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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravichandran et al (Rav hereinafter, US PUB 2025/0299062) in view of Park et al (Park hereinafter, Pub: 2023/0273842).
Re claim 1. Rav discloses a method of managing threats to electronically-provided financial services, comprising: providing initial training data to a discriminator of a generative adversarial network (GAN), the initial training data being generated from a misuse of an electronically-provided financial service; training the discriminator using a generator of the GAN to provide a trained GAN; generating synthetic data using the trained GAN; and training a large language model (LLM) using the synthetic data to provide a trained LLM (see the abstract, see paras 0012-0015, 0026, 0032, 0036, 0050-0056, 0063). Rav does not explicitly disclose the initial training data including an image file of a screenshot of a display of a computing device, and the synthetic data including a synthetic screen shot. Park makes this disclosure (see paras 0064-0067). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Park in the system of Rav to increase utilization of the screenshot.
Re claim 2. Rav discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising using the trained LLM to detect and classify with a classification a new threat to the electronically-provided financial service to provide a classified new threat (see para 0012-0016, 0022-0023).
Re claim 3. Rav further discloses the method of claim 2, wherein classifying the new threat by the trained LLM is performed based on new transaction data provided to the trained LLM (see paras 0016, 0022-0023).
Re claim 4. Rav further discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising: classifying the new threat by the trained LLM based on new data collected from a plurality of new transactions, the new data being provided to the trained LLM; and detecting a threat pattern in the new data (see paras 0012-0015, 0042-0043).
Re claim 5. Rav further discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising generating a response to the classified new threat based on the classification (see paras 0012-0016, 0022-0023).
Re claim 6. Rav further discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the response includes generating signals and transmitting the signals to a machine that provides electronic financial services, causing the machine to disable one or more of the electronic financial services (see paras 0020-0021).
Re claim 7. Rav further discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the machine is an automated teller machine (ATM) (see para 0042).
Re claim 8. Rav further discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the response includes generating signals and transmitting the signals to a computing device causing the computing device to generate an alert that a threat has been detected for one of the electronically-provided financial services, the alert identifying a type of the threat (see paras 0012-0015, 0042-0043, 0048)
Re claim 9. Rav further discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the type of the threat is one of: a data breach, an insider threat, a system downtime, a hardware malfunction, a physical security system malfunction, a computing device running outdated software, an accessing or sharing of sensitive customer data, skimming of an automated teller machine (ATM), an ATM cash out attack, a malware attack, a ransomware attack, a phishing attach, a social engineering attack, a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack, non-compliance with a policy or regulation, high resource usage, a zero-day exploit, a vulnerable file being used to package an application, a fraudulent transaction, money laundering, a SQL injection, an ATM card withdrawal limit change, a card approval process change, greater than a predefined number of instances of a failures for the application or an application programming interface (API) of the application within a predefined period of time, greater than a predefined length of time for responses generated by the application, and greater than a predefined number of database query failures with another predefined length of time (see paras 0012-0015, 0048).
Re claim 10. Rav further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: using a screen scraper to capture screenshots of a display of an electronic computing device, wherein the initial training data includes the screenshots (see para 0042).
Re claim 20. Claim 20 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and thus rejected using the same art and rationale as in claim 1, above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims above have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OJO O OYEBISI whose telephone number is (571)272-8298. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9am-7pm. 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, Christine Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/OJO O OYEBISI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights