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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/29/26 has been entered.
In amendments dated4/29/26, Applicant amended claims 21, 27, and 35, canceled no claims, and added no new claims. Claims 21-40 are presented for examination.
Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the third limitation recites “the data change records” which lacks antecedent basis; and
the second-to-last limitation recites “for a first request of the requests for access to a corresponding 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” but “the persistent storage lacks antecedent basis.
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 receiving configuration of a configurable change stream retention period after which one or more of the data change records become inaccessible from the change stream, wherein the received configuration is one of a plurality of different configurations supported by the data change archiving system, which is a data gathering step and insignificant extra-solution activity; storing, for the configurable change stream retention period, 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, which is insignificant extra-solution activity; archiving, 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, which is insignificant extra-solution activity; receiving requests from a client of the clients for access to one or more of the data change records, which is a data gathering step and insignificant extra-solution activity; for a first request of the requests for access to a corresponding data change record, of the requested one or more data change records, that has expired from the change stream, providing the data change record from the persistent storage, which is an output step and insignificant extra-solution activity; and for a second request of the requests for access to a corresponding data change record, of the requested one or more data change records, that has not expired from the change stream, providing the data change record from the change stream, which 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 configuration of a configurable change stream retention period, receiving requests for access to one or more of the data change records, and providing the data change records are highly general and amount to receiving and sending data across a network per specification paragraphs 0022, 0025, and 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).
Relevant Prior Art
During his search for prior art, Examiner found the following reference to be relevant to Applicant's claimed invention. Said reference is listed on the Notice of References form included in this office action:
Long et al (US 20150081640) teaches a storage, analytics, and data protection system for computing devices on a management server teaches tracking changes in a data stream which can be kept or removed at intervals and storing data changes made and records changed in discovery points selected and retained for a period of time, does not teach a cloud-based storage, receiving requests for data change records, providing expired change records, and selecting data points for archiving, (paragraphs 0018-0020, 0031, 0067-0068, 0091, 0098 figures 5, 6A).
Responses to Applicant’s Remarks
Regarding the objection to claim 1 for antecedent basis of “a request for access” in the seventh limitation, in view of amendments reciting the requests, this objection is withdrawn. Regarding the objection to claim 1 for antecedent basis of “one or more of the data change records” in the seventh limitation, this objection is withdrawn. Regarding rejections to claims 21-40 under 35 U.S.C 101 for reciting abstract ideas without significantly more, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. On pages 10-11 of his Remarks, Applicant asserts "the Office has interpreted Applicant's particularly-recited technique of automatically archiving data store log data that would otherwise automatically expire as a generic 'mental process without significantly more.'" Examiner notes the claim recites nothing about log data and the archiving limitation recites nothing about log data otherwise expiring. Applicant further asserts "this interpretation is improperly over-broad because it ignores the specific logical structures recited in the claims (e.g., the storage of data objects, the receipt of a value for and use of a configurable change stream retention period, the storage of change stream records, the selection of the data change records prior to expiration of the retention period, the archiving of the change records, the expiration of the data change records, and the providing of data change records even though the data change records have expired from the change stream)." Examiner disagrees as the logical structures recited are not specific, for example the structures Applicant lists do describe the how objects or change stream records are stored, how a change stream retention period is configured, how records are expired from the change stream, and how data change records are provided even though records have expired from the change stream. The steps of selecting and expiring data change records are also missing the "how" of the actions as a BRI of each include evaluating the data change records and are therefore mental processes.
On pages 11-12 Applicant asserts the claim recites a practical application because “it describes an improvement to the technology of digital data storage system” and “a technical solution to the problem of data change records that would otherwise become inaccessible after an expiration period.” Examiner disagrees as the steps recite a generic cloud-based storage service and a data change archiving system that stores data changes records, archives selected data change records, expires the records somehow, and provides the records that have been stored, and does not recite details showing how the invention achieves an improvement to a digital storage system or an improvement to the problem of data change records that would otherwise become inaccessible after an expiration period. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states “if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.” On page 13 Applicant mentions the amended limitations “receive requests from a client of the clients for access to one or more of the data change records; for a first request of the requests for access to a corresponding 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 second request of the requests for access to a corresponding 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.” Examiner notes these are routine and conventional activities as shown in the rejections above. These steps receive requests from a client and then provide a data change record from either a persistent storage of the change stream depending on if the data change records have expired or not from the change stream. Thus these steps are merely checking the change records’ expired status and then providing them. These steps are performed at a high level of generality per MPEP 2106.05(d) and do not contribute to an inventive concept.
On pages 13-14 Applicant discusses the combination of the elements of (A) storing data change records, (B) selecting data change records, (C) archiving the selected data change records, and (D) request for access to a data change record that has expired or not, as not being generic computer functionality. Examiner disagrees and notes the steps are not a particular application of the steps of the invention but are general steps showing how a person of ordinary skill in the art might store data change records, retain them for a period, and provide those records during or after the retention period. On page 15 Applicant asserts “the Office provides no explanation of how a human mind could possibly select such data change records from a computer-based data change archiving system.” Examiner disagrees as the selecting step uses a generic computer as a tool and an explanation or how selecting is a mental process is given in the rejections above and Examiner refers Applicant to page 7 of his 12/29/25 final action. Examiner also notes that 2106.05(I) states "As made clear by the courts, the 'novelty' of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining *whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." On pages 15-16 Applicant discusses Example 40 and asserts “a record of changes to data objects in a data store is made accessible to clients for a longer window of time using relatively low-cost storage resource,” which is a solution to the technical problem of inaccessibility described above. Examiner still disagrees and refers Applicant to his discussion of this on page 7 of his 12/29/25 Office 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 7/11/26
Prosecution Insights