Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/391,227

ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 20, 2023
Examiner
PHANTANA ANGKOOL, DAVID
Art Unit
2172
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Potix Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
639 granted / 739 resolved
+31.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
16 currently pending
Career history
755
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.6%
-29.4% vs TC avg
§103
53.3%
+13.3% vs TC avg
§102
29.7%
-10.3% vs TC avg
§112
3.9%
-36.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 739 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: Application filed on December 20th, 2023 Claims 1-20 are pending claims. 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 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. Claims 1-2, 13, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin, US PG PUB# 2003/0009649 A1 (hereinafter Martin) in view of Singh US PG PUB#2018/0246915 A1 (hereinafter Singh). As for independent claim 1: Martin discloses an electronic device, comprising: a storage module, configured to store at least one program instruction (0023, see storage, memory and unit); a processing module, coupled to the storage module and configured to load the at least one program instruction to perform the following steps (0023): parsing a plurality of cells in an analysis region of a data sheet to identify each cell as one of at least one formula cell and at least one non-formula cell (Martin, 0019-0020, see parsing method and calculation); classifying, according to a formula expression of the at least one formula cell, the at least one formula cell to at least one formula group (see expression list and consolidator in 0076-0077); Martin does not disclose selectively establishing a side label category tree, a top label category tree, and a master category tree according to the at least one formula group; establishing a database data model according to the side label category tree, the top label category tree, and the master category tree; and converting, according to the side label category tree, the top label category tree, and the master category tree, formula expressions into a structure reference form. Singh discloses selectively establishing a side label category tree, a top label category tree, and a master category tree according to the at least one formula group; establishing a database data model according to the side label category tree, the top label category tree, and the master category tree; and converting, according to the side label category tree, the top label category tree, and the master category tree, formula expressions into a structure reference form in 0006-0008, 0034-0036. In the cited section Singh discloses analyzing spreadsheet tables to identify hierarchical row and column headers, classifying such headers, and transforming the spreadsheet into relational database tables, see hierarchical headers and relational model, content, descriptor headline, and classifier. Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the device of Martin to incorporate the teaching of relational model as taught Singh, thus improving the system storage and classification process along with efficient processing (Singh, 0042). As for dependent claim 2: Martin – Singh discloses electronic device according to claim 1, wherein a step of selectively establishing the side label category tree, the top label category tree, and the master category tree according to the at least one formula group further comprises: classifying, according to a function of the formula expressions, referenced cells into at least one data group; and selectively establishing the side label category tree, the top label category tree, and the master category tree according to the at least one data group, wherein the at least one data group comprises at least one aggregable data group and at least one non-aggregable data group (Martin, 0072-0079, Martin discloses consolidator which eliminate unnecessary repetitions inside the multi-dimensional expressions list). As for dependent claim 13: Martin – Singh discloses the electronic device of claim 2,wherein a step of classifying, according to the formula expression of the at least one formula cell, the at least one formula cell to the at least one formula group further comprises: when the functions of the formula expressions are the same and the cells referenced by the function have a same offset relative to a corresponding formula cell, classifying similar formula cells into a same formula group (Martin, 0076-0079, see consolidator, Singh, 0034-0045). As for dependent claim 18: Martin – Singh discloses the electronic device of claim 18, wherein a step of classifying, according to the formula expression of the at least one formula cell, the at least one formula cell to the at least one formula group further comprises: analyzing the function of the formula cells to establish a reference relationship; and retrieving table values of corresponding non-formula cells according to the reference relationship (Singh, 0034-0035). As for independent claim 19: Claim 19 contains substantial subject matter as claimed in claim 1 and is respectfully rejected along the same rationale. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3-12, 14-17 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. It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). The Examiner notes MPEP § 2144.01, that quotes In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825,159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) as stating “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” Further MPEP 2123, states that “a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID PHANTANA ANGKOOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-2673. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-3:30 PM. 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, can Adam Queler be reached on 571-272-4140. 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. /David Phantana-angkool/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 20, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602713
DEDUCTION CLAIM DOCUMENT PARSING ENGINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596728
PREDICTION OF TABLE COLUMN ITEMS IN UNSTRUCTURED DOCUMENTS USING A HYBRID MODEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597500
METHOD, APPARATUS FOR CONTROLLING CRYOGENIC PHYSICAL THERAPY CABIN, ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12585380
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR SETTING USER INTERFACE ACCORDING TO USER PREFERENCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12579742
DEVICES AND METHODS FOR GENERATING VIRTUAL OBJECTS
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
86%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+14.4%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 739 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