DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. This action is responsive to the Applicant’s amendment filed on August 28, 2025.
3. Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claims 1, 8, and 15 are in independent form.
4. Claims 1, 7, 8, 13, 14, and 15 are amended.5. Claims 1-11 and 18-21 are cancelled by the applicant.6. Claims 22-35 are newly added.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments, see “Double Patenting Rejection” filed on September 23, 2025. The applicant requests that the provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection be held in abeyance until the claims are found to be otherwise allowable.
Response: As of the Ninth Edition, Revision 07.2015 (October publication) the MPEP § 804 states that:
As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance. Only objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated (Emphasis added). Therefore, an application must not be allowed unless the required compliant terminal disclaimer(s) is/are filed and/or the withdrawal of the nonstatutory double patenting rejection(s) is made of record by the examiner.
Thus, in order for a reply to an Office Action that includes a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection to be considered responsive, “filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary.” The rejection for double patenting set forth in the previous Office action is hereby maintained.
8. Applicant’s arguments, see “Claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101”, filed on September 23, 2025 has been carefully considered. Based on the claim amendments, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection have been withdrawn.
Double Patenting
9. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
10. Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent 11,323,525 B2. The patented application teaches the limitations of the instant claim as shown by the comparison table below:
Instant Application (18/892, 308)
U.S. Patent 11,323,525 B2
12. (Currently Amended) An apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories, coupled to the one or more processors, wherein the memory stores set of compressed bitsets and stores code that when executed by the one or more processors causes a computer system to perform operations comprising:
receiving a query for a custom stream, the query comprising an indication of one or more followables; identifying one or more compressed bitsets, of the set of compressed bitsets, corresponding to the one or more followables, wherein each bitset represents a unique followable of activities being performed in a computing environment, each activity is represented by at least one bit location and at least one it value in each of the bitsets, and each new activity added to the activities is represented by one or more appended bits to each of the bitsets which generate revised, compressed bitsets that include the one or more appended bits;
performing the query using the one or more revised, compressed bitsets identified for the custom stream and the one or more followables; and providing a view of the custom stream using results of the query.
12. A stream engine environment, the stream engine environment comprising:
one or more computing devices comprising processing units and memory; and one or more data stores storing a set of compressed bitsets;
the stream engine environment configured to perform operations for providing custom streams of activity, the operations comprising:
receiving a query for a custom stream, the query comprising an indication of one or more followables;
identifying one or more compressed bitsets, of the set of compressed bitsets, corresponding to the one or more followables, wherein each bitset represents a unique followable of activities being performed in a computing environment, each activity is represented by at least one bit location and at least one bit value in each of the bitsets, and each new activity added to the activities is represented by one or more appended bits to each of the bitsets which generate revised, compressed bitsets that include the one or more appended bits;
performing the query using the one or more revised, compressed bitsets identified for the custom stream and the one or more followables; and
providing a view of the custom stream using results of the query.
12. Claim 12 is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of nonstatutory (obviousness-type) double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent 11,323,525 B2. Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because the claim of the ‘525 patent includes all the limitations of the instant claim and therefore anticipates it. As a result of claim 12 of the current application fails entirely within the scope of the claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,323,525 B2.
13. Claim 22 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent 12,126,694 B2. The patented application teaches the limitations of the instant claim as shown by the comparison table below:
Instant Application (18/892, 308)
U.S. Patent 12,126,694 B2
22. (New) An apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories, coupled to the one or more processors, wherein the memory stores code that when executed by the one or more processors causes a computer system to perform operations comprising; monitoring a new activity being performed within a computing environment; obtaining a set of compressed bitsets, wherein the set of compressed bitsets represents followable aspects of activities being performed within the computing environment, wherein each followable is represented by a unique one of the bitsets and each of the activities is represented by at least one bit location and at least one bit value in each of the bitsets; identifying one or more followables associated with the new activity being monitored; and appending one or more bits to the obtained set of compressed bitsets to generate a revised set of compressed bitsets, wherein the one or more bits appended are bits that represent the new activity according to the identified followables.
1. A method, implemented at least in part by a computing device, for creating compressed bitsets storing information related to user activity, the method comprising:
executing code by one more processors to cause the computing device to perform operations comprising:
monitoring a new activity being performed within a computing environment;obtaining a set of compressed bitsets, wherein the set of compressed bitsets represents followable aspects of activities being performed within the computing environment, wherein each followable is represented by a unique one of the bitsets and each of the activities is represented by at least one bit location and at least one bit value in each of the bitsets;
identifying one or more followables associated with the new activity being monitored; and
appending one or more bits to the obtained set of compressed bitsets to generate a revised set of compressed bitsets, wherein the one or more bits appended are bits that represent the new activity according to the identified followables.
14. Claim 22 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,126,694 B2. Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because the claim of the ‘694 patent includes all the limitations of the instant claim and therefore anticipates it. As a result of claim 22 of the current application fails entirely within the scope of the claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,126,694 B2.
Allowable Subject Matter
15. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The instant independent claims 12 and 22 recite similar subject matter to the allowable subject matter indicated in parent application 14/231,005 (Now patented US Patent 11,323,525 B2 and application 17/713,938 (now patented US Patent 12,126,694 B2). The independent claims 12 and 22 recite patentable subject matter directed to a specific, concrete method and apparatus for real-time activity tracking and querying using compressed bitsets that are incrementally extended as new activities occur. The claims recite maintaining a set of compressed bitsets, each corresponding to a unique followable associated with activities in a computing environment, where each activity is represented by one or more bit locations in each bitset. Upon detecting a new activity, one or more bits are appended to each compressed bitset, with the bit values indicating whether the corresponding followable is associated with the new activity, thereby generating revised compressed bitsets that maintain positional alignment across activities. The claims further recite querying these bitsets to compose custom streams by identifying bit locations common to multiple bitsets, and providing a view of the resulting stream of activities. While Urano et al. generally teaches the use of bitmap indexes for database queries, it does not teach or suggest appending new bits to bitsets in lockstep for each new activity, maintaining synchronized bit positions across multiple semantic followables, or composing custom streams from intersecting bitsets. Similarly, Fusco et al. describes real-time creation of bitmap indexes for streaming data but does not teach or suggest representing individual activities as shared bit positions across multiple compressed bitsets, appending bits to every bitset with semantic followable information, or generating custom activity streams based on intersections of these bitsets. The dependent claims further recite limitations such as specific compression methods, explicit bit-value semantics, and defined followable categories, all of which further distinguish the claimed subject matter. When considered as a whole, claims 12–17 and 22–35 define a stream-oriented, append-only, compressed bitmap indexing architecture for representing and querying user activities that is not anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art, including Urano et al. and Fusco et al., and thus represent allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
16. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERHANU MITIKU whose telephone number is (571)270-1983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday 8:30AM – 4:00PM.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at 571-272-3906. 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.
/BERHANU MITIKU/Examiner, Art Unit 2156
/AJAY M BHATIA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2156