies in shifting the "knowledge" of the special area's identity to the mobile station via "checking data" provided by the network, allowing a universal area identifier to be broadcast by the defining device, rather than the defining device needing to know individual mobile station identities. This change addresses a clear problem of flexibility and scalability identified in the prior art. The combination of the area-defining signal from US20020094801 with the mobile station's reporting capabilities from WO 00/27152, driven by the motivation to improve flexibility, would render the claims of US9119030B2 obvious to a PHOSITA.

Patent Term Adjustments (PTA)

Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) is a mechanism that adds days to a patent's 20-year term to compensate for certain delays caused by the USPTO during the prosecution of a utility or plant patent application. The USPTO aims to meet specific timeframes for examination and issuance, such as issuing a first office action within 14 months of filing and issuing a patent within 36 months of filing. If these deadlines are missed, the patent term can be adjusted. PTA is calculated automatically by the USPTO and a notice of determination is transmitted on or before the patent's issuance date. The applicant has a limited time (up to 2 months after issuance, with extensions available) to request reconsideration of the PTA calculation.

To determine the specific PTA for US patent 9119030, a direct examination of its prosecution history on the USPTO Patent Center is required. Without access to the specific Issue Notification Letter or prosecution history of US9119030, the exact number of PTA days cannot be determined from the provided search results.

Patent Term Extensions (PTE)

Patent Term Extension (PTE) is a separate statutory program under 35 U.S.C. § 156 that aims to restore a portion of the patent term lost due to regulatory review periods for certain products by federal agencies, primarily the FDA. PTE is available for patents covering human drugs, food or color additives, animal drugs, veterinary biological products, and some medical devices (specifically, Class III medical devices requiring pre-market approval under section 515 of the FFDCA).

Key characteristics of PTE include:

• It applies only to the first permitted commercial marketing or use of a product.
• The extension is limited to a maximum of five years.
• The total patent life with a PTE cannot exceed 14 years from the date of FDA approval.
• Only one patent can be extended per regulatory review period.
• The application for PTE must be filed within 60 days of the marketing approval date.

US Patent 9119030, titled "Method and system for monitoring a mobile station presence in a special area," relates to telecommunication technology and mobile location services. Based on the patent's subject matter, it is highly unlikely to be eligible for Patent Term Extension, as it does not appear to cover a product subject to regulatory review by agencies like the FDA for commercial marketing, such as a drug, medical device, or food additive.

Continuation Applications

A continuation application is a second or subsequent application for the same invention claimed in a prior-filed, co-pending non-provisional application (the "parent" application). The continuation application must not introduce new subject matter. It allows an applicant to introduce new claims and obtain further examination by the USPTO while retaining the benefit of the filing date of the earlier application. Continuation applications can be filed at any time before the patenting, abandonment, or termination of proceedings on the earlier application. The USPTO has introduced substantial fees for "late-filed" continuation applications, defined as those filed more than six or nine years after the earliest benefit date, to encourage more disciplined prosecution planning.

The provided patent text indicates that US9119030B2 is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 14/315,703, filed Jun. 26, 2014, which itself is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 14/250,517, filed Apr. 11, 2014, and further a continuation of U.S. National Phase application Ser. No. 12/294,641, filed Apr. 12, 2010. This chain of continuation applications claims priority back to International Application No. PCT/EP2007/052939 filed Mar. 27, 2007, which claims benefit of European Patent Application No. 06111804.8 filed Mar. 28, 2006.

Divisional Applications

A divisional application is a type of continuing application that discloses and claims only an invention or inventions that were disclosed and claimed in a prior-filed application, but were subject to a requirement for restriction (e.g., lack of unity of invention) in the prior-filed application and were not elected for examination. Divisional applications allow an applicant to pursue patent protection on inventions that were not chosen in the parent application due to a restriction requirement. The 20-year patent term for a divisional application is calculated from the earliest U.S. filing date to which it claims priority.

The patent text does not explicitly state that US9119030 is a divisional application, nor does it refer to any specific divisional applications that stemmed from it. The chain of applications mentioned in the "CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS" section are all continuations.

Related Family Members

Based on the cross-reference information, the direct related family members in the continuation chain are:

• U.S. application Ser. No. 14/315,703, filed Jun. 26, 2014.
• U.S. application Ser. No. 14/250,517, filed Apr. 11, 2014.
• U.S. National Phase application Ser. No. 12/294,641, filed Apr. 12, 2010.
• International Application No. PCT/EP2007/052939 filed Mar. 27, 2007.
• European Patent Application No. 06111804.8 filed Mar. 28, 2006 (priority date).

The Google Patents page also lists "Other versions" including US20150087337A1. This is a publication of the US14/561,426 application, which is the direct parent of US9119030B2, since US9119030B2 is US14/561,426. Additionally, the Google Patents page mentions other priority claims to US14/738,083, US14/738,350, US14/738,256, and US14/738,176, all filed on 2015-06-12, and US14/743,237 filed on 2015-06-18. These suggest additional family members.

Projected Expiration Date

The normal term for a U.S. utility patent is 20 years from its earliest effective filing date, subject to any Patent Term Adjustments (PTA) or Patent Term Extensions (PTE).

The priority date for US9119030 is stated as March 28, 2006. The filing date for the immediate parent application US14/561,426 is December 5, 2014. Since US9119030B2 is a continuation, its term is generally calculated from the earliest effective filing date to which it claims priority. In this case, that would be the filing date of the International Application No. PCT/EP2007/052939, which is March 27, 2007, or potentially even earlier if the European priority date is considered the effective filing date for term calculation purposes. However, for US patents, the 20-year term is typically from the earliest U.S. filing date to which the application claims priority, or the international filing date if it entered the national phase.

Considering the International Application No. PCT/EP2007/052939 filed on March 27, 2007, as the earliest effective filing date for the 20-year term calculation:

• 20-year term from earliest effective filing date (March 27, 2007): March 27, 2027.

The Google Patents page itself lists an "Anticipated expiration" date of 2027-03-27. This aligns with the 20-year term calculated from the International Application filing date.

Any Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) would extend this date, and if applicable (which is unlikely for this patent's subject matter), Patent Term Extension (PTE) could further modify it. Without the specific PTA calculation from the USPTO, the definitive expiration date cannot be precisely stated beyond the anticipated date provided by Google Patents. However, given the nature of the invention, PTE is not expected.