Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/103,382

PORTABLE ELECTRONIC DEVICE, CONTROL METHOD FOR SAME, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Feb 12, 2025
Examiner
HALE, BROOKS T
Art Unit
2166
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
49%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 49% of resolved cases
49%
Career Allow Rate
36 granted / 74 resolved
-6.4% vs TC avg
Strong +31% interview lift
Without
With
+31.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
111
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
22.3%
-17.7% vs TC avg
§103
61.3%
+21.3% vs TC avg
§102
10.1%
-29.9% vs TC avg
§112
3.0%
-37.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 74 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 Status Claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 1-10 are rejected. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Osborne et al (US 20020106622 A1) hereafter Osborne. Regarding claim 1, Osborne teaches a portable electronic device comprising: a memory (Para 0050, the interactive program tabulates the section's results and stores the data in local memory at step 405) configured to be able to store a record in an activated state (Activate) and a record in a deactivated state (Deactivate) (Para 0061, a utility for viewing all active or all active and inactive records);and one or more processors coupled to the memory (Para 0020, a computer central processing unit) and configured to: search for, based on a search command input from an external device, a record corresponding to the search command from the records stored in the memory by including the record in the deactivated state (Deactivate) in a search target (Para 0061, a utility for performing searches according to predefined criteria, a utility for creating customized certification status reports, a utility for viewing all active or all active and inactive records); an output a search result corresponding to the searched record to the external device (Para 0063, a web page 504 that would be encountered if an administrator selected the custom report utility offered on web page 501). Regarding claim 2, Osborne teaches the portable electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to output a search result corresponding to the record in the activated state (Activate) and a search result corresponding to the record in the deactivated state (Deactivate) as search results in a distinguishable manner (Para 0061, a utility for viewing all active or all active and inactive records, a utility allowing the administrator to manage the records, and a help utility). Claim 5 is the method claim corresponding to the device claim 1, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly. Claim 6 is the method claim corresponding to the device claim 2, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly. Claim 9 is the product claim corresponding to the device claim 1, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly. Claim 10 is the product claim corresponding to the device claim 2, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly. 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. Claims 3, 4, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osborne in view of Chen et al (US 20170161333 A1) hereafter Chen Regarding claim 3, Osborne teaches the portable electronic device according to claim 1, as shown above. Osborne does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the search command includes, as a parameter, identification information for designating at least one of the record in the activated state (Activate) and the record in the deactivated state (Deactivate) as the search target. In analogous art, Chen teaches wherein the search command includes, as a parameter, identification information for designating at least one of the record in the activated state (Activate) and the record in the deactivated state (Deactivate) as the search target (Para 0026, a search granularity status for a defined search granularity class can have an integrity status, pending status, or an inactive status). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Osbourne to include the teaching of Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to provide search query granularity, as taught by Chen (Para 0002, A data synchronization stream of data records to generate a search index based on the one or more search granularity classes is indexed). Regarding claim 4, Osborne in view of Chen teaches the portable electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the search command is capable of designating one file or a plurality of files including the record, as a parameter (Para 0013, a computer system, such as a managed file transfer (MFT) system, may receive a search request from a target computer system, where the target computer system is requesting near-real time access to data stored in one or more computer systems of the cloud environment, as well as near-real time access to data from a synchronization data stream). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Osbourne to include the teaching of Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to provide search query granularity, as taught by Chen (Para 0002, A data synchronization stream of data records to generate a search index based on the one or more search granularity classes is indexed). Claim 7 is the method claim corresponding to the device claim 3, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly. Claim 8 is the method claim corresponding to the device claim 4, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brooks Hale whose telephone number is 571-272-0160. The examiner can normally be reached 9am to 5pm est. 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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached on (571) 272-4098. 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. /B.T.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2166 /SANJIV SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 12, 2025
Application Filed
Dec 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 31, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12572584
DATA STORAGE METHOD AND APPARATUS BASED ON BLOCKCHAIN NETWORK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12561344
CLASSIFICATION INCLUDING CORRELATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12561309
CORRELATION OF HETEROGENOUS MODELS FOR CAUSAL INFERENCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12561375
ENHANCED SEARCH RESULT GENERATION USING MULTI-DOCUMENT SUMMARIZATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12555669
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GENERATING AN INTEGUMENTARY DYSFUNCTION NOURISHMENT PROGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 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
49%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+31.4%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 74 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