Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/481,937

AUTOMATIC ARCHIVING OF DATA STORE LOG DATA

Final Rejection §101
Filed
Oct 05, 2023
Examiner
MOSER, BRUCE M
Art Unit
2154
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Amazon Technologies, Inc.
OA Round
4 (Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
631 granted / 745 resolved
+29.7% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
47 currently pending
Career history
792
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.9%
-29.1% vs TC avg
§103
33.4%
-6.6% vs TC avg
§102
31.1%
-8.9% vs TC avg
§112
6.3%
-33.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 745 resolved cases

Office Action

§101
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 In amendments dated 10/7/25, Applicant amended claims 21-22, 27, and 35, canceled no claims, and added no new claims. Claims 21-40 are presented for examination. Examiner notes claim 22 has a status of “Currently Amended” but the claim recites no edits for any amendments per 37 C.F.R. 1.121(c). Objections Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: the seventh limitation recites “receive a request from a client of the clients for access to one or more of the data change records,” and the eighth and ninth limitations each recite “for a request for access to a data change record [emphasis added].” Thus the claim recites three requests and the antecedent basis of the second and third requests is unclear; and the fifth limitation recites “select, from the change stream prior to expiration of the configurable change stream retention period, and for archival separate from respective data objects to which the changes apply, one or more of the data change records,” and the seventh limitation also recites “receive a request from a client of the clients for access to one or more of the data change records, [emphasis added]” and the antecedent basis of the requested one or more data change records is unclear. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes without significantly more. Independent claims 21, 27, and 35 each recites selecting, from the change stream prior to expiration of the configurable change stream retention period, and for archival separate from respective data objects to which the changes apply, one or more of the data change records comprising data indicative of data change operations performed on corresponding data objects, wherein the selection comprises at least insert and update data change operations performed on the corresponding data objects; and expiring, in accordance with the configurable change stream retention period, the plurality of data change records from the change stream such that the plurality of data change records are inaccessible from the change stream. Selecting data change records is evaluating for choice and a mental process, and expiring data change records is deleting or moving said records and recited broadly and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Each of these claims recite additional elements of storing, for a configurable change stream retention period after which one or more of the data change records become inaccessible from the change stream, a plurality of data change records as a change stream, the data change records comprising data indicative of changes to, and data change operations performed on, the data objects of the cloud-based storage service; archive, without a need for user intervention after an initial configuration, the selected one or more data change records from the change stream comprising data indicative of data change operations performed on corresponding data objects to a persistent storage separate from the respective data objects to which the changes apply; receive a request from a client of the clients for access to one or more of the data change records; for a request for access to a data change record, of the requested one or more data change records, that has expired from the change stream, provide the data change record from the persistent storage; and for a request for access to a data change record, of the requested one or more data change records, that has not expired from the change stream, provide the data change record from the change stream. Storing and archiving data change records is recited broadly and insignificant extra-solution activity, receiving a request from a client is an input step and insignificant extra-solution activity, and providing a data change record is an output step and insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 21 recites one or more computing devices implementing a cloud-based storage and one or more computing devices implementing a data change archiving system, and claim 35 recites one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media, which are generic computers or generic components of a computer system. Examiner notes specification paragraph 0003 discusses how various changes applied to data objects may not be accessible to clients, and paragraph 0021 discusses how the invention can make a record of changes to data objects in a data store accessible to clients for a longer window of time using changes to data that are stored in a log, logged changes may be archived and deleted after an expiration of time, and other features not claimed here. Examiner also notes the claimed steps do not recite a particular improvement in any technology or function of a computer per MPEP 2106.04(d) and do not recite any unconventional steps in the invention per MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore, the recited mental process is not integrated into a practical application. Taking the claim as a whole, the storing and archiving steps are routine and conventional per the list of routine and conventional activities in the list in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. The steps of receiving data and providing data are highly general and amount to sending data across a network (figure 1 network 190) and are also routine and conventional activities per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. The one or more computing devices and one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media are still generic computers or generic components of a computer. Therefore, these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the cited mental process. Claims 22, 28, and 36 each recites wherein selecting, for archival, one or more of the data change records, comprises selecting at least insert, update, and delete data changes operations performed on the corresponding data objects, and selecting records is evaluating those records which is a mental process. Claims 23, 29, and 37 each recites wherein the one or more data change records are selected for archival based at least in part on membership in a particular key space specified for archival, and selecting records is evaluating those records which is a mental process. Claim 30 recites wherein said selecting at least some one or more of the data change records for archival is based at least in part on membership in one or more subdivisions of the data store, and selecting records is evaluating those records which is a mental process. Claim 31 recites wherein said selecting at least some one or more of the data change records for archival is based at least in part on membership in a table of the data store, and selecting records is evaluating those records which is a mental process. Claims 24, 32, and 38 each recites wherein the selected one or more data change records archived to the persistent storage are stored in the persistent storage without respective expiration times, and selecting records is evaluating those records which is a mental process. Claims 25, 33, and 39 each recites generating metadata indicative of a mapping between one or more of the data objects referenced in the plurality of data change records and one or more locations of the plurality of data change records in the archive, and generating metadata is recited broadly and is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Claims 26, 34, and 40 each recites sending, to a client, at least a portion of the metadata, wherein at least a portion of the plurality of data change records are retrieved by the client from the archive using the at least a portion of the metadata, and sending data across a network is routine and conventional per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II). Responses to Applicant’s Remarks Regarding rejections of claims 21-40 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for reciting mental processes without significantly more, Applicant’s argument have been considered but are not persuasive. On pages 11-13 of his Remarks Applicant asserts the claims recite an improvement to the technology of a digital data storage system and a practical application to the problem of data change records that would otherwise become inaccessible after an expiration period. Examiner disagrees with each because the claim limitations do not recite specific details of the invention that might show an improvement to a digital storage system or such a practical application. The claims recite storing data change records, selecting data change records, archiving data change records, expiring data changes records, and providing a data change record after receiving a request to access one or more data change records, each action being recited without inventive details showing how the invention performs it. Examiner notes the lack of specific support in the specification for expiring a data change record and the inclusion of a non-patent literature (NPL) article titles “What is the best method/options for expiring records within a database?” that shows that expiring records could mean taking multiple actions like moving a record from one storage to another and setting a flag to the record. While the claims recite a retention period for the records and expiring records in accordance with the retention period, the claims do not recite a specific application of the invention involving the retention period to data change records that shows an improvement to a technology or function of a computer. On pages 14-15 Applicant asserts the additional elements together recite non-generic computer functonality. Examiner disagrees and notes that the NPL article above shows that storing data records, selecting data records for archival, archiving data records, expiring data records in some connection with a retention period, and providing data records when requested was conventionally performed prior to the data of Applicant’s invention. On page 16 Applicant asserts selecting data change records is not a mental process. Examiner disagrees as MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) says "the 'mental processes' abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions," and "nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer." The computer here is a generic computer and a tool for performing the action. Selecting data is evaluating and judging the data and is thus a mental process. While the claim may be rooted in computer technology, Examiner also disagrees that the problem is necessarily rooted in computer technology as selecting records from a storage and expiring them after a time has been done with files kept in a filing cabinet or a desk drawer and long before computers. On page 17 Applicant discusses Example 40 and asserts the claims here are eligible because a client can access data change records even after those records have expired, which solves the problem of clients being unable to access said data change records after specification paragraph 0002. Examiner disagrees and notes the points above about the claim limitations being broadly recited and without inventive details showing how the invention solves said problem. The claim limitations also are not cogent as they recite storing a plurality of data change records, then selecting only one or more data change records and archiving the selected one or more data change records, then expiring the plurality of data change records, then receiving a request for access to one or more data change records (the same one or more data change records?), then providing a data change record from the change stream or the persistent storage. Thus, in addition to the steps being recited broadly and without inventive details as explained above, there is no connection between the records such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would know which records are being stored, accessed, and then requested and provided. Conclusion 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. Inquiry Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE M MOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-1718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p. 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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571 270-5626. 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. /BRUCE M MOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154 12/21/25
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 05, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 27, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §101
Dec 30, 2024
Response Filed
Feb 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101
May 05, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
May 05, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
May 20, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 01, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101
Oct 02, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 02, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 07, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 21, 2025
Final Rejection — §101 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602403
SCALABLE PARALLEL CONSTRUCTION OF BOUNDING VOLUME HIERARCHIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12585717
System and Method for Recommending Users Based on Shared Digital Experiences
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12579198
TEXT STRING COMPARISON FOR DUPLICATE OR NEAR-DUPLICATE TEXT DOCUMENTS IDENTIFIED USING AUTOMATED NEAR-DUPLICATE DETECTION FOR TEXT DOCUMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12554783
USING DISCOVERED UNIFORM RESOURCE IDENTIFIER INFORMATION TO PERFORM EXPLOITATION TESTING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12530419
DATA MANAGEMENT APPARATUS, DATA MANAGEMENT METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY RECORDING MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+20.4%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 745 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