DETAILED ACTION
This is an office action on the merits in response to the communication filed on 7/31/2025.
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 .
Response to Arguments
101
Applicant describes that the additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees, please see the revised 101 below.
As described in the specification, the recitation of a neural network running on a computer only describes a computer running a software program, and not actual application of the neural network to improve the function of a computer of a technological environment. The information in the disclosure provides overall data about machine learning but does not provide any practical application of it. Therefore, it does not automatically transform the abstract idea into a practical application, especially in this case where there is no evidence in the disclosure of the recited system implementing a neural network. As such, 101 rejection is maintained.
103
Applicant’s argument is moot in light of a new art and new grounds of rejection due to amended claims.
Claims’ Status
Claims 16-20 are canceled. Claims 1 and 10 are amended. Claims 1-15 are pending and are considered in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 and 10 each recites “the unsupervised neural network being trained to customize real accounts and fake accounts… display the real account with the actual account balance when the real password is entered using the deployed unsupervised neural network; display the fake account having the fake account balance when the fake password is entered using the deployed unsupervised neural network”. This is a new matter and the specification does not provider support thereof. Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-15 are also rejected.
Claim 10 recites “a back-end server operating an digital application and including: at least one processor for processing data and information using a machine learning model; a communications interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and a memory device storing data and executable code that, when executed, causes the at least one processor to: transform, …machine learning models; and… train, …. an unsupervised neural network… inserting the training test data …
repeatedly predicting the target variable during multiple versions of the training …deploy the unsupervised neural network.” According to the specification [0068-0090], “an artificial intelligence programming system 200 including an AI processor 202, such as a dedicated processing device, that operates an artificial intelligence program, where the processor 202 includes a front-end sub-processor 204 and a back-end sub-processor 206. The algorithms associated with the front-end sub-processor 204 and the back-end sub-processor 206 may be stored in an associated memory device and/or storage device, such as memory device 208 communicatively coupled to the AI processor 202, as shown. Additionally, the system 200 may include a memory 212 storing one or more instructions necessary for operating the AI program.” The specification does not provide support for a backend server operating a digital application that also transforms data and trains an unsupervised neural network. There is no specification support for the claimed limitations. Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-15 are also rejected.
Claim 10 recites “repeatedly predicting the target variable during multiple versions of the training and testing loop, each version of the multiple versions having differing weights applied to one or more nodes in one or more layers of the unsupervised neural network, each of the differing weights being updated with each of the multiple versions of the training and testing loop to reduce error in predicting the target variable, which improves predictability of the target variable and functionality of the unsupervised neural network.” According to the specification (para 65, 67, 70, 71, 89), “At box 242, model training, a core step of the machine learning work flow, is implemented. A model architecture is trained in the iterative training and testing loop. For example, features in the training test data are used to train the model based on weights and iterative calculations in which the target variable may be incorrectly predicted in an early iteration as determined by comparison at box 244, where the model is tested. Subsequent iterations of the model training at the box 242 may be conducted with updated weights in the calculations.” The specification does not provide written description support for repeatedly predicting a target variable during multiple versions of the training and testing loop, each version of the multiple versions having differing weights applied to one or more nodes in one or more layers of the unsupervised neural network, each of the differing weights being updated with each of the multiple versions of the training and testing loop to reduce error in predicting the target variable, which improves predictability of the target variable and functionality of the unsupervised neural network. Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-15 are also rejected.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application) without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03
Per Step 1, claim 1 and 10 are system claims. Thus, independent claims 1 and 10 are directed to statutory subject matter.
However, independent claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Independent claims 1 recites (claims 1 and 10 being similar in scope):
Claim 1:
transform, via data cleaning, ingested data into a standardized training format for training machine learning models; and train, using training test data in the standardized training format, an unsupervised neural network utilizing interconnected nodes, the unsupervised neural network being trained to customize real accounts and fake accounts, the training including: inserting the training test data into an iterative training and testing loop to predict a target variable; and repeatedly predicting the target variable during multiple versions of the training and testing loop, each version of the multiple versions having differing weights applied to one or more nodes in one or more layers of the unsupervised neural network, each of the differing weights being updated with each of the multiple versions of the training and testing loop to reduce error in predicting the target variable, which improves predictability of the target variable and functionality of the unsupervised neural network; deploy the unsupervised neural network; allow a user to set up a real account tied to a real password having an actual account balance; display the real account with the actual account balance when the real password is entered using the deployed unsupervised neural network; allow a user to set up a fake account tied to a fake password having a fake account balance, where the fake account balance is not actual funds; and display the fake account having the fake account balance when the fake password is entered using the deployed unsupervised neural network.
Step 2A Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon MPEP 2106.04, see also October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update (issued October 17, 2019) (“2019 PEG Update”).
The limitations, as drafted, constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers 1) fundamental economic principles or practices for mitigating risk under the Certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, using spoofed credentials for enhanced security in digital applications is comparable to mitigating risk. The abstract idea, recited above, is: allow a user to set up a real account tied to a real password having an actual account balance; display the real account with the actual account balance when the real password is entered; allow a user to set up a fake account tied to a fake password having a fake account balance, where the fake account balance is not actual funds; and display the fake account having the fake account balance when the fake password is entered. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices for mitigating risk, but for the recitation of generic computer components, it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – 1) fundamental economic principles or practices for mitigating risk. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04, see also 2019 PEG Update.
The recited computing elements (claims 1 and 10: “a back-end server”; “at least one processor”; “a communication interface“; a memory) are recited at a high-level of generality, i.e. as generic computing element performing generic computer functions such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, since it amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, as set forth in MPEP 2106.05(f).
The other additional elements are “transform, via data cleaning, ingested data into a standardized training format for training machine learning models; and train, using training test data in the standardized training format, an unsupervised neural network utilizing interconnected nodes, the unsupervised neural network being trained to customize real accounts and fake accounts, the training including: inserting the training test data into an iterative training and testing loop to predict a target variable; and repeatedly predicting the target variable during multiple versions of the training and testing loop, each version of the multiple versions having differing weights applied to one or more nodes in one or more layers of the unsupervised neural network, each of the differing weights being updated with each of the multiple versions of the training and testing loop to reduce error in predicting the target variable, which improves predictability of the target variable and functionality of the unsupervised neural network; deploy the unsupervised neural network.” According to the disclosure(¶ 65, 67, 70, 71, 89) “As used herein, an artificial intelligence system, artificial intelligence algorithm, artificial intelligence module, program, and the like, generally refer to computer implemented programs that are suitable to simulate intelligent behavior (i.e., intelligent human behavior) and/or computer systems and associated programs suitable to perform tasks that typically require a human to perform, such as tasks requiring visual perception, speech recognition, decision-making, translation, and the like. … RNNs typically include feedback loops/connections between layers of the topography, thus allowing parameter data to be communicated between different parts of the neural network…. the machine learning module may include an RNN configured for language processing, e.g., an RNN configured to perform statistical language modeling to predict the next word in a string based on the previous words. ” First, the specification does not provide an explanation for the recited “backend server” performing this subject matter relating to a neural network. Secondly, the specification does not provide an explanation for what “repeatedly predicting the target variable during multiple versions of the training and testing loop, each version of the multiple versions having differing weights applied to one or more nodes in one or more layers of the unsupervised neural network, each of the differing weights being updated with each of the multiple versions of the training and testing loop to reduce error in predicting the target variable, which improves predictability of the target variable and functionality of the unsupervised neural network” means, nor does it breach any connection for the neural network to a transaction. Finally, as described in the disclosure, the recitation of a neural network running on a computer describes a computer running a software program, and not actual application of said neural network to improve the function of a computer of a technological environment. The information in the specification provides overall data about machine learning but does not provide any practical application of it. It does not automatically transform the abstract idea into a practical application, especially in this case where there is no evidence in the specification of the recited system implementing a neural network.
Accordingly, these additional claim elements, alone and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda memo). Therefore, per Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim is directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B of the eligibility analysis concludes that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner carries over the analysis from Step 2A related to the generic computing elements being no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional claim elements that are just “applying it” or “generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, are carried over for further analysis in Step 2B.
When the independent claims are considered as a whole, as a combination, the claim elements noted above do not amount to any more than they amount to individually. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. Therefore, it is concluded that the elements of the independent claims are directed to one or more abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05)
Further, Step 2B of the analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well, both individually and as a whole, as a combination:
Claims 2-7 are further directed to additional abstract ideas because the steps performed are simply narrowing the scope of the abstract idea of claim 1 since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention. For example, claim 2 further describes determining or customizing the fake account balance to be in the fake account ; claim 3 further describes that the fake account balance is much less than the actual account balance; claim 4 describes allowing the user to appear to transfer funds but not actually transfer the funds ; claim 5 describes the appearance of transferring the funds is in response to a criminal act; claim 6 describes causing authorities to be notified; claim 7 describes notifying the authorities the user’s location, which all of the limitation are simply narrowing the steps performed in claim 1.
Claim 8 and 9 are not directed to any additional abstract ideas but are directed to non-functional descriptive material. Claim 8 describes the digital application is an online banking application; claim 9 describes the fake account can be either a checking or saving account or both. These non-functional descriptive material also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Moreover, the claims in the instant application do not constitute significantly more also because the claims or claim elements only serve to implement the abstract idea using computer components to perform computing functions (Enfish, see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Specifically, the computing system encompasses general purpose hardware and software modules.
The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified in the independent claims as an abstract idea. The fact that the associated computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility. In sum, the additional elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention. The other dependent claims (claim 11-15 and 17-20), which are similar in scope to the dependent claims 2-9, are rejected for the same reason as above. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application do not amount to significantly more either. (see MPEP 2106.05)
In sum, claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 20160378961) and further in view of Hoffman (US 20220383325) (“Hoffman”).
With respect to claim 1
Park teaches the limitations of:
back-end server operating a digital application and including: at least one processor for processing data and information; a communications interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and a memory device storing data and executable code that, when executed, causes the at least one processor to (¶ 30, 39, 41, 62, 83, 90, 98-101, 105, 155, 162, 163, 208-210; claim 12 and 27):
allow a user to set up a real account tied to a real password having an actual account balance (¶163, FIG. 3(a) is a view showing a normal inquiry result displayed on a screen of the banking device when a normal user inputs an authentication code for checking an account to the banking device 600; see Fig.3A, ¶20, 22, 102,110-112, 120, 122, 163, 172-175, 186);
display the real account with the actual account balance when the real password is entered sing the deployed unsupervised neutral network (¶163, FIG. 3(a) is a view showing a normal inquiry result displayed on a screen of the banking device when a normal user inputs an authentication code for checking an account to the banking device 600; see Fig.3A, ¶20, 22, 102,110-112, 120, 122, 163, 172-175, 186, 212);
allow a user to set up a fake account tied to a fake password having a fake account balance, where the fake account balance is not actual funds (¶163, On the other hand, FIG. 3(b) is a view showing a dummy display displayed on the screen when a criminal or a user threatened by a criminal inputs a dummy control code including an additional code having an additional function to masquerade as an authentication code to execute a dummy display into the banking device 600 as a code for checking account… The online service server recognizes that the received security code is the dummy control code for checking an account and transmits a very small amount of virtual account balance information preset by a user to the banking device 600; see also claim 8, ¶38-41, 64, 65, 76-82, 115, 162-167, 183.); and
display the fake account having the fake account balance when the fake password is entered using the deployed unsupervised neutral network (¶163, On the other hand, FIG. 3(b) is a view showing a dummy display displayed on the screen when a criminal or a user threatened by a criminal inputs a dummy control code including an additional code having an additional function to masquerade as an authentication code to execute a dummy display into the banking device 600 as a code for checking account… The online service server recognizes that the received security code is the dummy control code for checking an account and transmits a very small amount of virtual account balance information preset by a user to the banking device 600.; see also claim 8, ¶38-41, 64, 65, 76-82, 115, 162-167, 183.)
Park doesn’t explicitly disclose, but Hoffman teaches:
transform, via data cleaning, ingested data into a standardized training format for training machine learning models (¶ 1159-1179); and
train, using training test data in the standardized training format, an unsupervised neural network utilizing interconnected nodes, the unsupervised neural network being trained to customize real accounts and fake accounts, the training including (¶ 1159-1179):
inserting the training test data into an iterative training and testing loop to predict a target variable (¶ 1159-1179); and
repeatedly predicting the target variable during multiple versions of the training and testing loop, each version of the multiple versions having differing weights applied to one or more nodes in one or more layers of the unsupervised neural network, each of the differing weights being updated with each of the multiple versions of the training and testing loop to reduce error in predicting the target variable, which improves predictability of the target variable and functionality of the unsupervised neural network (¶ 1159-1179);
deploy the unsupervised neural network (¶ 1159-1179);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Park(¶ 41), which teaches “the dummy display displayed on the banking device includes at least one of displaying a preset balance instead of an actual balance, pretending to perform account transfer” and Hoffman(¶ 1170), which teaches “which provide Rule-Modules 50, comprising any one of the following: predictive fraud, predictive purchasing patterns, predictive rewards redemption, predictive risk-management tools, predictive Financial Account 65 preferences,” in order to protect a user from fraudulent transactions (Hoffman; ¶ 1165).
With respect to claim 4
The combination of Park and Hoffman teaches the limitations of claim 1. Park further teaches: wherein the at least one processor allows the user to appear to transfer funds from the fake account to an external account, but not actually transfer the funds (see claim 8, wherein the security code is a password for performing at least one of account balance inquiry, account transfer, and cash withdrawal; and wherein the dummy display displayed on the banking device comprises at least one of displaying a preset balance instead of an actual balance, pretending to perform account transfer, and pretending that a user account has been frozen due to debt; see also [0079], The dummy display may include at least one of dummy account balance information, dummy account transfer information, dummy account transfer error information, and dummy system error information.)
With respect to claim 5
The combination of Park and Hoffman teaches the limitations of claim 4. Park further teaches: wherein the appearance of transferring the funds is in response to a criminal act (¶163, Thus, it is expected that a criminal threatening a user to obtain account balance information will consider the virtual account balance as an actual account balance and run away, giving up on the idea of withdrawing money. In addition to account inquiry, for account transfer, it is possible to display fake account transfer on a screen of the banking device 600 without conducting an actual account transfer such that a criminal believes account transfer has been performed.)
With respect to claim 6
The combination of Park and Hoffman teaches the limitations of claim 1. Park further teaches: wherein the at least one processor causes authorities to be notified when the fake password is entered (¶129, 163, 169, 173.)
With respect to claim 7
The combination of Park and Hoffman teaches the limitations of claim 6. Park further teaches: wherein the authorities are notified of the user's location (¶129, 163, 169, 173; claim 24.)
With respect to claim 8
The combination of Park and Hoffman teaches the limitations of claim 1. Park further teaches: wherein the digital application is an online banking application or a mobile banking application (¶52.)
With respect to claim 9
The combination of Park and Hoffman teaches the limitations of claim 1. Park further teaches: wherein the fake account can be a fake checking account, a fake savings account or both a fake checking account and fake savings account (¶163.)
Claims 2, 3, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Park (US20160378961) in view of Hoffman (US 20220383325), and further in view of Wu (US20110102141).
With respect to claim 2
The combination of Park and Hoffman teaches the limitations of claim 1. The combination does not explicitly disclose, but Wu teaches: wherein the at least one processor allows the user to determine or customize the fake account balance to be in the fake account (¶106)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Wu with the teaching of Park/Hoffman as they relate to user authentication method. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention was made would have modifying the combined systems of Park/Hoffman, for example displaying dummy screen on a banking device which includes at least one of displaying a preset balance instead of an actual balance, pretending to perform account transfer in Park, to include a method of customizing a fake account balance in the fake account as taught by Wu for the predicated result of an improved payment transaction system.
With respect to claim 3
The combination of Park, Hoffman, and Wu teaches the limitations of claim 2. Park further teaches: wherein the fake account balance is much less than the actual account balance (¶163, On the other hand, FIG. 3(b) is a view showing a dummy display displayed on the screen when a criminal or a user threatened by a criminal inputs a dummy control code including an additional code having an additional function to masquerade as an authentication code to execute a dummy display into the banking device 600 as a code for checking account. If a dummy control code for checking an account is input to the banking device 600, the dummy control code is transmitted to an online service server (not shown) of a relevant banking institution, which is a service providing system. Here, the dummy control code may be configured as a dummy code which has the same format as a normal authentication code but is different from a normal authentication code. The online service server recognizes that the received security code is the dummy control code for checking an account and transmits a very small amount of virtual account balance information preset by a user to the banking device 600.; see also claim 8, ¶38-41, 64, 65, 76-82, 115, 162-167, 183.)
With respect to claim 10
Park teaches the limitations of:
a back-end server operating an online banking or a mobile banking application and including:
at least one processor for processing data and information;
a communications interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and
a memory device storing data and executable code that, when executed, causes the at least one processor to (¶ 30, 39, 41, 62, 83, 90, 98-101, 105, 155, 162, 163, 208-210; claim 12 and 27):
allow a user to set up a real account tied to a real password having an actual account balance (¶163, FIG. 3(a) is a view showing a normal inquiry result displayed on a screen of the banking device when a normal user inputs an authentication code for checking an account to the banking device 600; see Fig.3A, ¶20, 22, 102,110-112, 120, 122, 163, 172-175, 186);
display the real account with the actual account balance when the real password is entered using the deployed unsupervised neutral network (¶163, FIG. 3(a) is a view showing a normal inquiry result displayed on a screen of the banking device when a normal user inputs an authentication code for checking an account to the banking device 600; see Fig.3A, ¶20, 22, 102,110-112, 120, 122, 163, 172-175, 186, 212);
allow a user to set up a fake account tied to a fake password having a fake account balance, where the fake account balance is not actual funds (¶163, The banking device 600 displays the virtual account balance information. Thus, it is expected that a criminal threatening a user to obtain account balance information will consider the virtual account balance as an actual account balance and run away, giving up on the idea of withdrawing money. In addition to account inquiry, for account transfer, it is possible to display fake account transfer on a screen of the banking device 600 without conducting an actual account transfer such that a criminal believes account transfer has been performed; see also claim 8, ¶38-41, 64, 65, 76-82, 115, 162-167, 183.);
display the fake account having the fake account balance when the fake password is entered using the deployed unsupervised neutral network (¶163, On the other hand, FIG. 3(b) is a view showing a dummy display displayed on the screen when a criminal or a user threatened by a criminal inputs a dummy control code including an additional code having an additional function to masquerade as an authentication code to execute a dummy display into the banking device 600 as a code for checking account… The online service server recognizes that the received security code is the dummy control code for checking an account and transmits a very small amount of virtual account balance information preset by a user to the banking device 600.; see also claim 8, ¶38-41, 64, 65, 76-82, 115, 162-167, 183.); and
allow the user to appear to transfer funds from the fake account to an external account, but not actually transfer the funds (see claim 8, wherein the security code is a password for performing at least one of account balance inquiry, account transfer, and cash withdrawal; and wherein the dummy display displayed on the banking device comprises at least one of displaying a preset balance instead of an actual balance, pretending to perform account transfer, and pretending that a user account has been frozen due to debt; see also [0079], The dummy display may include at least one of dummy account balance information, dummy account transfer information, dummy account transfer error information, and dummy system error information.)
Park does not explicitly disclose, but Wu teaches:
allow the user to determine or customize the fake account balance to be in the fake account (¶106)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Wu with the teaching of Park as they relate to user authentication method. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention was made would have modifying a system of displaying dummy screen on a the banking device which includes at least one of displaying a preset balance instead of an actual balance, pretending to perform account transfer” in Park to include the method of customizing a fake account balance in the fake account as taught by Wu for the predicated result of an improved payment transaction system.
Park in view of Wu don’t explicitly disclose, but Hoffman teaches:
transform, via data cleaning, ingested data into a standardized training format for training machine learning models (¶ 1159-1179); and
train, using training test data in the standardized training format, an unsupervised neural network utilizing interconnected nodes, the unsupervised neural network being trained to customize real accounts and fake accounts, the training including (¶ 1159-1179):
inserting the training test data into an iterative training and testing loop to predict a target variable (¶ 1159-1179); and
repeatedly predicting the target variable during multiple versions of the training and testing loop, each version of the multiple versions having differing weights applied to one or more nodes in one or more layers of the unsupervised neural network, each of the differing weights being updated with each of the multiple versions of the training and testing loop to reduce error in predicting the target variable, which improves predictability of the target variable and functionality of the unsupervised neural network (¶ 1159-1179);
deploy the unsupervised neural network (¶ 1159-1179);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Park(¶ 41), which teaches “the dummy display displayed on the banking device includes at least one of displaying a preset balance instead of an actual balance, pretending to perform account transfer”, Wu(¶ 2), which teaches “a tamper-proof secure card with stored biometric data that cannot be altered or duplicated” and Hoffman(¶ 1170), which teaches “which provide Rule-Modules 50, comprising any one of the following: predictive fraud, predictive purchasing patterns, predictive rewards redemption, predictive risk-management tools, predictive Financial Account 65 preferences,” in order to protect a user from fraudulent transactions (Hoffman; ¶ 1165).
With respect to claim 11
The combination of Park, Wu, and Hoffman teaches the limitations of claim 10. Park further teaches: wherein the fake account balance is much less than the actual account balance (¶163, On the other hand, FIG. 3(b) is a view showing a dummy display displayed on the screen when a criminal or a user threatened by a criminal inputs a dummy control code including an additional code having an additional function to masquerade as an authentication code to execute a dummy display into the banking device 600 as a code for checking account. If a dummy control code for checking an account is input to the banking device 600, the dummy control code is transmitted to an online service server (not shown) of a relevant banking institution, which is a service providing system. Here, the dummy control code may be configured as a dummy code which has the same format as a normal authentication code but is different from a normal authentication code. The online service server recognizes that the received security code is the dummy control code for checking an account and transmits a very small amount of virtual account balance information preset by a user to the banking device 600.; see also claim 8, ¶38-41, 64, 65, 76-82, 115, 162-167, 183.)
With respect to claim 12
The combination of Park, Wu, and Hoffman teaches the limitations of claim 10. Park further teaches: wherein the appearance of transferring the funds is in response to a criminal act (¶163, Thus, it is expected that a criminal threatening a user to obtain account balance information will consider the virtual account balance as an actual account balance and run away, giving up on the idea of withdrawing money. In addition to account inquiry, for account transfer, it is possible to display fake account transfer on a screen of the banking device 600 without conducting an actual account transfer such that a criminal believes account transfer has been performed.)
With respect to claim 13
The combination Park, Wu, and Hoffman teaches the limitations of claim 10. Park further teaches: wherein the at least one processor causes authorities to be notified when the fake password is entered (¶129, 163, 169, 173.)
With respect to claim 14
The combination of Park, Wu, and Hoffman teaches the limitations of claim 13. Park further teaches: wherein the authorities are notified of the user's location (¶129, 163, 169, 173; claim 24.)
With respect to claim 15
The combination of Park, Wu, and Hoffman teaches the limitations of claim 10. Park further teaches: wherein the fake account can be a fake checking account, a fake savings account or both a fake checking account and fake savings account (¶163.)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL, necessitated by amendments. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YIN Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-1094 or yin.choi@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30 - 5:30pm EST.
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, Neha Patel can be reached on 571-270-1492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YIN Y CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 369911/3/2025
/NEHA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3699