Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/909,505

GATE DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Oct 08, 2024
Examiner
MASUD, ROKIB
Art Unit
3627
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Toshiba TEC Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
69%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
503 granted / 735 resolved
+16.4% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
769
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
30.5%
-9.5% vs TC avg
§103
46.8%
+6.8% vs TC avg
§102
14.3%
-25.7% vs TC avg
§112
4.8%
-35.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 735 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION 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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takabatake (US 2022/0139142). With respect to claim 1, Takabatake discloses a gate device including a gate mechanism disposed along a passage through which a customer passes (see for example paragraphs [0002], [0024] and Fig. 1); a light emitter provided above the gate mechanism for notifying users regarding gate operation or passage status (see for example paragraphs [0029], [0031] and Fig. 3); a detector configured to detect a person passing through the passage (see for example paragraphs [0027], [0030] and Fig. 2); a processor (control unit) configured to control the operation of the gate mechanism and the light emitter (see for example paragraphs [0026] and [0034]); switching an operation mode of the gate mechanism between a first mode in which notification is made by the light emitter when the detector detects a person passing through the passage and a second mode in which no notification is made even when the detector detects a person passing through the passage (see for example paragraphs [0031] and [0046]); changing a light emission state of the light emitter to different states depending on the operational state of the gate mechanism (see for example paragraphs [0031], [0037] and Fig. 4). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. Claim(s) 2-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takabatake in view of Khojastepour et al. (US 2020/026566, hereinafter Khojastepour). With respect to claim 2, Takabatake discloses the gate apparatus but does not explicitly disclose an accounting machine located upstream of the passage that performs payment processing for a customer transaction. However, Khojastepour discloses a retail checkout system associated with a gate or passage in which a customer performs a transaction prior to passing through the gate (see for example paragraphs [0018], [0036] and Fig. 1). Further, Khojastepour discloses a checkout device receiving a customer operation to initiate a transaction and performing payment processing associated with the transaction (see for example paragraphs [0037] and [0042]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the checkout/payment processing functionality of Khojastepour into the gate device of Takabatake in order to allow the gate system to coordinate with retail transaction processing systems. With respect to claim 3, Takabatake discloses setting the gate apparatus to an initial operational state with a corresponding initial light emission state prior to user detection (see for example paragraphs [0031] and [0037]). Takabatake further discloses changing the light emission state when the operational state of the gate changes (see for example paragraphs [0037] and [0046]). Thus Takabatake discloses changing the light emission state from a first state to a second state upon occurrence of a system event, corresponding to receiving an instruction to start a transaction. With respect to claim 4, Takabatake discloses determining whether the detector has detected a person approaching or passing through the gate (see for example paragraphs [0027] and [0030]). Takabatake further discloses controlling the light emission state of the gate apparatus depending on the detection result (see for example paragraphs [0031] and [0037]). With respect to claim 5, Khojastepour discloses changing an indicator lamp or display state during transaction or checkout processing (see for example paragraphs [0036], [0040] and Fig. 3). Thus the reference teaches changing the light emission state while performing payment processing associated with a transaction. With respect to claim 6, Khojastepour discloses transaction processing operations in which different transaction conditions may occur (see for example paragraphs [0040] and [0043]). The reference further discloses determining whether a transaction condition requires intervention by store personnel (see for example paragraph [0045]). With respect to claim 7, Khojastepour discloses events during transaction processing that require assistance from store personnel, such as irregular transaction conditions (see for example paragraphs [0043] and [0045]). The system correspondingly changes the notification or indicator state to inform store personnel or the customer. With respect to claim 8, Khojastepour discloses errors occurring during checkout or payment processing and system responses to those errors (see for example paragraphs [0044] and [0046]). Such responses include different notification conditions depending on the type or severity of the error. With respect to claim 9, Takabatake discloses changing the light emission state of the light emitter when the detector detects a person approaching or passing through the gate (see for example paragraphs [0031] and [0037]). With respect to claim 10, Takabatake discloses a light emitter mounted on a structural portion of the gate apparatus to provide visible notification to approaching persons (see for example paragraphs [0029] and [0031]). Mounting a lamp on a vertically extending pole or structure adjacent the passage is a known and obvious design choice in gate signaling systems. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROKIB MASUD whose telephone number is (571)270-5390. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00. 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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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. /ROKIB MASUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 08, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597077
Procure to Pay Deduction Management Process
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12555070
RFID KANBAN SYSTEM AND METHODS OF USE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12555169
CREDIT ELIGIBILITY PREDICTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12524753
Payment Device and Method with Detection of Falsified Payee Information Based on Weighted Location Data Obtained by the Payment Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12524818
OPT-IN DISTRIBUTED LEDGER CONSORTIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
69%
With Interview (+0.2%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 735 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