US 9622032

US Patent 9622032, titled "Method and system for monitoring a mobile station presence in a special area," was issued on April 11, 2017, from an application filed on June 12, 2015. The sole inventor is Carlos A. Pérez LaFuente. The patent was originally assigned to AFIRMA CONSULTING & TECHNOLOGIES SL, and is currently assigned to Avant Location Technologies LLC and AFIRMA CONSULTING & TECHNOLOGIES SL.

Abstract:
The patent describes a method for monitoring a mobile station's presence in a specific "special area." A radio communication defining device broadcasts a distinctive signal that outlines this special area. The mobile station processes received signals to identify if it is receiving this distinctive defining signal. If so, the mobile station sends an updating signal to a mobile telephone network. This network then routes the signal to special operating means, which adjust an operating parameter based on the mobile station's presence in the special area. A key aspect of the invention is that the special area is linked to the mobile station by transmitting "checking data" to the mobile station. This checking data is then used by the mobile station to determine if the received signal is indeed the distinctive defining signal for that special area. The same checking data is sent to all mobile stations whose presence in this special area is being monitored.

Independent Claims Overview:

• Independent Claim 1 (Method Claim): 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 this distinctive defining signal. Upon detection, the mobile station sends an updating signal to a mobile telephone network, which then uses "special operating means" to adjust an operating parameter based on the mobile station's presence. The method is characterized by associating the special area with the mobile station by transmitting "checking data" to the mobile station. This checking data enables the mobile station to determine if a received defining signal is distinctive for its associated special area, and the same checking data is provided to all monitored mobile stations for that area. [Claim 1]

• Independent Claim 13 (Mobile System Claim): This claim defines a mobile system for monitoring a mobile station's presence in a special area. The system includes "checking means" to detect the mobile station's presence, comprising a radio communication defining device that transmits a distinctive signal. The mobile station itself has "observing means" and "processing means" to identify the distinctive defining signal. The system also includes "transmission means" for sending an updating signal from the mobile station's processing means to "special operating means" within the mobile telephone network, which then adapt an operating parameter. The system is characterized by having "storing means" in the mobile station for the "checking data," which the processing means use to determine if a defining signal is distinctive for the special area. The same checking data is sent to any mobile station whose presence in this special area is monitored. [Claim 13]

• Independent Claim 16 (Server Claim): This claim describes a server for use in the mobile system. It is characterized by containing at least some of the "special operating means" as defined in Independent Claim 13. [Claim 16]

• Independent Claim 17 (Radio Communication Defining Device Claim): This claim describes a radio communication defining device. It is characterized by carrying out the method described in Independent Claim 1. [Claim 17]

• Independent Claim 19 (Mobile Station Claim): This claim describes a mobile station. It is characterized by being suitable to carry out the method described in Independent Claim 1. [Claim 19]

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
As of April 26, 2026, a search for CAFC 2026 dockets specifically for US9622032 did not yield explicit results. However, the provided patent information from Google Patents (fetched on May 14, 2026) indicates a history of litigation related to this patent family, including multiple US District Court cases filed in Texas Eastern, Northern, and Western Districts, and a PTAB case (IPR2025-01258) which was "Not Instituted - Procedural". These district court cases could potentially lead to appeals at the CAFC.

As of April 26, 2026, there is known litigation involving US patent 9622032.

Here is a list of known litigation cases for US Patent 9622032:

• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 2:26-cv-00011
  • Status: Active
• Jurisdiction: Texas Northern District Court
  • Case Number: 3:25-cv-02642
  • Status: Active
• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court
  • Case Number: 7:25-cv-00445
  • Status: Active
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 2:23-cv-00354
  • Status: Active
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 2:24-cv-00757
  • Status: Active
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 2:24-cv-00133
  • Status: Active
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 2:24-cv-00165
  • Status: Active
• PTAB Case: IPR2025-01258
  • Status: Not Instituted - Procedural

Please note that specific plaintiff(s), defendant(s), and filing dates are not consistently available from the provided search snippets for all cases. The Unified Patents portal typically provides more detailed litigation information.

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US Patent 9622032. This single proceeding, IPR2025-01258, was terminated with a discretionary denial of institution, meaning no claims were formally challenged through a trial, and the patent has therefore survived its initial PTAB scrutiny. This outcome generally strengthens the patent's defensive posture, especially against the petitioner.

IPR2025-01258 — [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) v. Avant Location Technologies LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-09-11
• Status: Discretionary Denial — The petition for inter partes review was not instituted by the Director of the USPTO.
• Judge panel: John A. Squires, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Institution decisions by the Director are made in consultation with at least three PTAB judges, though specific panel members are not publicly listed in summary denial notices.
• Petition grounds: The specific claims challenged and the prior art references asserted by Apple Inc. were not detailed in the summary notice of denial.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-01-09. The denial was issued by Director John A. Squires "pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and § 324(a), after review of discretionary considerations". These summary orders typically provide no specific reasoning or analysis, only listing the denied IPR numbers.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not issued, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding terminated with a discretionary denial of institution. There is no public indication of a settlement.
• Appeal: Not applicable. Decisions to deny institution are generally not appealable to the Federal Circuit.
• Defensive value: The patent owner, Avant Location Technologies LLC, prevailed at the institution stage. This means no claims of US9622032 were formally reviewed for patentability by the PTAB in this proceeding. For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, an IPR-based defense will be harder for Apple Inc. (or those in privity with them) on the specific grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in this petition.

Strategic summary

As of the current date, US Patent 9622032 has been subject to one PTAB inter partes review proceeding, IPR2025-01258. This proceeding resulted in a discretionary denial of institution on 2026-01-09, meaning the PTAB did not proceed to an full trial on the merits. Consequently, all claims of US9622032 remain UNTESTED by the PTAB and are considered SUSTAINED in the context of this specific IPR. There are no canceled claims from this proceeding.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) generally bars a petitioner (and its privies) from asserting in other proceedings any ground that it raised or reasonably could have raised during the IPR. Since IPR2025-01258 was denied institution based on discretionary factors by the Director, without delving into the merits of the patentability challenges, the precise scope of estoppel for Apple Inc. and its privies is uncertain without knowing the specific grounds presented in the petition. However, they may be estopped from challenging the patent again on grounds that were, or reasonably could have been, included in the denied petition. For other defendants, prior art grounds remain available as no claims were actually litigated and confirmed as patentable by the PTAB.

This is the only PTAB proceeding on file, which means there isn't a pattern of multiple IPR filings against this patent. The discretionary denial by the Director reflects a current USPTO policy where institution decisions are centralized, and some petitions are denied without detailed reasoning for "discretionary considerations."

Recommended next steps

• For any defendant facing assertion of US9622032, it is important to understand the specific prior art and arguments Apple Inc. presented in its petition for IPR2025-01258, even though the petition was denied. While the summary denial notice does not detail these, the underlying petition documents would contain this information. This can inform whether a new IPR by a different party might successfully navigate the Director's discretionary denial framework.
• Given that the denial was based on discretionary factors, and not a full review of the merits, a new petitioner could potentially file an IPR using different prior art or addressing the discretionary factors in a manner that might lead to institution.
• Accessing the full record for IPR2025-01258 through the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS) would be advisable to review the petition and any patent owner responses regarding discretionary factors.

Inventors

• Carlos A. Pérez LaFuente (employer at time of filing not explicitly stated, but patent was assigned to AFIRMA CONSULTING & TECHNOLOGIES SL)

Original assignee

AFIRMA CONSULTING & TECHNOLOGIES SL.
Their primary line of business appears to be consulting and technologies, likely including intellectual property. It is unclear from the patent document itself whether they shipped a product embodying the claims. Their current status is "Original Assignee" according to Google Patents, and then the patent was reassigned.

Assignment timeline

• 2015-06-12 (executed) / recorded 2015-06-12

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: PEREZ LAFUENTE, CARLOS ALBERTO
  • Assignee: AFIRMA CONSULTING & TECHNOLOGIES, S.L.
  • Correspondent: AFIRMA CONSULTING & TECHNOLOGIES, S.L. C/ Basauri 17, 10-2, MADRID, ES E-28023
  • Context: Original assignment from inventor to initial assignee.

• 2023-07-17 (executed) / recorded 2023-07-20 — Reel 059904/0488

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: AFIRMA CONSULTING & TECHNOLOGIES SL
  • Assignee: AVANT LOCATION TECHNOLOGIES LLC
  • Correspondent: MICHAEL J. KELLEHER; KELLEHER LAW FIRM, PLLC. 15444 N. GREENWOOD AVE, STE 100 PMB 805, SEATTLE, WA 98133-7764
  • Context: Transfer to a new entity.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9622032
    2006 : Priority date
    2015 : Application filed by AFIRMA
    2017 : Granted
    2023 : Assigned 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 on 2023-07-17 (recorded 2023-07-20, Reel 059904/0488) suggests this. While AFIRMA appears to be an operating company based on its name, AVANT LOCATION TECHNOLOGIES LLC's name and the context of subsequent litigation (not detailed here but often associated with such transfers) are indicative of a licensing-focused entity.

2. Known asserter in the chain — present. While not explicitly listed on major public NPE lists in the provided text, Avant Location Technologies LLC has filed litigation related to this patent. Unified Patents lists litigation cases for Avant Location Technologies LLC in various Texas District Courts and a PTAB case.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. The correspondent for the initial assignment to AFIRMA was AFIRMA CONSULTING & TECHNOLOGIES, S.L. itself. The correspondent for the transfer to AVANT LOCATION TECHNOLOGIES LLC was MICHAEL J. KELLEHER of KELLEHER LAW FIRM, PLLC. These are different.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. There is only one transfer after the initial assignment from the inventor.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. The assignment to AVANT LOCATION TECHNOLOGIES LLC was on 2023-07-17. The Google Patents legal events section shows multiple litigation cases filed in Texas Eastern District Court, with the earliest one listed being 2:23-cv-00354. The filing date of this case is not precisely given in the provided snippet but would be critical to confirm this signal. If the case was filed within 6 months after July 17, 2023, then this signal would be present.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No indication of bankruptcy for AFIRMA CONSULTING & TECHNOLOGIES SL.

7. Privateering — unclear. There's no information available in the provided text to confirm or deny privateering.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain terminates with AVANT LOCATION TECHNOLOGIES LLC, which is involved in patent assertion.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

The transfer to AVANT LOCATION TECHNOLOGIES LLC (Reel 059904/0488 on 2023-07-20) and the subsequent litigation activity by this entity strongly indicate an NPE pattern. Avant Location Technologies LLC appears in multiple litigation records in Texas District Courts, as noted in the Google Patents legal events, identifying it as an active asserter.

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

I'll search the USPTO and related databases for the specific patent and its cited prior art.

Let me pull the specific citation lists from the patent's Justia/Google Patents records and the related family members.

Let me pin down the exact cited references on the face of US9622032 and the prior art Apple asserted in the IPR against it.

Prior Art Analysis — US 9,622,032 B2

Task scope note: I could not query USPTO Patent Center / Patent Public Search directly (no browser/fetch tool available in this session). The citation list below is reconstructed from the "Referenced Cited" table rendered on the patent's Justia and Google Patents records (which mirror the front-page (56) References Cited listing), from references cited by the applicant in the specification itself, and from PTAB petition exhibits filed against this patent family. Items I could not verify with high confidence are flagged [UNVERIFIED] rather than asserted. I have not auto-corrected any number; e.g., I treat US 9622032 as US 9,622,032 and keep it distinct from the sibling patents US 10,009,720 and the family's "'030 patent" referenced in the PTAB filings.

Sources used:

• https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9622032B2](/patent/US9622032B2)/en (full text supplied)
• https://patents.justia.com/patent/[9622032](/patent/9622032)#4 ("Referenced Cited" table)
• https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1558178](/patent/1558178)/ and /1558182/ and /1558183/ (petition exhibits in the Avant family IPRs)
• https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2025-01258

⚠️ Two threshold flags before the citations

Flag 1 — Claim-text discrepancy (contradiction with previously generated section). The previously generated "Independent Claims Overview" describes claim 1 as the method with steps (a)–(e) routed to "special operating means," citing the description language ("This object is achieved in accordance with claim 1 by providing a method…"). However, the Justia record surfaced for patents.justia.com/patent/9622032#4 renders a different claim 1: "A method associated with a provider of presence related services and a mobile station that stores in a memory first checking data… one or more servers of a provider of presence related services receiving… an updating signal… the provider of presence related services being different than the mobile telephone network… storing… a parameters database… sending… second checking data different from the first checking data to modify the special area." That "provider of presence related services / first vs. second checking data" language tracks the sibling US 10,009,720 claims quoted in the IPR2025-01259 POPR, not the description's recited claim 1. I cannot resolve which numbering is the granted set for '032 from the retrieved records. Recommend verifying the granted claims in Patent Center before relying on any §102 mapping. I use the previously generated numbering (indep. claims 1, 13, 16, 17, 19) below but mark the alternative.

Flag 2 — Critical date. Effective priority is 28 March 2006 (EP 06111804.8) via PCT/EP2007/052939 (filed 27 March 2007). Anything published after that date is not §102(a)/(b) art; it can only be §102(e) art if it has a pre-28-March-2006 U.S. filing date. Several "Referenced Cited" items are post-2006 publications (see Group C).

Group A — Examiner-cited U.S. patents (front-page "(56) References Cited")

Group B — Examiner-cited U.S. published applications

Group C — References cited in the specification by the applicant (background art)

Group D — Prior art actually asserted before the PTAB against this patent family

These are the references that Apple Inc. relied on in the Avant Location Technologies IPRs. The petition excerpt I retrieved is nominally directed at a sibling patent ("the '030 patent"), but the exhibits' §102 characterizations and the "special area" subject matter overlap directly with US 9,622,032. Confirm from the IPR2025-01258 petition itself which of these were mapped to US 9,622,032's claims.

Bottom line on the §102 posture

1. No reference on the face of US 9,622,032 appears to fully anticipate claim 1 or claim 13. The claimed point of novelty — the same checking data sent to any mobile station whose presence in the special area is monitored, enabling the MS to decide whether a received defining signal is "distinctive," with no per-MS data loaded into the radio defining device — is precisely what the applicant identified as missing from WO 00/27152 (guide unit must store each MS identity) and US 2002/0094801 (fixed station requires an access code). The closest structural references, US 6,516,193 (Salmela) and US 6,625,442 (Kojima), both teach mobile-station-specific / sub-area-specific data lists or in-area facilities, which cuts against strict anticipation but strongly supports §103.
2. The real §102 exposure comes from Group D — Putkiranta (US 8,615,256) and Kraufvelin (US 2006/0135174) — both of which teach an MS storing a network-supplied list/area definition and comparing received cell identifiers, and a service server that adjusts services from the MS's message. Their §102(e) dates (2000-10-17 and 2003-10-03) comfortably precede the 28-Mar-2006 priority date. For U.S. design applications/published US cases (§102(e)), Kraufvelin counts only because the PCT was filed in English designating the U.S. — a critical nuance in the previously generated sections' date analysis.
3. Date hygiene is essential. US 2006/0135174 (pub. 2006-06-22), US 7,142,869 (2006-11-28), US 7,171,189 (2007-01-30), US 7,266,366 (2007-09-04), US 2008/0004045, US 2008/0242298, US 2008/0261604, US 2010/0167725 and the post-2010 US patents are not §102(a)/(b) art against a 28-Mar-2006 priority; they must be run as §102(e) references on their U.S. filing dates, and several likely fail that test (these may have been cited by the examiner for §103 completeness only).
4. Claim-mapping confidence is limited by Flag 1. Which independent claims exist, and whether claim 1 is the "steps (a)–(e)/special operating means" version or the "provider of presence related services / first-and-second checking data" version, materially changes whether Putkiranta or Kraufvelin anticipates vs. merely renders obvious.

What I could not verify (explicit gaps)

• The official front-page (56) list and any foreign patent documents / NPL cited on US 9,622,032 (e.g., whether the ISR of PCT/EP2007/052939 cited EP 0 993 070, WO 00/03452, WO 01/91233, or similar) — retrieved indirectly only.
• The exact bibliographic data and disclosure characterizations for the ~25 Group A/B references marked [UNVERIFIED].
• The specific grounds and exhibit list of IPR2025-01258 (Apple v. Avant, denied institution 2026-01-09) — the retrieved petition text is from related petitions (1558178/1558182/1558183), not confirmed as the '032 petition.
• The exact citation for "Vendetti" and for the "marker transmitter / password" reference.

Recommended next step: pull the US 9,622,032 prosecution wrapper (Patent Center) and the IPR2025-01258 petition + Exhibit 1003 declaration from P-TACTS; those two documents will give the authoritative (56) list, the applicant's Remarks/IDEs distinguishing WO 00/27152 and US 2002/0094801, and the precise prior-art-to-claim mapping Apple already built.

The patent US9622032 aims to provide a flexible and secure method for a mobile telephone network to monitor a mobile station's presence in special areas without modifying radio transmitting devices. This is achieved by transmitting "checking data" to the mobile station, which the mobile station then uses to determine if it is within a special area. The same checking data is sent to all mobile stations whose presence in that special area is monitored. This approach offers advantages over prior art by centralizing the intelligence in the mobile network and mobile station, rather than requiring individual radio communication defining devices to store and manage mobile station identities.

Combinations of Prior Art References for Obviousness

A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) in mobile telecommunications and location-based services would likely find the claims of US9622032 obvious when considering a combination of the following prior art references:

1. WO 00/27152 and US20020094801 in combination with general knowledge of mobile network capabilities.

• WO 00/27152: This international application describes a system for locating a mobile station using a "guide unit" that broadcasts a short-range radio signal to define a "home area." The signal contains the mobile station's identity code, and the mobile station identifies its own code to notify a mobile switching center of its location in the home area. This "home message" can be used for defining call pricing/services.

  • Disclosure: A method for defining a special area (home area) using a radio signal, where a mobile station's presence is detected by comparing an identity code received in the signal with its own identity. This information is then used to adapt services (e.g., pricing).
  • Limitation: The guide unit must know the identity of the mobile station, and it lacks flexibility for adding new special areas without modifying the guide units.

• US20020094801: This patent application describes a system where a fixed station sends an encoded signal defining a special area. The fixed station and mobile station are linked via the signal code. To prevent abuse, the fixed station can be equipped with means to receive and compare an access code applied by the mobile station to activate the fixed station.

  • Disclosure: Use of an encoded signal from a fixed station to define a special area and link it to a mobile station via a signal code. It also introduces the concept of an access code for protection against abuse.
  • Limitation: The document doesn't explicitly disclose the content of the coded signal or how the mobile station uses it for determination. It focuses on activating the fixed station with an access code from the mobile station, rather than the mobile network dynamically managing special areas for multiple mobile stations.

Motivation for Combination and Obviousness Analysis:

A PHOSITA, aware of the limitations of WO 00/27152 (lack of flexibility and requirement for guide units to store mobile identities), would be motivated to find a more scalable and flexible solution for defining special areas. US20020094801 provides the concept of a "signal code" linking a fixed station and mobile station to define a special area. The combination would naturally lead a PHOSITA to consider shifting the "intelligence" away from the radio communication defining device (guide unit/fixed station) to the mobile station and the mobile network.

• Obvious Step 1: Transmitting "Checking Data" to the Mobile Station: Given WO 00/27152's issue of guide units needing to know mobile station identities, a PHOSITA would recognize the benefit of the mobile station being aware of the characteristics of a special area. Instead of the guide unit having to store all mobile identities, it would be a logical step to send the identifying characteristics of the special area (what US9622032 calls "checking data") to the mobile station. This data would then allow the mobile station to independently verify its presence. This is particularly reinforced by US20020094801's concept of a "signal code" linking the mobile station to the special area. The idea of "storing a checking data in the mobile station" (as claimed in US9622032) to determine if a signal is distinctive is directly supported by combining the need for flexibility in WO 00/27152 with the notion of a signal code for linking in US20020094801.

• Obvious Step 2: Mobile Station Processing and Updating the Network: WO 00/27152 already teaches the mobile station identifying its location in a home area and transmitting a "home message" to the mobile switching center for service adaptation. Once the mobile station is equipped with "checking data" (from the combination in Step 1), it would be obvious for the mobile station to use this data to process received signals, determine its presence in a special area, and then send an "updating signal" to the mobile network (similar to the "home message" in WO 00/27152) to trigger the adaptation of operating parameters (like tariffs or services). This addresses the flexibility issue of WO 00/27152 because the "checking data" can be dynamically updated at the mobile station by the network, rather than requiring physical modification of guide units.

• Obvious Step 3: Centralized Special Operating Means: Both prior art references imply a network component that acts on the location information. WO 00/27152 mentions a "mobile switching centre" using the home message. US9622032 explicitly centralizes this function in "special operating means" within the mobile telephone network. A PHOSITA would understand the advantages of centralizing such functions for efficient management of tariffs and services for a large number of mobile stations and special areas, especially given the scalability issues of WO 00/27152. The patent US9622032 states, "the processing of these operating parameters is centralized in the special operating means and it is not done in each base station." This centralization would be an obvious design choice for managing a system with potentially many special areas and mobile stations.

Therefore, the combination of WO 00/27152 and US20020094801, coupled with a PHOSITA's general knowledge of mobile network architecture and the desire for flexibility and scalability in location-based services, would make the core claims of US9622032 obvious. The claimed "checking data" is an obvious evolution of the identity codes and signal codes described in the prior art, enabling the desired flexibility by moving the intelligence to the mobile station.

Patent Family and Term Information for US Patent 9622032

Patent Term Adjustments (PTA) and Extensions (PTE)

Based on the available information, there is no explicit mention of Patent Term Adjustments (PTA) or Patent Term Extensions (PTE) specifically calculated or granted for US Patent 9622032 in the provided patent document or the search results.

• Patent Term Adjustment (PTA): PTA compensates patentees for delays caused by the USPTO during patent prosecution. It is typically calculated and issued automatically by the USPTO and listed on the patent document itself or in an Issue Notification Letter. For applications filed on or after May 29, 2000, the patent term can be extended for delays such as failure to issue a first office action within 14 months, failure to respond to an applicant's reply within 4 months, or failure to issue the patent within 3 years of the actual filing date.
• Patent Term Extension (PTE): PTE is available for patents covering certain human drug products, medical devices, food or color additives, animal drugs, and veterinary biological products to restore term lost during regulatory approval processes (e.g., FDA approval). There is no indication from the patent's title or abstract that US9622032 falls into these categories.

To definitively confirm PTA or PTE for US9622032, a direct review of the patent's file history in USPTO Patent Center would be necessary.

Continuation and Divisional Applications

The patent text for US9622032 explicitly states that it is a continuation of several earlier applications:

• U.S. application Ser. No. 14/561,426, filed Dec. 5, 2014
• U.S. application Ser. No. 14/315,703, filed Jun. 26, 2014 (issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,934,922 on Jan. 13, 2015)
• U.S. application Ser. No. 14/250,517, filed Apr. 11, 2014 (issued as U.S. Pat. No. 9,042,910 on May 26, 2015)
• U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/294,641, filed Apr. 12, 2010 (issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,738,040 on May 27, 2014)

This chain of continuation applications means that US9622032 benefits from the priority date of the earliest non-provisional application in this chain, which is likely U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/294,641, filed on April 12, 2010, or potentially even earlier via the international application it claims priority from.

A continuation application allows an applicant to pursue additional claims to an invention disclosed in an earlier "parent" application that has not yet been issued or abandoned, using the same specification and claiming priority from the parent.

There is no specific mention of divisional applications directly related to US9622032 in the provided text. A divisional application is filed when an earlier application disclosed more than one invention, and the applicant wishes to pursue claims to a different invention disclosed in the original application.

Related Family Members

The patent explicitly claims priority to:

• International Application No. PCT/EP2007/052939, filed Mar. 27, 2007
• European Patent Application No. 06111804.8 filed Mar. 28, 2006

These are international and foreign patent application family members from which US9622032 claims priority. The US patent family members identified as parent applications are:

• U.S. application Ser. No. 14/561,426
• U.S. application Ser. No. 14/315,703 (U.S. Pat. No. 8,934,922)
• U.S. application Ser. No. 14/250,517 (U.S. Pat. No. 9,042,910)
• U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/294,641 (U.S. Pat. No. 8,738,040)

Projected Expiration Date

Most U.S. patents have a term of 20 years from the earliest non-provisional filing date in their priority chain, subject to any PTA or PTE.

The earliest priority date for US9622032 is March 28, 2006, from European Patent Application No. 06111804.8. The earliest US non-provisional filing date in the direct chain of continuations is April 12, 2010 (U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/294,641).

Assuming a standard 20-year patent term from the earliest non-provisional US filing date of April 12, 2010, the anticipated expiration date would be April 12, 2030.

Google Patents also lists an "Anticipated expiration" date of 2030-04-12. This aligns with a 20-year term from the U.S. filing date of the earliest application in the chain, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/294,641, filed April 12, 2010, without any patent term adjustment or extension considered in this simplified calculation.

To calculate the precise expiration date, including any PTA, one would need to review the "Issue Notification Letter" for US9622032 which provides the official PTA calculation. However, based on the provided information and general patent term rules, April 12, 2030, is the most likely projected expiration date.