Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/314,853

READING DEVICE AND METHOD

Final Rejection §103
Filed
May 10, 2023
Examiner
OBAID, FATEH M
Art Unit
3627
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Toshiba TEC Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
2 (Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
523 granted / 769 resolved
+16.0% vs TC avg
Strong +35% interview lift
Without
With
+35.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
798
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
31.2%
-8.8% vs TC avg
§103
33.5%
-6.5% vs TC avg
§102
19.6%
-20.4% vs TC avg
§112
5.2%
-34.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 769 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . DETAILED ACTION This communication is in response to the amendments filed on 08/07/2025. Claims 1, 7 and 13 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iizaka et al. “US 2020/0265689 A1” (Iizaka) in view of . Regarding Claim 13: A POS terminal, comprising: a payment processing component (at least see Iizaka Abstract; Fig. 1; [0040]); and a reading device, comprising (at least see Iizaka Fig. 5): an imaging component configured to image a reading target (at least see Iizaka Abstract; [0030]); a reading component configured to read, from an image captured by the imaging component, first information by first processing and second information by second processing different from the first processing, the first information indicated by a first symbol printed with a first digital watermark and the second information indicated by a second symbol printed with a second digital watermark and different from the first information (at least see Iizaka Abstract; Figs. 4A-4B; [0030], [0043] and [0045]-[0047]; note “[0016] A commodity information reading apparatus of an embodiment includes imaging means, first reading means, second reading means, and commodity identification means. The imaging means captures an image of a commodity. The first reading means reads a code symbol attached to the commodity from the image. The second reading means reads an electronic watermark attached to the commodity from the image. The commodity identification means identifies the commodity appearing in the image based on at least one of a reading result of the first reading means and a reading result of the second reading means.”); and an output component configured to output information read by the reading component (at least see Iizaka Abstract; [0036]), Iizaka does not explicitly disclose wherein the second symbol is printed on a seal member made of a transparent material and the seal member is attached on the first symbol. However, Lizaka does disclose using a transparent material (see at least lizaka Figs. 4A; [0046]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Iizaka’s “transparent material” for the advantage of printed on a seal member made of a transparent material to provide with both barcode. Regarding Claim 14: The POS terminal according to claim 13, wherein the reading component extracts the first symbol printed in a first color from the captured image by the first processing, and extracts the second symbol printed in a second color different from the first color from the captured image by the second processing (at least see Iizaka Fig. 7). Regarding Claim 15: The POS terminal according to claim 13, wherein the first information is commodity identification information identifying a commodity and the - second information is privilege information on a privilege of the commodity (at least see Iizaka [0005]). Regarding Claim 16: The POS terminal according to claim 15, wherein the second information is flag information indicating that a label indicating a content of the privilege is attached to the commodity (at least see Iizaka Abstract; Figs. 1-2). Regarding Claim 17: The POS terminal according to claim 15, wherein the second information is information indicating a content of the privilege (at least see Iizaka Abstract; Fig. 9). Regarding Claim 18: The POS terminal according to claim 14, wherein the first color is cyan and the second color is magenta (at least see Iizaka Abstract; Fig. 6). Regarding Claim 19: The POS terminal according to claim 13, wherein the POS terminal is a self-service POS terminal (at least see Iizaka Fig. 9). Regarding Claim 20: The POS terminal according to claim 13, further comprising a plurality of imaging components (at least see Iizaka [0017]). Regarding Claims 1-12: all limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claims 13-20. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 11/29/2008 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the remarks, the Applicant argues in substance: Argument: This fails to disclose determining a hypothetical standard metric associated with a plurality of assets. In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is reminded that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Iizaka’s as state (see at least lizaka Figs. 4A; [0046]; note: “[0046] The commodity H1 may have a form having only the electronic watermark 26. Or, the commodity H1 may have a form having only the barcode 24 and, in this case, modification of the configuration of the reading unit 10d is necessary. This is because, when the commodity H1 is mounted with the surface provided with the barcode 24 facing the conveyer surface of the belt conveyer 11, the surface provided with the barcode 24 is blind from the above described respective cameras and the barcode 24 is not readable. To address the case, for example, it is necessary to form the conveyer surface of the belt conveyer 11 using a transparent material and place another camera on the back side of the conveyer surface. Note that, in the following explanation, it is assumed that the commodity H1 is provided with both the barcode 24 and the electronic watermark 26.”). Therefore Iizaka meets the scope of the claimed limitations. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FATEH M OBAID whose telephone number is (571)270-7121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 A.M to 4:30 P.M. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Zeender can be reached at (571) 272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /FATEH M OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 10, 2023
Application Filed
May 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 07, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 15, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12586678
INSTRUMENT MANAGEMENT DEVICE FOR MEDICAL INSTRUMENT, INSTRUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, AND INSTRUMENT MANAGEMENT METHOD FOR MEDICAL INSTRUMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586136
ACCELERATED INTELLIGENT ENTERPRISE INCLUDING TIMELY VENDOR SPEND ANALYTICS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12579868
PRINTER DETACHABLE KIOSK APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12572970
INTERACTIVE VENDING MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12548093
Mobile Food Order in Advance Systems
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+35.0%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 769 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month