Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/232,142

METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR EXTRACTING AREA OF INTEREST IN A DOCUMENT

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 09, 2023
Examiner
LAM, ANDREW H
Art Unit
2682
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Samsung Electronics
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 11m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
457 granted / 542 resolved
+22.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+6.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 11m
Avg Prosecution
9 currently pending
Career history
551
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
11.4%
-28.6% vs TC avg
§103
56.5%
+16.5% vs TC avg
§102
20.7%
-19.3% vs TC avg
§112
10.4%
-29.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 542 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . The action is responsive to the following communication: an application filed on 08/09/2023 where: Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3, 7-9, 12-18 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 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 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rangarajan et al. (US 12,300,008, hereinafter Rangarajan) in view of Grefenstette (US 6,289,304). Regarding claim 1, Rangarajan teaches A method for extracting an area of interest in a document, the method being performed by a computing device and comprising: extracting one or more target pages (see figs 3-5, and Col. 15, lines 1-15, In this case, the scanned image detection model is trained to extract features from an input page image, and output a target prediction of the location) from a document, the document comprising a plurality of pages (Col. 8, lines 30-40, Although the example of FIGS. 3-5 illustrates operations 220-240 being applied to a single image or page, this workflow could be applied to document image files having multiple pages). Rangarajan does not explicitly teach: extracting an area of interest including a plurality of sentences from a target page based on a first part-of-speech characteristic and a sentence characteristic of the target page. However, Grefenstette teaches: extracting an area of interest including a plurality of sentences from a target page based on a first part-of-speech characteristic (Col. 7, lines 40-65, fig. 3, steps S4-S7, and the POS data from box s4 can be used to obtain a verb group (characteristic) annotated version of the sentence.) and a sentence characteristic (Col. 5, lines 15-30, Sentence break criteria applicable to languages such as French and English often treat tokens that are strings of one or more appropriate sentence-ending punctuation marks as sentence breaks, such as a period, a question mark, an exclamation point, etc. Such tokens may be referred to herein as "sentence-final" (sentence characteristic)).) of the target page. Therefore, the Applicant's claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Rangarajan to include extracting an area of interest including a plurality of sentences from a target page based on a first part-of-speech characteristic and a sentence characteristic of the target page as taught by Grefenstette. The motivation/suggestion would have been to further enhance/improve the method since doing so would allow for the ability to remove and produce a reduced version as output text according to the level of reduction currently requested by the user. Regarding claim 2, Rangarajan and Grefenstette teach: The method of claim 1, wherein the extracting of the one or more target pages includes: generating a second part-of-speech characteristic and a page characteristic for each of the plurality of pages (Grefenstette, fig. 3, Step S6, Noun group annotation); and extracting the one or more target pages using the second part-of-speech characteristic and the page characteristic (Grefenstette, fig. 3, Step S6, Noun group annotation. Col. 8, lines 1-25, the verb group annotated current sentence buffer can be similarly passed through a computer-based noun group annotator, which inserts noun group markings into the current sentence buffer). Regarding claim 4, Rangarajan and Grefenstette teach: The method of claim 2, wherein the page characteristic includes one or more characteristics of a number of words in a page and whether a number is included in a beginning word of a sentence within the page (Grefenstette, Col. 8, lines 35-60. By selecting a reduction level, the signal from the user input device will indirectly indicate how much text should be retained or, conversely, how much should be removed. And see fig. 4). Regarding claim 5, Rangarajan and Grefenstette teach: The method of claim 2, wherein the extracting of the one or more target pages further includes generating an image characteristic for each of the plurality of pages (Rangarajan, see figs 3-5, and Col. 15, lines 1-15, In this case, the scanned image detection model is trained to extract features from an input page image. Col. 8, lines 30-40, Although the example of FIGS. 3-5 illustrates operations 220-240 being applied to a single image or page, this workflow could be applied to document image files having multiple pages). Regarding claim 6, Rangarajan and Grefenstette teach: The method of claim 5, wherein the image characteristic includes one or more characteristics of a font size of a text area (Rangarajan, the user may adjust the size and areas covered by the bounding boxes, fig. 6 steps, 630, 635 and 645, See fig. 17) and an arrangement form of the text area in a page (Rangarajan, The user may also modify any tags/labels associated with each of the bounding boxes.). Regarding claim 10, Rangarajan and Grefenstette teach: The method of claim 1, wherein the first part-of-speech characteristic include one or more characteristics of a distribution ratio of a noun, a distribution ratio of a verb, and a distribution ratio of an adjective (Grefenstette, Col. 5, lines 40-45, A "word group type" is one of a set of types applicable to groups of tokens in text. Examples include verb groups, noun groups, prepositional phrase groups, and subclause groups (which might include other groups).). Regarding claim 11, Rangarajan and Grefenstette teach: The method of claim 1, wherein the sentence characteristic includes one or more characteristics of whether a number is included in a beginning word of a sentence, whether a punctuation mark is present in the sentence, and a number of words in the sentence (Grefenstette, Col. 8, lines 35-60. By selecting a reduction level, the signal from the user input device will indirectly indicate how much text should be retained or, conversely, how much should be removed. And see fig. 4). Claim 19 is rejected for reasons similar to claim 1 above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW H LAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7969 and fax number is 571-270-8969. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benny Tieu can be reached on 571-272-7490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /ANDREW H LAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 09, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602791
VISUAL SEGMENTATION OF DOCUMENTS CONTAINED IN FILES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593000
IMAGE-FORMING SYSTEM, CONTROL METHOD, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586404
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR RELEVANT DATA EXTRACTION FROM A DOCUMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575887
SURGICAL SYSTEMS, ANATOMICAL MODELS AND ASSOCIATED METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12581018
INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM, METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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
84%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+6.8%)
1y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 542 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