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 .
Summary
This Final Office Action in response to the communication received on December 8, 2025.
Claims 1, 5-7, and 11-14 have been amended.
Claims 2-4 have been cancelled.
Claims 1 and 5-14 are pending.
The effective filing date of the claimed invention is April 27, 2023.
Response to Amendment
Amendments to Claims 1, 5-7, and 11-14 are acknowledged. Amendments to independent claims 1 and 13 are sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection of Claims 1 and 5-14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-4, 7-10, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Pub 2024/0013100 “Havel”, in view of US Pat Pub 2012/0265655 “Stroh”, in view of US Pat Pub 2019/0122307 “Sayed”.
As per Claims 1, 13, and 14, Havel discloses a method, system, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium for parsing journal entries comprising:
receiving input data comprising a plurality of journal entries from one or more data sources (Havel: [0042] At step 305, the system (e.g., the data processing device 220) may receive a plurality of source records and a plurality of target records. The plurality of source records and the plurality of target records may be received from the first database 210); and
parsing a first journal entry of the plurality of journal entries iteratively (Havel: [0042] The one or more credit accounts and the one or more debit accounts may be both associated with an organization. In a double-entry accounting system, one or more source records may be determined to match one or more target records, if the one or more source records are determined to be associated with the same transaction with which the one or more target records are associated.), wherein parsing the first journal entry comprises:
selecting a first subset of records from a first journal entry of the plurality of journal entries, the first subset of records comprising either one or more debit records or one or more credit records (Havel: [0043] each source record may comprise one or more data fields, each data field may indicate one aspect of information associated with the transaction that is recorded. Each column of table 405 may correspond to a data field in the record. For example, data field 462 may indicate an account number involved in the transaction, data field 464 may indicate the entity that records the record, data field 466 may indicate whether the record indicates a credit aspect or a debit aspect of the transaction, data field 468 may indicate a loan number assigned to the corresponding transaction, data field 470 may indicate the date of the corresponding transaction, and data field 472 may indicate the balance involved in the corresponding transaction.).
Havel fails to disclose a method, system, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium for parsing journal entries comprising:
generating a hash representation of the first subset of records;
determining that the hash representation associated with the first subset of records matches a hash representation associated with a second subset of records,
in accordance with determining that the hash representation associated with the first subset of records matches the hash representation associated with the second subset of records;
recording the first subset of records and second subset of records as a first sub-journal entry;
identifying one or more subsets of records in the first sub-journal entry in one or more data structures; and
removing the identified one or more subsets of records from the one or more data structures, wherein the one or more data structures are progressively depopulated such that records contained in the first sub-journal entry are removed from consideration in subsequent iterations of parsing the first journal entry.
Stroh teaches a method, system, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium for parsing journal entries comprising:
determining that an identifier associated with the first subset of records matches an identifier associated with a second subset of records (Stroh: [0362] 4. The reconciliation subsystem 14 will also look for other associated transactions (e.g. review transactions identified as payments) that have been input into the system to identify if there is an exact match for date, date and time, amount and any descriptive sequences of characters in the string.),
in accordance with determining that the identifier associated with the first subset of records matches the identifier associated with the second subset of records,
recording the first subset of records and second subset of records as a first sub-journal entry (Stroh: [0362] 4. The reconciliation subsystem 14 will also look for other associated transactions (e.g. review transactions identified as payments) that have been input into the system to identify if there is an exact match for date, date and time, amount and any descriptive sequences of characters in the string. [0365] 5. Where an account or sub account or related transaction is identified, the transactions string will be augmented in a specific way to include this information. The reconciliation subsystem 14 may create additional data strings to represent the required data strings associated with transactions in a double entry system. [0366] 6. The reconciliation subsystem 14 may use a double entry style method, but this is not required. In a situation where this is the case, the reconciliation subsystem 14 will take the above transaction, having identified it as a payment, and assign it to an expense account prior to looking for an additional match within possible payment transactions. [0367] 7. Where the double entry method has been adopted, the reconciliation subsystem 14 will then credit the general expense account on identification of the transaction string as an expense. It will debit the general expense account and credit a specific sub account on identification of the fact that there is a single ABN number in the transaction and that it is not the ABN of the client/user. [0368] 8. On the identification of a matching payment transaction, the reconciliation subsystem 14 will debit the sub account to which the expense has been assigned and credit of account or sub account to which the payment transaction string had been previously assigned.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Havel to include identifying matched records as taught by Stroh, with parsing journal entries as taught by Havel with the motivation to provide an automated accounting system which is simple, efficient, accurate and/or minimized the requirement for human intervention (Stroh: [0015]).
Havel and Stroh fail to disclose a method, system, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium for parsing journal entries comprising:
generating a hash representation of the first subset of records;
the identifier is a hash representation;
identifying one or more subsets of records in the first sub-journal entry in one or more data structures; and
removing the identified one or more subsets of records from the one or more data structures, wherein the one or more data structures are progressively depopulated such that records contained in the first sub-journal entry are removed from consideration in subsequent iterations of parsing the first journal entry.
Sayed teaches a method, system, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium for parsing journal entries comprising:
generating a hash representation of the first subset of records (Sayed: [0098] use hash identifiers to identify where to classify transactions);
the identifier is a hash representation (Sayed: [0098] use hash identifiers to identify where to classify transactions);
identifying one or more subsets of records in the first sub-journal entry in one or more data structures (Sayed: [0163] In one embodiment, historical data processing avoids importing duplicate data (data verification). For example, when each new transaction is added, the transaction is converted to a unique hash code identifier and new records are compared against previous hash code identifiers to remove duplication.); and
removing the identified one or more subsets of records from the one or more data structures, wherein the one or more data structures are progressively depopulated such that records contained in the first sub-journal entry are removed from consideration in subsequent iterations of parsing the first journal entry (Sayed: [0199] In one embodiment, the method further comprises: converting each transaction of the received historical transaction data to a respective hash code identifier; wherein updating the at least one database comprises comparing new transactions to prior hash code identifiers. [0200] In one embodiment, the method further comprises removing, based on comparing the new transactions to prior hash code identifiers, duplicate transactions.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Havel and Stroh to include removing duplicate transactions as taught by Sayed, with parsing journal entries as taught by Havel and Stroh with the motivation of processing with the management and updating of a transactional database based on the transactional data received from numerous different servers (Sayed: [0063]).
As per Claim 7, Havel discloses a method, wherein parsing the first journal entry further comprises: in accordance with determining that an identifier associated with the first subset of records does not match an identifier associated with a second subset of records, adding the first subset of records to the first data structure if the first subset of records comprises debit records and adding the first subset of records to the second data structure if the first subset of records comprises credit records (Havel: [0054]).
As per Claim 8, Havel discloses a method, wherein the input data comprises general ledger data (Havel: [0043]).
As per Claim 9, Havel discloses a method, further comprising: generating an output, the output comprising an indication of the debit records and credit records forming the sub-journal entry (Havel: [0042]).
As per Claim 10, Havel discloses a method, wherein the output comprises any one or more of: an indication of a misstatement, an indication of a high-risk transaction, indications of inefficiencies in business operations, indications of errors in financial reporting, duplication of financial transactions, identification and grouping of similar transactions, indications distinguishing between financial events booked together, identifications of applicable offsets to transactions, and assessments of the validity of offsets to a transaction (Havel: [0035]).
As per Claim 12, Havel discloses a method, wherein the first identifier comprises an absolute value of the first subset of records and the second identifier comprises an absolute value of the second subset of records (Havel: [0045]).
Claim(s) 5-6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Pub 2024/0013100 “Havel”, in view of US Pat Pub 2012/0265655 “Stroh”, in view of US Pat Pub 2019/0122307 “Sayed”, and US Pat 5,390,113 “Sampson”.
As per Claim 5, Havel, Stroh, and Sayed fail to disclose but Sampson teaches a method, wherein a first data structure of the one or more data structures comprises a first hash table comprising one or more subsets of debit records from the first journal entry, and wherein the first hash table does not include credit records (Sampson: Column 5, lines 32-45 and Column 6, lines 7-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Havel, Stroh, and Sayed to include a hash table as taught by Sampson, with parsing journal entries as taught by Havel, Stroh, and Sayed with the motivation to simplify both the computer and supervisory processes of bookkeeping (Sampson: Column 2, lines 58-64)).
As per Claim 6, Havel, Stroh, and Sayed fail to disclose but Sampson teaches a method, wherein a second data structure of the one or more data structures comprises a second hash table comprising one or more subsets of credit records from the first journal entry, and wherein the second hash table does not include debit records (Sampson: Column 5, lines 32-45 and Column 6, lines 7-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Havel, Stroh, and Sayed to include a hash table as taught by Sampson, with parsing journal entries as taught by Havel, Stroh, and Sayed with the motivation to simplify both the computer and supervisory processes of bookkeeping (Sampson: Column 2, lines 58-64)).
As per Claim 11, Havel, Stroh, and Sayed fail to disclose but Sampson teaches a method, wherein the first and second hash representation are generated using a hash function (Sampson: Column 5, lines 32-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Havel, Stroh, and Sayed to include a hash table as taught by Sampson, with parsing journal entries as taught by Havel, Stroh, and Sayed with the motivation to simplify both the computer and supervisory processes of bookkeeping (Sampson: Column 2, lines 58-64)).
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed December 8, 2025, with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of Claims 1 and 5-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 101 Rejection of Claims 1 and 5-14 has been withdrawn.
The independent claims reflect a technological improvement for efficiently storing and comparing structured data and provides a concrete improvement in computational complexity. The independent claims require that upon finding a match, the system records the matching subsets as a sub-journal entry, identifies the corresponding subsets of records in one or more data structures, and removes those subsets, such that the data structures are progressively depopulated, and the removed records are excluded from consideration in subsequent iterations of parsing. Thus, the amended independent claims require that a system iteratively computes hash representations of subsets, matches them against complementary subsets, and modifies data structures by progressively removing matched subsets so that the search space progressively shrinks as parsing proceeds. For instance, by limiting the comparison operations to compact hash values, the claimed method reduces the amount of data that must be moved and compared at each iteration and allows matching to be performed via hash lookups rather than repeated, record-by-record searches. This is analogous to the data-structure improvements held eligible in Enfish, where the Federal Circuit recognized that a self-referential table was "a specific type of data structure designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory," and thus constituted a technical improvement rather than a mere implementation of an abstract idea on a generic computer. See Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, the claimed hashing of subsets similarly provides a particular way of representing and comparing journal-entry subsets that improves storage and retrieval operations for those subsets.
35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed December 8, 2025, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection of Claims 1 and 5-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 Rejection of Claims 1 and 5-14 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US Pat Pub 2024/0013100 “Havel”, in view of US Pat Pub 2012/0265655 “Stroh”, in view of US Pat Pub 2019/0122307 “Sayed”, and US Pat 5,390,113 “Sampson”.
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 REVA R MOORE whose telephone number is (571)270-7942. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9:00-6:00.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/REVA R MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/PETER LUDWIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627