DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are pending for examination. Claim(s) 1, 9, and 17 have been amended. Claim 19 has been canceled. Claim 21 has been newly added. This action is Final
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/4/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The Office Action asserts that the claims "recite concepts performed in the human mind," and "fall within the 'Mental Processes' grouping of abstract ideas." Office Action at p. 10. Applicant disagrees and traverses the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With respect to the assertion that the claim recites an abstract idea, Applicant submits that the claims, at best, involve an exception and do not recite an exception. In this regard, the MPEP states that "Examiners should be careful to distinguish claims that recite an exception (which require further eligibility analysis) and claims that merely involve an exception (which are eligible and do not require further eligibility analysis)." MPEP § 2106.04(I)(A)(1) (emphasis in original). The present claims merely involve an exception, instead of reciting an exception. The claims, when taken as a whole, recite features directed to training and executing a machine learning model to identify a preferred channel for a channel switching operation that includes generating a time- stamped channel access token that may be validated to generate a validated channel access token that authenticates a user device to the preferred channel. While the claim may involve an abstract idea, when considered as a whole, the claims do not recite an abstract idea.
With respect to the assertion that the previously recited features, "outputting a valid channel access token configured to authenticate a user device on the preferred channel," is intended use, Applicant respectfully disagrees. However, Applicant has amended the feature to recite, "outputting a valid channel access token that authenticates a user device on the preferred channel."
Outputting any token, let alone a token that authenticates a user device on the preferred channel, cannot reasonably be performed in the human mind.
Accordingly, claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully notes that the claims do recite an exception, and further fall under the enumerated grouping of Mental Processes. The examiner respectfully notes as claimed, , “generate and store, at the omni channel processor, a standardized intent label," "map, at the omni channel processor and in the standardized intent label, the channel intent tags, channel variable fields, and channel ID with the functionality ID for each channel of the plurality of channels having an intent score above a pre-determined threshold," "receive, at the omni channel processor, a preferred channel, wherein the preferred channel is identified by: encompasses steps that a user can manually perform in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. The examiner respectfully notes that the human mind or a human using a pen and paper can output a preferred channel by inputting extracted intent features into a model and following the model to output the preferred channel. Therefore, the training and use of a machine learning model (i.e., to training and executing a machine learning model to identify) is noted to be a generic computer component. Further, the examiner notes that the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper can generate a time-stamped channel access token; validating the time-stamped channel access token based on an authentication token; and outputting a valid channel access token that authenticates a user device on the preferred channel. Further, the examiner notes a valid access token that authenticates a user device on the preferred channel is still noted to be the intended use (emphasis added) of a valid channel access token; while it claims states is authenticates a user device on the preferred channel there is no positive recitation of that step being performed. The examiner respectfully notes human using a pen and paper can generate a token, validate a token, and output a further token. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: The claims clearly recite a practical application of any alleged abstract idea. For example, claim 1 recites multiple, specific, detailed, unique steps performed by or at particular devices to train and execute a machine learning model to identify a preferred channel for a channel switching operation that includes generating a time-stamped channel access token that may be validated to generate a validated channel access token that authenticates a user device to the preferred channel. The claims are necessarily rooted in technology. Thus, even if claim 1 is directed to a mental process, clearly the remaining features of the claims, particularly when considered in combination, integrate the alleged mental process into a practical application.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully notes that the training and use of a machine learning model to identify a preferred channel (i.e., output) is noted to be an additional element that is described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. This element in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, as noted above, the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper can generate a time-stamped channel access token; validating the time-stamped channel access token based on an authentication token; and outputting a valid channel access token that authenticates a user device on the preferred channel. The examiner respectfully notes human using a pen and paper can generate a token, validate a token, and output a further token. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: The features of the claims clearly impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception such that the claim is "more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception." See 2019 Guidance at 13-14. In other words, claim 1 does not monopolize every possible mental process, or any alleged abstract idea, but instead is limited to a practical application, including particular steps relying on particular devices and performed in a particular order.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The alleged particular device (i.e., system for use in a seamless channel switching process) amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: As discussed in the October 2019 Update, "the limitations containing the judicial exception, as well as the additional elements in the claim besides the judicial exception need to be evaluated together to determine whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional limitations should not be evaluated in a vacuum..." October 2019 Update at p. 12. As discussed above, "taking into consideration all the claim limitations and how those limitations interact and impact each other," as required in the October 2019 update when evaluating whether the exception is integrated into a practical application, it is clear that the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. (Emphasis added). Therefore, claim 1 is not "directed to" a judicial exception, and thus is patent eligible. See 2019 Guidance at 13.
The 2019 Guidance explains that when a claim integrates a recited exception "into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is eligible at Prong Two of revised Step 2A. This concludes the eligibility analysis." 2019 Guidance at 16. But if the claim is not patent eligible at Step 2A, further analysis is still required under Step 2B. See 2019 Guidance at 16; see also 22-24. "Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself." MPEP 2106.05.
When the language of each claim feature is considered, both alone and in combination, it is clear that the claims recite significantly more than merely a mental processor, or any alleged abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(a) (noting that "it is critical that examiners look at the claim 'as a whole,' in other words, the claim should be evaluated 'as an ordered combination, without ignoring the requirements of the individual steps"'). Further, the claim features are necessarily rooted in computer technology, and include particular processes and devices for training and executing a machine learning model to identify a preferred channel for a channel switching operation that includes generating a time-stamped channel access token that may be validated to generate a validated channel access token configured to authenticate a user device to the preferred channel. Clearly, the features recited in the claims recite significantly more any alleged abstract idea.
For at least these reasons, Applicant submits that claim 1 is patent-eligible and requests that the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn.
Independent claims 9 and 17 recite features similar to claim 1 and are directed to patent- eligible subject matter for at least the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. The dependent claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter for at least the same reasons as their respective base claims and further in view of the various features recited in those claims.
Accordingly, Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A - The additional elements as identified are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. These elements in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Further, with respect to Step 2B - The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of for claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 9 and 17, i.e., enterprise computing platform, various forms of processor(s), memory/media including a training/use of machine learning model. - amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually or in combination. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1-18 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: claim(s) 1-18 and 20-21 are directed to a machine, process, and/or manufacture. Therefore, the claims are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 (Step 1: YES). See MPEP 2106.03.
Prong 1, Step 2A: claim 1, and similar claim(s) 9 and 17, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations that recite an abstract idea:
receive
receive
process,
process,
generate and store
map,
receive,
extracting, from the incoming intent tags, intent features;
inputting, to
executing
process,
send,
generating a time-stamped channel access token:
validating the time-stamped channel access token based on an authentication token; and
outputting a valid channel access token that authenticates a user device on the preferred channel.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), in that they recite as concepts performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. That is, other than reciting for claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 9 and 17, i.e., enterprise computing platform, various forms of processor(s), memory/media including a training/use of machine learning model - nothing in these claim element(s) precludes the step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations for claim 1, and similar claim(s) 9 and 17, includes receiving incoming channel data a requested transaction w/ intent tags and a plurality of channel functionality data; process to determine a functionality ID associated with the transaction; process the intent tags to determine an intent score; generate and store a standardized intent label; map in the standardized intent label, the channel intent tags, channel variable fields, and channel ID with the functionality ID for each channel of the plurality of channels having an intent score above a pre-determined threshold; ...outputting a preferred channel...; the standardized intent label based on the channel ID matching the preferred channel to determine preferred intent tags and preferred variable fields associated with the preferred channel; wherein the switching channel process includes... generating a token..., validating the token..., and outputting a valid... token [configured to authenticate a user device on the preferred channel (i.e., limitation in bracket is noted to be intended use)] and send the preferred intent tags and the preferred variable fields used in a channel switching process for the requested transaction, thus, encompasses steps that a user can manually perform in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, these claims recite an abstract idea. (Prong 1, Step 2A: YES). The types of identified abstract ideas are considered together as a single abstract idea for analysis purposes.
Prong 2, Step 2A: Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 9 and 17, recite i.e., enterprise computing platform, various forms of processor(s), memory/media including a training/use of machine learning model. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration (see Applicant’s Specification, ⁋[0048], ⁋[0058], and ⁋[0073]). These elements in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As such, under Prong 2 of Step 2A, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of Claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 9 and 17 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Prong 2, Step 2A: NO). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Since claim 1, and similar claim(s) 9 and 17 recites an abstract idea and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claim 1, and similar claim(s) 9 and 17 is “directed to” an abstract idea under Step 2A (Step 2A: YES). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B: The recitation of the additional elements is acknowledged, as identified above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A. These additional elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea for the same reasons as addressed above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of for claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 9 and 17, i.e., enterprise computing platform, various forms of processor(s), memory/media including a training/use of machine learning model. - amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually or in combination. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claim 1, and similar claim(s) 9 and 17 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO). See MPEP 2106.05.
Accordingly, under the Subject Matter Eligibility test, claim 1, and similar claim(s) 9 and 17 is ineligible.
Regarding Claims 2-8, 10-16, 18, and 20-21, claims 2-8, 10-16, 18, and 20-21 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above w/ respect to “Mental Processes” as the claims recite further concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, i.e., further limitations involving channel switching. These dependent claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; as such elements are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts not more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (i.e., Claim 21 – deep link providing access). Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do no not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Reasons For No Prior Art Rejection
See the reasoning provided in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on July 28th, 2025.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASFAND M SHEIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-1466. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7a-3p (MDT).
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, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at (571)270-3445. 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.
/ASFAND M SHEIKH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626