Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/717,931

METHOD FOR OPERATING CREDIT EVALUATION MODEL USING TWO-STEP LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS AND SERVER FOR PERFORMING SAME

Non-Final OA §101§112
Filed
Dec 27, 2024
Examiner
KWONG, CHO YIU
Art Unit
3693
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Kakaobank Corp.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
32%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
38%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 32% of cases
32%
Career Allow Rate
104 granted / 324 resolved
-19.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+5.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
372
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
37.0%
-3.0% vs TC avg
§103
26.9%
-13.1% vs TC avg
§102
7.2%
-32.8% vs TC avg
§112
25.9%
-14.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 324 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §112
DETAILED ACTION This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the application filed on 06/07/2024 and the Preliminary Amendment filed on 12/27/2024. 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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 20 recites “[a] computer-readable recording medium in which a program capable of executing the method according to claim 1 is recorded”. It is unclear whether claim 20 is an independent claim limiting to a computer-readable recording radium or is a dependent claim to method claim 1. If claim 20 is an independent claim, referencing to another claim would be improper; if claim 20 is a dependent claim of claim 1, the claim should be further limiting the method of claim 1 instead of limiting to different statutory category. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. As an initial matter, the claims as a whole are to a plurality of processes, an apparatus and a manufacture, which falls within one or more statutory categories. (Step 1: YES) The recitation of the claimed invention is then further analyzed as follow, in which the abstract elements are boldfaced. Claim 1 recite: Method for operating a credit evaluation model performed by a credit evaluation server linked to a financial server, the method for operating the credit evaluation model comprising: a step of receiving log data of a user and selecting basic variable items included in the log data; a step of generating candidate variables by calculating a frequency of the basic variable items in the log data; a step of generating a plurality of first derived variables by applying different time windows or different calculation methods to the candidate variables; a step of selecting important variables by comparing values related to the plurality of first derived variables with a predetermined standard value; a step of deriving a first-step model by using the important variables as input variables and using information on the user's credit as a dependent variable; a step of selecting a first final variable to be applied to the first-step model among the important variables and calculating a first weighted value for the first final variable; a step of generating a second derived variable by using the first final variable and the first weighted value; a step of deriving a second-step model by using the second derived variable as an input variable and using information on the user's credit as a dependent variable; and a step of selecting a second final variable to be applied to the second-step model from among the first derived variables and calculating a second weighted value for the second final variable. Claim 2 recites: wherein the step of selecting the variable basic items includes selecting the variable basic items corresponding to event codes by classifying the event codes included in the log data by using a predetermined category and classifying the event codes belonging to the category by using a plurality of predetermined features Claim 3 recites: wherein the step of generating the candidate variables includes calculating a term frequency (TF) and a term frequency-inverse document frequency (TF-IDF) of the variable basic items and generating the candidate variables, and the term frequency (TF) is calculated by using a simple frequency, a Boolean frequency, an incremental frequency, or a log frequency, and the term frequency-inverse document frequency (TF-IDF) is calculated by multiplying the term frequency (TF) by the term frequency-inverse document frequency (TF-IDF). Claim 4 recites: wherein the step of generating the plurality of first derived variables includes generating the first derived variables by using one of a plurality of time windows of different sizes and one of a plurality of calculation methods for the candidate variable, the time windows are able to be set to different periods, and the calculation methods include an average, a sum, a maximum value, and a minimum value. Claim 5 recites: wherein the step of selecting the important variables selecting, as the important variable, the first derived variable, of which P-value obtained by univariate logistic regression analysis is less than a predetermined reference value, among the plurality of first derived variables, or the first derived variable, of which IV value is greater than a predetermined reference value, among the plurality of first derived variables, and the IV value is derived by an equation. Claim 6 recites: a step of grouping variables belonging to a same information domain (F) for the selected important variables, and wherein the step of deriving the first-step model includes selecting the first final variable targeting the important variables included in a certain information domain (F). Claim 7 recites: wherein the first-step model and the second-step model consist of a logistic regression model. Claim 8 recites: wherein the first-step model selects the first final variable to be applied to the first-step model from among the important variables by using a step-wise selection method, and the second-step model selects the second final variable to be applied to the second-step model from among the second derived variables by using the step-wise selection method. Claim 9 recites: a step of performing a credit rating of a new user based on log data of the new user by using the first-step model to which the first final variable is applied and the second-step model to which the second final variable is applied. Claim 10 recites: A credit rating model operating method performed by a credit evaluation server linked to a financial server, The method for operating the credit evaluation model comprising: a step of receiving log data of a user and selecting a frequency of event codes included in the log data and important variables through at least one preprocessing process for the frequency; a step of deriving a first-step logistic regression mode by using the important variables as input variables and using information on the user's credit as a dependent variable; a step of selecting a first final variable to be applied to the first-step model among the important variables and calculating a first weighted value for the first final variable; a step of generating a derived variable by using the first final variable and the first weighted value; a step of deriving second-step logistic regression model by using the derived variable as an input variable and using information on the user's credit as a dependent variable; and a step of selecting a second final variable to be applied to the second-step model from among the derived variables and calculating a second weighted value for the second final variable. Claims 11 and 16 recite: wherein the first-step model selects the first final variable to be applied to the first-step model from among the important variables by using a step-wise selection method, and the second-step model selects the second final variable to be applied to the second-step model from among the second derived variables by using the step-wise selection method. Claims 12 and 17 recite: wherein the step of selecting the important variables selecting, as the important variable, the first derived variable, of which P-value obtained by univariate logistic regression analysis is less than a predetermined reference value, among the plurality of first derived variables, or the first derived variable, of which IV value is greater than a predetermined reference value, among the plurality of first derived variables, and the IV value is derived by an equation. Claims 13 and 18 recite: a step of grouping variables belonging to a same information domain (F) for the selected important variables, and wherein the step of deriving the first-step model includes selecting the first final variable targeting the important variables included in a certain information domain (F). Claims 14 and 19 recite: a step of performing a credit rating of a new user based on log data of the new user by using the first-step model to which the first final variable is applied and the second-step model to which the second final variable is applied. Claim 15 recites: A credit evaluation server comprising: a processor; a memory configured to load a computer program executed by the processor; and an interface configured to exchange data generated during execution of the computer program with a user terminal, wherein the computer program includes: a step of receiving log data of a user from the user terminal and selecting a frequency of event codes included in the log data and important variables through at least one preprocessing process for the frequency; a step of deriving a first-step logistic regression mode by using the important variables as input variables and using information on the user's credit as a dependent variable; a step of selecting a first final variable to be applied to the first-step model among the important variables and calculating a first weighted value for the first final variable; a step of generating a derived variable by using the first final variable and the first weighted value; a step of deriving second-step logistic regression model by using the derived variable as an input variable and using information on the user's credit as a dependent variable; and a step of selecting a second final variable to be applied to the second-step model from among the derived variables and calculating a second weighted value for the second final variable. Claim 20 recites: A computer-readable recording medium in which a program capable of executing the method according to claim 1 is recorded. Based on the limitations above, the claims describe a process that covers credit evaluation using mathematical model. Credit evaluation manages financial relationship and is considered to be a commercial interaction, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mathematical models are ineligible subject matter, which do not render eligibility when added other Judicial Exception. As such, the claim(s) recite(s) a Judicial Exception. (Step 2A prong one: Yes) This analysis then evaluates whether the claims as a whole integrates the recited Judicial Exception into a practical application of the exception. In particular, the claims recite the additional element(s) of “server” or “processor” as a mere tool to perform the steps of the Judicial Exception, which encompasses no more than Mere Instruction to Apply. For example, the limitation “a step of receiving log data of a user and selecting basic variable items included in the log data” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor / server to apply the Judicial Exception step of receiving the log data of the user and selecting basic variable items included in the log data; the limitation “a step of generating candidate variables by calculating a frequency of the basic variable items in the log data” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor / server to apply the Judicial Exception step of generating candidate variables by calculating frequency of the basic variable items; the limitation “a step of generating a plurality of first derived variables by applying different time windows or different calculation methods to the candidate variables” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor / server to apply the Judicial Exception step of generating the plurality of first derived variables by applying different time windows or calculation methods to the candidate variables; the limitation “a step of selecting important variables by comparing values related to the plurality of first derived variables with a predetermined standard value” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor / server to apply the Judicial Exception step of selecting important variables by comparing value related to the plurality of first derived variables with a predetermined standard value; the limitation “a step of deriving a first-step model by using the important variables as input variables and using information on the user's credit as a dependent variable” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor / server to apply the Judicial Exception step of deriving the first-step model by using the important variables as input variables and using user credit information as dependent variable; the limitation “a step of selecting a first final variable to be applied to the first-step model among the important variables and calculating a first weighted value for the first final variable” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor / server to apply the Judicial Exception step of selecting the first final variable to be applied to the first-step model and calculating the first weighted value for first final variable; the limitation “a step of generating a second derived variable by using the first final variable and the first weighted value” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor / server to apply the Judicial Exception step of generating the second derived variable using the first final variable and the first weighted value; the limitation “a step of deriving a second-step model by using the second derived variable as an input variable and using information on the user's credit as a dependent variable” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor / server to apply the Judicial Exception step of deriving the second-step model by using the second derived variable as an input variable and using information on the user's credit as a dependent variable; the limitation “a step of selecting a second final variable to be applied to the second-step model from among the first derived variables and calculating a second weighted value for the second final variable” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor / server to apply the Judicial Exception step of selecting the second final variable to be applied to the first-step model and calculating the second weighted value for second final variable; the limitation “wherein the step of selecting the variable basic items includes selecting the variable basic items corresponding to event codes by classifying the event codes included in the log data by using a predetermined category and classifying the event codes belonging to the category by using a plurality of predetermined features” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor / server to apply the Judicial Exception step of selecting the variable basic items corresponding to event codes by classifying the event codes; the limitation “wherein the step of generating the candidate variables includes calculating a term frequency (TF) and a term frequency-inverse document frequency (TF-IDF) of the variable basic items and generating the candidate variables, and the term frequency (TF) is calculated by using a simple frequency, a Boolean frequency, an incremental frequency, or a log frequency, and the term frequency-inverse document frequency (TF-IDF) is calculated by multiplying the term frequency (TF) by the term frequency-inverse document frequency (TF-IDF)” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor / server to apply the Judicial Exception step of calculating the TF and TF-IDF; the limitation “wherein the step of generating the plurality of first derived variables includes generating the first derived variables by using one of a plurality of time windows of different sizes and one of a plurality of calculation methods for the candidate variable, the time windows are able to be set to different periods, and the calculation methods include an average, a sum, a maximum value, and a minimum value” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor / server to apply the Judicial Exception step of generating the first derived variables by using time windows of different sizes; the limitation “wherein the step of selecting the important variables selecting, as the important variable, the first derived variable, of which P-value obtained by univariate logistic regression analysis is less than a predetermined reference value, among the plurality of first derived variables, or the first derived variable, of which IV value is greater than a predetermined reference value, among the plurality of first derived variables, and the IV value is derived by an equation” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor / server to apply the Judicial Exception step of selecting the first derived variable with p-value less than predetermined reference value and IV value greater than predetermined reference value; the limitation “a step of grouping variables belonging to a same information domain (F) for the selected important variables, and wherein the step of deriving the first-step model includes selecting the first final variable targeting the important variables included in a certain information domain (F)” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor / server to apply the Judicial Exception step of deriving the first step model by selecting the first final variable targeting the important variables; the limitation “wherein the first-step model and the second-step model consist of a logistic regression model” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor / server to apply the Judicial Exception step of using logistic regression model to generating final variables; the limitation “wherein the first-step model selects the first final variable to be applied to the first-step model from among the important variables by using a step-wise selection method, and the second-step model selects the second final variable to be applied to the second-step model from among the second derived variables by using the step-wise selection method” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor / server to apply the Judicial Exception step of using step-wise method to select final variables; the limitation “a step of performing a credit rating of a new user based on log data of the new user by using the first-step model to which the first final variable is applied and the second-step model to which the second final variable is applied” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor / server to apply the Judicial Exception step of performing a credit rating using the first-step model and the second step model; the limitation “a step of receiving log data of a user and selecting a frequency of event codes included in the log data and important variables through at least one preprocessing process for the frequency” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor / server to apply the Judicial Exception step of receiving the log data and selecting a frequency of event codes; the limitation “a step of deriving a first-step logistic regression model by using the important variables as input variables and using information on the user's credit as a dependent variable” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor / server to apply the Judicial Exception step of deriving the first step logistic regression model; the limitation “a step of selecting a first final variable to be applied to the first-step model among the important variables and calculating a first weighted value for the first final variable” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor / server to apply the Judicial Exception step of ***; the limitation “a step of generating a derived variable by using the first final variable and the first weighted value” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor / server to apply the Judicial Exception step of selecting a first final variable to be applied to the first step model and calculating a first weighted value for the first final variable; the limitation “a step of deriving second-step logistic regression model by using the derived variable as an input variable and using information on the user's credit as a dependent variable” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor / server to apply the Judicial Exception step of deriving second-step logistic regression model; the limitation “a step of selecting a second final variable to be applied to the second-step model from among the derived variables and calculating a second weighted value for the second final variable” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor / server to apply the Judicial Exception step of selecting a second final variable to be applied to the second step model and calculating a first weighted value for the second final variable; the limitation “A computer-readable recording medium in which a program capable of executing the method according to claim 1 is recorded” encompasses no more than generically invoking a processor / server to apply the Judicial Exception in claim 1. Other than being generally linked to the steps of the Judicial Exception, the processor and server in the above step(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality, without technological detail of how the particular steps are performed technologically. The additional element(s) of “memory” and/or “non-transitory storage medium” are generically recited to store data and/or instructions of the Judicial Exception. The additional element(s) of “an interface configured to exchange data generated during execution of the computer program with a user terminal” are generically recited to perform communication steps such as receiving and transmitting. The examiner further noted generic computer affixes such as “…server” or “terminal” are appended to abstract elements such as “credit evaluation”, “financial” and “user”, but found that to be mere instructions to implement the Judicial Exception idea on a computer. Indeed, the instant claims (1) attempted to cover a solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result; (2) used of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply added a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to the Judicial Exception and (3) generally applied the Judicial Exception to a generic computing environment without limitation indicative of practical application (See MPEP 2106.04(d)I). Thus, the claims are no more than Mere Instruction to Apply the Judicial Exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(g)), which do not integrate the cited Judicial Exception into practical application (Step 2A prong two: No) The claims are directed to a Judicial Exception. 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, the additional element of using a processor to evaluate credit amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. No additional element currently recited in the claims amount the claims to be significantly more than the cited abstract idea. (Step 2B: No) Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CHEN et al. (CN 10965645) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHO KWONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7955. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm EST M-F. 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, MICHAEL W ANDERSON can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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. /CHO YIU KWONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 27, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12561747
PROCESSING INSURED ITEMS HOLISTICALLY WITH MOBILE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT AND CLAIMS PROCESSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12530718
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR LOAN REWARDS PROVISIONING
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12530720
TRANSACTION PROCESSING SYSTEM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12488340
Address Verification, Seed Splitting and Firmware Extension for Secure Cryptocurrency Key Backup, Restore, and Transaction Signing Platform Apparatuses, Methods and Systems
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
Patent 12488398
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CUSTOM AND REAL-TIME VISUALIZATION, COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS OF INSURANCE AND REINSURANCE STRUCTURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
32%
Grant Probability
38%
With Interview (+5.9%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 324 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month