Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/813,654

USING CONDENSED BITMAP REPRESENTATION FOR FILTERING OF DATASETS

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Aug 23, 2024
Examiner
COLAN, GIOVANNA B
Art Unit
2165
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Workday, Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
214 granted / 298 resolved
+16.8% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+29.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
318
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
9.9%
-30.1% vs TC avg
§103
48.5%
+8.5% vs TC avg
§102
33.3%
-6.7% vs TC avg
§112
7.6%
-32.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 298 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/04/2025 has been entered. 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 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. (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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stephen James Frederic Hankinson (Hankinson hereinafter) (US 2022/0019590). Regarding Claims 15, 8, and 1, Hankinson discloses a device comprising: a processor ([0004], Hankinson); and a storage medium for tangibly storing thereon program logic for execution by the processor, the program logic comprising ([0263], Hankinson): logic, executed by the processor, for loading bitmaps associated with segments of users ([0013], Hankinson); logic, executed by the processor, for generating overlaps by comparing pairs of bitmaps selected from the bitmaps ([0013] and [0045]-[0049], Hankinson); logic, executed by the processor, for determining a difference in cardinality between overlapping segment pairs ([0286], “Process 1920 inverts the array of object vectors to produce a number of key-specific sets of objects, which may be of significantly different cardinalities. The inversion maps an array of N object vectors onto Q key-specific arrays of objects,” Hankinson); logic, executed by the processor, for generating anonymized segments that exclude at least one overlapping segment included in the overlaps ([0040], [0155], “1620: A first query-specific set based on a union of key-specific sets of two keys specified in a query,” [0156], “1630: A plurality of key-specific sets of objects excluding the key-specific sets specified in the query,” wherein excluding the key-specific sets specified in the query corresponds to the excluding overlapping segment as claimed, [0166], and [0355], Hankinson) when the difference in cardinality is below a specific threshold ([0357], “Where the first number, for the key-specific array, exceeds a specified intersection lower bound, counting intersection continues to determine an actual number of intersections (FIG. 7, FIG. 35). Otherwise, the key-specific array is considered irrelevant to the query and is discarded,” Hankinson); and logic, executed by the processor, for returning aggregated data associated with the anonymized segments in response to a network request ([0040], [0166], [0155]-[0156], Fig. 1, 180: results to client; and [0355], Hankinson). Regarding Claims 16, 9, and 2, Hankinson discloses a device, the program logic further comprising logic, executed by the processor, for: receiving response data associated with a user ([0045]-[0049], Hankinson); identifying a plurality of matching segments for the user ([0045]-[0049], Hankinson); and updating a plurality of matching bitmaps corresponding to the plurality of matching segments using an identifier of the user ([0045]-[0049], Hankinson). Regarding Claims 17, 10, and 3, Hankinson discloses a device, wherein generating the overlaps comprises: computing an intersection or subtraction between sets represented by the pairs of bitmaps ([0045]-[0049], Hankinson); and identifying pairs of bitmaps as overlapping based on the computed intersection or subtraction ([0045]-[0049], Hankinson). Regarding Claims 18, 11, and 4, Hankinson discloses a device of claim 15, the program logic further comprising logic, executed by the processor, for: maintaining a historical set of overlaps, the historical set of overlaps comprising a set of previously computed overlaps ([0371], Hankinson); selecting an overlapping segment bitmap from the historical set of overlaps ([0371], Hankinson); and re-computing the overlap for the selected overlapping segment bitmap using updated bitmaps ([0008], “… counting intersection continues to determine an actual number of intersections. Otherwise, the key-specific array is considered irrelevant to the query and is discarded,” [0357], “counting intersection continues to determine an actual number of intersections;” Hankinson). Regarding Claims 19, 12, and 5, Hankinson discloses a device, wherein generating the anonymized segments comprises: determining a difference in cardinality between overlapping segment pairs ([0151]-[0153], [0159], [0162], Hankinson); and excluding segments from the anonymized segments when the difference in cardinality is below a specified threshold ([0151]-[0153], [0159], [0162], Hankinson). Regarding Claims 20, 13, and 6, Hankinson discloses a device, the program logic further comprising logic, executed by the processor, for: storing the generated overlaps in an overlap database ([0371], Hankinson); and querying the overlap database to obtain a cached set of overlaps for use in generating the anonymized segments ([0371], Hankinson). Regarding Claims 14 and 7, Hankinson discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein returning the aggregated data comprises: removing aggregated data associated with excluded overlapping segments from the returned data ([0282], [0288], and [0355], Hankinson); and providing an explanation for why certain segment data was removed ([0282], [0288], and [0355], Hankinson). Response to Arguments Applicant argues that “the cited art fails to teach or suggest each and every element of claim 1.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The applied art does disclose the amended limitations: logic, executed by the processor, for loading bitmaps associated with segments of users ([0013], Hankinson); logic, executed by the processor, for generating overlaps by comparing pairs of bitmaps selected from the bitmaps ([0013] and [0045]-[0049], Hankinson); logic, executed by the processor, for determining a difference in cardinality between overlapping segment pairs ([0286], “Process 1920 inverts the array of object vectors to produce a number of key-specific sets of objects, which may be of significantly different cardinalities. The inversion maps an array of N object vectors onto Q key-specific arrays of objects,” Hankinson); logic, executed by the processor, for generating anonymized segments that exclude at least one overlapping segment included in the overlaps ([0040], [0155], “1620: A first query-specific set based on a union of key-specific sets of two keys specified in a query,” [0156], “1630: A plurality of key-specific sets of objects excluding the key-specific sets specified in the query,” wherein excluding the key-specific sets specified in the query corresponds to the excluding overlapping segment as claimed, [0166], and [0355], Hankinson) when the difference in cardinality is below a specific threshold ([0357], “Where the first number, for the key-specific array, exceeds a specified intersection lower bound, counting intersection continues to determine an actual number of intersections (FIG. 7, FIG. 35). Otherwise, the key-specific array is considered irrelevant to the query and is discarded,” Hankinson); and logic, executed by the processor, for returning aggregated data associated with the anonymized segments in response to a network request ([0040], [0166], [0155]-[0156], Fig. 1, 180: results to client; and [0355], Hankinson). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIOVANNA B COLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2752. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 8:30-5:00. 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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached on (571) 270-1760. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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. /GIOVANNA B COLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165 January 15, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 23, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Sep 02, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 10, 2025
Final Rejection — §102
Dec 04, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 11, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 15, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12572517
AUTOMATIC ENFORCEMENT OF STANDARDIZED DATA MODEL MAPPING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12541505
RECORD PROCESS STORAGE SYSTEM AND METHOD WITH AUTOMATIC BUFFER INTERVAL UPDATES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12537755
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GENERATING IDENTIFIERS WITH A LOW LIKELIHOOD OF COLLISIONS FOR A PROLONGED TIME DURATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12536208
COMPUTER-BASED INTERACTIVE PROMPT VARIATION GENERATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12493600
REARRANGING NODES FOR CONJOINED TREE DATA STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
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
72%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+29.5%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 298 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