Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 21, 2022

2021001321 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2022)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/556,851 09/08/2017 Jingqing MEI HW730795 3231 77399 7590 03/21/2022 Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd (for Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd) Two Prudential Plaza Suite 4900 180 North Stetson Avenue Chicago, IL 60601 EXAMINER CHEN, ZHITONG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2649 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/21/2022 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): Chgpatent@leydig.com aipatent@huawei.com hwpatent@leydig.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte JINGQING MEI ________________ Appeal 2021-001321 Application 15/556,851 Technology Center 2600 ________________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JASON V. MORGAN, and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-16, 18, and 21-24. Claims 5, 11, 17, and 19-20 are canceled. Appeal Br. 19-20 and 22 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd, as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-001321 Application 15/556,851 2 SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to displaying a near field communication (NFC) antenna region of a terminal. Abstract. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following references (only the first named inventor of each reference is listed): Name Reference Date Haartsen US 2010/0277304 A1 Nov. 4, 2010 Yamaoka US 2012/0322374 A1 Dec. 20, 2012 Kashimoto US 2013/0143604 A1 June 6, 2013 Konanur US 2014/0080411 A1 Mar. 20, 2014 Kim US 2014/0342671 A1 Nov. 20, 2014 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-16, 18, and 21-24 as follows: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Citation 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16 103 Kashimoto, Haartsen, Konanur Non-Final Act. 3-5 6, 12, 18, 21-24 103 Kashimoto, Haartsen, Konanur, Kim Non-Final Act. 5-8 3, 9, 15 103 Kashimoto, Haartsen, Konanur, Yamaoka Non-Final Act. 8-9 Appeal 2021-001321 Application 15/556,851 3 ANALYSIS Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 13, 14, 18, and 21-24 Claim 1, which is representative with respect to itself and claims 2, 7, 8, 13, 14, 18, and 21-24, is reproduced below (disputed and key limitations emphasized and bracketing added). 1. A region prompt method applied to a terminal, the method comprising: [1] obtaining, by the terminal, region information describing a shape of a near field communication (NFC) region of an NFC antenna associated with the terminal; determining, by the terminal, a voltage change of the NFC antenna reaching a threshold as a result of the NFC antenna detecting an electromagnetic field for NFC generated by another device; [2] displaying, by the terminal, a shape of the NFC region described by the region information on a screen of the terminal in response to the voltage change of the NFC antenna reaching the threshold, thereby indicating to the terminal that the other device is able to perform NFC with the terminal; and [3] displaying, by the terminal, an icon indicating a direction of the shape of the NFC region extending beyond the screen of the terminal when less than all of the shape of the NFC region is displayed on the screen of the terminal. Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.). In rejecting claim 1 as obvious, the Examiner finds that Kashimoto’s display of an indicator for a sensor section, combined with Konanur’s display of a logo to guide a user to a tapping location and Haartsen’s wake- up assemblies, teaches or suggests [2] “displaying, by the terminal, a shape of the NFC region described by the region information on a screen of the terminal in response to the voltage change of the NFC antenna reaching the threshold.” Non-Final Act. 3-4 (citing, e.g., Kashimoto ¶¶ 66-71, Figs. 1-4; Appeal 2021-001321 Application 15/556,851 4 Kashimoto ¶¶ 2-4, Figs. 2A-C; Haartsen ¶¶ 2-5, Figs. 3-4). The Examiner finds that Kashimoto’s display of indicators for an off-screen indicator teaches or suggests [3] “displaying, by the terminal, an icon indicating a direction of the shape of the NFC region extending beyond the screen of the terminal when less than all of the shape of the NFC region is displayed on the screen of the terminal.” Id. (citing Kashimoto Figs. 9A-B, 11-12). Appellant contends the Examiner errs because rather than displaying a shape of a NFC region, “Kashimoto describes visualizing on the terminal’s display the physical location of the NFC antenna under the display . . . or providing a visual prompt . . . indicating the physical location of the NFC antenna . . . when [the NFC antenna] is not directly under some part of the screen.” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant contends that the Examiner does not show that Konanur cures the purported deficiency of Kashimoto because Konanur merely “describes placement of an icon 202 on a screen so [the icon] is directly over an antenna coil 102.” Id. at 11. Appellant argues “[t]he position of the antenna coil or the position/shape of an icon locating the coil in Kashimoto and/or Konanur has nothing to do with displaying a shape of a NFC region as described in the claims.” Reply Br. 7; see also id. at 7-8 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 37, 42, 44) (arguing that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the disputed recitation is limited by the plain language of the limitations). That is, Appellant argues “[n]othing in Kashimoto suggests the circular shape of the indicator 60 represents the shape of the NFC region” (id. at 9) and that “[t]he icon or ‘logo’ 202 in Fig. 2B of Konanur is an arbitrary shape used to display a location of the coil antenna 102” (id. at 10). Appeal 2021-001321 Application 15/556,851 5 Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because, as the Examiner correctly notes, the claimed shape of the NFC region can be any shape. Ans. 5 (citing Spec. ¶ 42). The claimed shape of the NFC region displayed is, in fact, merely region information that has been obtained, per recitation [1]. The shape of the obtained and displayed information does not affect the claimed prompt method, making this information non-functional descriptive material. Moreover, simple shapes such as the circle of Kashimoto (e.g., Fig. 3) or the star of Konanur (e.g., Fig. 2A) teach or suggest the shape of an NFC region by showing an optimal tapping location (the center of the shape) and less optimal tapping locations (the peripheries of the shapes). See, e.g., Konanur ¶ 29, Fig. 2A. Therefore, we agree with Examiner that the combination of Kashimoto and Konanur teaches or suggests the recitation [2] limitation of “displaying, by the terminal, a shape of the NFC region described by the region information on a screen of the terminal.” Appellant further contends the Examiner errs because [n]othing about Haartsen’s use of an electromagnetic field of a permanent magnet to wake up the electronics in a device suggests displaying the shape of the NFC region in response to a voltage at a[n] NFC antenna reaching a threshold, thereby indicating to the terminal that another device is in proximity and ready to perform NFC with the terminal Appeal Br. 14. Appellant argues that “[w]hen the current I1 in Fig. 3 [of Haartsen] reaches a threshold in either of the devices 10 or 12, the device wakes up.” Reply Br. 11. Thus, Appellant argues that the combination of Kashimoto, Konanur, and Haartsen fails to teach or suggest the “in response to the voltage change of the NFC antenna reaching the threshold” limitation of recitation [2]. Appeal 2021-001321 Application 15/556,851 6 Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because, as the Examiner correctly finds, Haartsen teaches or suggests waking up or putting to sleep a device such as a terminal based on the proximity of another device. Ans. 4- 5. Thus, the Examiner shows that it would have been obvious to modify the terminal of Kashimoto and Konanur, using the teachings and suggestions of Haartsen, such that the modified terminal is asleep (and not displaying a shape as recited) when another device is not proximate to the modified terminal and such that the modified terminal is awake (and thus displaying a shape as recited) when another device is proximate to the modified terminal. We further agree with the Examiner that although Haartsen monitors current change rather than voltage, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to monitor voltage change rather than current as a basis for measuring proximity. Id. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Kashimoto, Konanur, and Haartsen teaches or suggests displaying the shape of recitation [2] “in response to the voltage change of the NFC antenna reaching [a] threshold.” Appellant further contends the Examiner errs because rather than teaching or suggesting [3] “displaying . . . an icon indicating a direction of the shape of the NFC region extending beyond the screen of the terminal when less than all of the shape of the NFC region is displayed on the screen of the terminal,” Kashimoto displays “two or more lines having an origin at the position of” an antenna outside of a display area. Appeal Br. 13. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because neither the claim nor the Specification defines what the claimed icon is, but rather only provides one unrelated disclosure regarding a user interface icon used to disable an NFC function of a terminal and a disclosure of an arrow to show a Appeal 2021-001321 Application 15/556,851 7 direction of an NFC antenna. Spec. ¶¶ 22, 49, Fig. 3. Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed icon at least encompasses an arrow that indicates where an NFC antenna is located. Based on this interpretation, each of the lines of Kashimoto represents an icon as claimed, even though the arrows point away from rather than toward an antenna. Kashimoto Fig. 5B. Regardless the direction of the arrows (i.e., the icons), the direction of the shape of the NFC region extending beyond the screen of the terminal is apparent in Kashimoto. Id. Further, claim 1 does not preclude the use more than one icon. Thus, either arrow in Kashimoto’s Figure 5B teaches or suggests the icon of recitation [3]. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Kashimoto teaches or suggests recitation [3]. For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 1, and claims 2, 7, 8, 13, 14, 18, and 21-24, which Appellant does not argue separately. Claims 3, 9, and 15 Claim 3, which is representative with respect to itself and claims 9 and 15, is reproduced below (disputed limitations emphasized and bracketing added). 3. The method according to claim 1, wherein obtaining the region information of the NFC antenna comprises: querying whether there is the region information in a local storage system of the terminal; and [4] obtaining the region information from the local storage system of the terminal in response to determining the region information is in the local storage system; querying system information of the terminal to obtain a model number of the terminal in response to determining the region information is not in the local storage system; and Appeal 2021-001321 Application 15/556,851 8 [5] obtaining the region information from a cloud server that describes the shape of an NFC region associated with the model number. Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.). In rejecting claim 3 as obvious, the Examiner finds that Kashimoto’s acquisition of sensor section position information from a storing section teaches or suggests [4] “obtaining the region information from the local storage system of the terminal.” Non-Final Act. 8-9 (citing Kashimoto ¶ 67, Figs. 1-4); Ans. 6 (further citing Kashimoto ¶ 49). The Examiner finds that Yamaoka’s acquisition of antenna position information from a server teaches or suggests [5] “obtaining the region information from a cloud server.” Non- Final Act. 9 (citing Yamaoka ¶¶ 56-64, Figs. 4-5); Ans. 6. Appellant contends the Examiner errs because Yamaoka merely “describes displaying a location of an antenna” and “retrieving ‘antenna position information’ from either a storage unit or from a server.” Appeal Br. 16. Appellant argues “[n]othing in Yamaoka describes storing a shape of the NFC region of the terminal.” Id. Appellant further argues the Examiner cannot “rely on the position of an icon displayed in Kashimoto as a display of a shape of an NFC region.” Reply Br. 12. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error because the Examiner properly relies on the cited teachings of Kashimoto and Yamaoka as teaching or suggesting where information is retrieved (i.e., from local storage or from a cloud server). As discussed above, the combination of Kashimoto and Konanur teaches or suggests a shape of the NFC region described by the region information. It would have been obvious to obtain this information, which is non-functional descriptive material, either locally Appeal 2021-001321 Application 15/556,851 9 (as taught or suggested by Kashimoto) or from a cloud server (as taught or suggested by Yamaoka). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 3, and claims 9 and 15, which Appellant does not argue separately. Claims 4, 10, and 16 Claim 4, which is representative with respect to itself and claims 10 and 16, is reproduced below (disputed limitations emphasized and bracketing added). 4. The method according to claim 1, wherein after displaying the shape of the NFC region of the NFC antenna on the screen of the terminal, the method further comprises [6] displaying a center point of the NFC region. Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.). In rejecting claim 4 as obvious, the Examiner finds that Kashimoto’s display of sensor section 14 teaches or suggests [6] “displaying a center point of the NFC region.” Non-Final Act. 5 (citing Kashimoto Fig. 3). The Examiner further finds that “Konanur clearly illustrates in Figs. 2A-C that the star shape is display[ed] on or near the center position of the NFC antenna region 102.” Ans. 7. Appellant contends the Examiner errs because Kashimoto’s Figure 3 simply shows “an icon 14 on the display 13 located above the position of the antenna. There is no center point of an NFC region associated with the antenna.” Appeal Br. 16. Appellant further argues that Konanur’s illustration of a star shape does not cure the purported deficiency of Kashimoto because “the image of the antenna coil 102 is [not] a display of the NFC region.” Reply Br. 13. Appeal 2021-001321 Application 15/556,851 10 Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error because recitation [6] is devoid of any limitations as to how the center point of the NFC region is displayed. Either a circle having a center point (Kashimoto Fig. 3) or a star also having a center point (Konanur Fig. 2A) falls within a reasonably broad interpretation of the claimed displaying of a center point of an NFC region. Appellant’s argument that Konanur’s antenna coil 102 is not displayed is irrelevant as the Examiner properly relies on the star 202 being centered over antenna coil 102 to show that Konanur displays the center point of an NFC region. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Kashimoto and Konanur teaches or suggests disputed recitation [6]. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 4, and claims 10 and 16, which Appellant does not argue separately. Claims 6, 12, and 24 Claim 6, which we select as representative with respect to itself and claims 12 and 24, is reproduced below (disputed limitations emphasized and bracketing added).2 6. The method according to claim 1, further comprising [7] removing the NFC region displayed on the screen of the terminal in response to: (i) detecting that a NFC function of the terminal is disabled; 2 Although Appellant suggests claim 24 as representative, Appellant presents arguments that are more pertinent to claim 6 than to claim 24. Appeal Br. 15. Moreover, the selection of the representative claim rests with the Panel. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“the Board may select a single claim from the group or subgroup and may decide the appeal as to the ground of rejection with respect to the group or subgroup on the basis of the selected claim alone”). Appeal 2021-001321 Application 15/556,851 11 (ii) detecting that an application in the terminal stops calling a NFC application programming interface (API) of the terminal; (iii) detecting that other applications except the application in the terminal do not call the NFC API of the terminal; or (iv) [8] detecting that the voltage of the NFC antenna falls below the threshold, and the voltage does not thereafter reach the threshold within a preset time. Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.). In rejecting claim 6 as obvious, the Examiner finds that Kim’s activation of a communication unit based on proximity of an external device, combined with Haartsen’s teaching that current falls as the proximity of an external device decreases, teaches or suggests [7] “removing the NFC region displayed on the screen of the terminal in response to” [8] “detecting that the voltage of the NFC antenna falls below the threshold, and the voltage does not thereafter reach the threshold within a preset time.” Non-Final Act. 6-7 (citing Kim ¶¶ 5-6, Figs. 8, 11A-12B; Haartsen Figs. 3-4). Appellant contends the Examiner errs because both Kim and Haartsen are merely concerned with “turning on a device from a sleep state.” Appeal Br. 15. In particular, “Appellant’s understanding of Kim is that, once on, the user turns the device off.” Id. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error because the Examiner’s findings show that both Haartsen and Kim teach or suggest that the proximity of an external device to a device that can be in either sleeping state or a waking state determines whether there is a need for the device to be awake. Even if Haartsen and Kim focus on the transition from a sleep state to a wake state, as Appellant purports, an artisan of ordinary skill would have recognized that a device that no longer has a need to be awake (e.g., because of a sustained drop in current or voltage for a sustained period Appeal 2021-001321 Application 15/556,851 12 of time) can be placed in a sleeping state. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Haartsen and Kim, in further combination with the other references relied on, teaches or suggests recitations [7] and [8]. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 6, and claims 12 and 24, which Appellant does not argue separately. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16 103 Kashimoto, Haartsen, Konanur 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16 6, 12, 18, 21-24 103 Kashimoto, Haartsen, Konanur, Kim 6, 12, 18, 21-24 3, 9, 15 103 Kashimoto, Haartsen, Konanur, Yamaoka 3, 9, 15 Overall Outcome 1-4, 6-10, 12- 16, 18, 21-24 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED