DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office action is in response to Applicant’s communication filed on August 10, 2026. Election of claims 1-10 with traverse in response to Restriction/Election requirement is acknowledged by the Examiner. Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claims 11-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention as discussed below. Applicants are respectfully requested to cancel the non-elected withdrawn claims 11-20 in their reply to this office action. Claims 1-10 have been examined. The response to arguments, rejections and a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter over prior art are stated below.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments about election of claims 1-10 with traverse have been noted but are not persuasive. The reasons for restricting the claims were already presented in the last Office action mailed on June 10, 2026 and hence not repeated here. The inventions are distinct from one another as is obvious from the steps and features of the inventions and their separate utility. Also, there would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required because the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different databases, different electronic resources, and/or employing different search queries) even though they are classified in the same CPC Class/Subclass. Applicant’s assertion that given the common architecture, shared limitations, and shared classification, the search and examination of an entire application can be made without serious burden is not a test of serious burden in examining all the claims together. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Hence, the restriction of inventions is maintained by the Examiner. Applicants are respectfully requested to cancel the non-elected withdrawn claims 11-20 in their reply to this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite computing a health score of the server based on the metrics by calculating weighted scores of a plurality of factors based on the one or more parameters, and processing the transaction request by the server based on the health score of the server meeting a criterion, which is considered a judicial exception because it falls under the category of “Certain Methods of organizing human activity” such as fundamental economic practice as well as commercial or legal interactions including agreements as discussed below. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as discussed below. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Analysis
Step 1: In the instant case, exemplary claim 1 is directed to a system (apparatus).
Step 2A – Prong One: The limitations of “A system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory comprising computer program code, the memory and the computer program code configured to, with the processor, cause the processor to:
receive a transaction request from an entity;
determine metrics for one or more parameters associated with a server, wherein the one or more parameters comprise a last server response timestamp, a last known server health status, a server heartbeat, and a total request strike since last server response;
compute a health score of the server based on the metrics by calculating weighted scores of a plurality of factors based on the one or more parameters, wherein the health score is computed by averaging and summating the weighted scores of the plurality of factors, the plurality of factors comprising a server alive time score, a request strike score, a server health status score, and a server heartbeat score;
determine whether the health score of the server meets a criterion; and
process the transaction request by the server based on the health score of the server meeting the criterion” as drafted, when considered collectively as an ordered combination without the italicized portions, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the category of “Certain Methods of organizing human activity” such as fundamental economic practice as well as commercial or legal interactions including agreements.
Processing the transaction request by the server based on the health score of the server meeting the criterion is a fundamental economic practice such as processing a transaction. The steps of the claim, considered collectively as an ordered combination, without the italicized portions, is fulfilling agreements between the parties to the agreement. Hence, the steps of the claim, considered collectively as an ordered combination without the italicized portions, covers the abstract category of “Certain Methods of organizing human activity”.
That is, other than, a processor, a memory comprising computer program code, and servers nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being performed as a method of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements of a processor, a memory comprising computer program code, and servers to perform all the steps. A plain reading of Figures 1-9 and associated descriptions in the Specification reveals that that the processor may be a generic processor suitably programmed to execute the claimed steps. The memory comprising computer program code is broadly interpreted to include generic memory to store the computer program code. The servers may be generic servers suitably programmed to perform the associated functions. Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements in all the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements (identified above) to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, independent claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10, when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations only refine the abstract idea further.
For instance, in claim 2, the steps “wherein the scores of the plurality of factors are calculated based on the following expressions: (stated in the Claim)” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because these steps describe the scores of the plurality of factors used in the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claim 3, the step “wherein the health score is computed based on the following expression (stated in the claim)” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is a further refinement of methods of organizing human activity because this step describes the formula used in the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claim 4, the step “wherein the criterion comprises determining a rate of change of the health score of the server” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is a further refinement of methods of organizing human activity because this step describes the criterion used in the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claim 5, the steps “wherein the weighted scores of the plurality of factors comprise:
calculating the server alive time score based on a server response time threshold and a last response timestamp;
calculating the request strike score based on a maximum request strike threshold and a total request strike since last server response; and
calculating the server health status score based on last known server health status” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because these steps describe the weighted scores used in the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claims 6-7, the steps “wherein determining that the health score of the server meets the criterion comprises determining that the health score of the server is positive” and
“wherein determining that the health score of the server meets the criterion comprises determining that the health score of the server is equal to and/or above a threshold” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because these steps describe the criterion used in the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claims 8 and 9, the steps “wherein a probe is sent to the server for determining metrics for each of the one or more parameters periodically” and
“wherein the probe is sent over a channel for determining the metrics for each of the one or more parameters and receiving the metrics over a same channel” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are further refinements of methods of organizing human activity because these steps describe the intermediate steps of the underlying process.
In claim 10, the step “wherein determining that the health score of the server meets the criterion comprises calculating a server heartbeat score at a location physically remote from the server” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is a further refinement of methods of organizing human activity because this step describes an intermediate step of the underlying process.
In all the dependent claims, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Also, the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; the claims do not affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In addition, the dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For these reasons, the dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 1-10 would be allowable, over prior art, if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter over prior art:
The closest prior art of record, (Gaurav, Rastogi et al. US Patent 10313211 B1 and Cheng R. G. et al. US Patent 10142241 B1), considered individually or in combination, fail to teach the steps of “determine metrics for one or more parameters associated with a server, wherein the one or more parameters comprise a last server response timestamp, a last known server health status, a server heartbeat, and a total request strike since last server response; and compute a health score of the server based on the metrics by calculating weighted scores of a plurality of factors based on the one or more parameters, wherein the health score is computed by averaging and summating the weighted scores of the plurality of factors, the plurality of factors comprising a server alive time score, a request strike score, a server health status score, and a server heartbeat score”. Page 3 of 13Appl. No.: 14/331,106For these reasons claim 1 is deemed allowable over prior art. Dependent claims 2-10 are allowable over prior art by virtue of dependency on an allowable claim.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
(a) Sukhija; Rohit et al. (US Pub. 2022/0292504 A1) discloses a method and system for dynamically processing financial transactions. The method includes receiving a transaction request including at least one unique identifier field to transfer payment into an account associated with a payment instrument and authorizing the transaction request based on one or more predetermined rules. The payment instrument is used at an electronic device by a merchant for transfer of the payment from a merchant account. Thereafter, the method includes generating a direct fund transfer message based on the at least one unique identifier field upon authorization of the transaction request and transmitting the direct fund transfer message to an issuer associated with the merchant account for authentication of the direct fund transfer message. Lastly, the method includes transferring dynamically the payment from the merchant account to the account associated with the payment instrument when the direct fund transfer message is authenticated by the issuer.
(b) Kumawat; Jaipal Singh et al. (US Pub. 2022/0012557 A1) discloses methods and systems for determining and displaying health status of a payment card. The payment card includes a planar body, an interconnection circuit, and a display section. The planar body houses a payment card processing section. The interconnection circuit is configured within the planar body. The interconnection circuit is configured to generate a damage signal in response to a physical damage of at least a portion of the planar body or the payment card processing section. The display section is positioned in the planar body for displaying a visual information indicating health status of the payment card in response to the damage signal for a cardholder.
7. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Narayanswamy Subramanian whose telephone number is (571) 272-6751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at (571) 270-1836. The fax number for Formal or Official faxes and Draft to the Patent Office 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.
/Narayanswamy Subramanian/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3691
August 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights