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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 05/22/2026.
Claims 1, 11, 13, and 22 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1, 3-13, and 15-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 13-18, filed 12/05/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1, 3-13, and 15-22 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claims 1, 3-13, and 15-22 still stand rejected under the prior art.
Particularly, Applicant argues that Sansone et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2003/0206643, hereafter known as Sansone ‘643) does not teach the trigger information being obtained by receiving the trigger information from an external apparatus, wherein the trigger information is obtained by the apparatus in response to the first consignment being determined as being or having been used to carry particular content. Applicant argues that Maeda et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0091296, hereafter known as Maeda) also does not teach this limitation. However, Unver et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2024/0202645, hereafter known as Unver, effectively filed 04/16/2021) has been applied in place of Sansone ‘643 to teach this feature argued by Applicant. While Maeda is still part of the rejections for claims 3, 11-13, and 15-22, Maeda is not relied upon to teach the argued feature of trigger information being received from an external apparatus.
As will be shown below, Unver teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 4-10. Therefore, claims 1 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Unver. Maeda is used in combination with Unver to teach all of the limitations of independent claims 11, 13, and 22. Claims 11, 13, and 22 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as obvious over Unver and Maeda. Applicant’s arguments that these independent claims and their respective dependent claims are allowable over the prior art are moot. Claims 1, 3-13, and 15-22 still stand rejected under the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Unver et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2024/0202645, hereafter known as Unver, effectively filed 04/16/2021).
Regarding claim 1, Unver teaches:
A method performed by at least one apparatus, the method comprising (see Fig. 1 and [0145]-[0171] for the overall method. See [0152] for a virtual machine and [0145] for a sort allocation computer system for the apparatus performing the method. See [0104] for a computer performing the comparison algorithm)
obtaining or causing obtaining trigger information associated with at least part of attribute information prestored in a database in association with at least one first consignment unit, wherein the attribute information is associated with the at least one first consignment unit (see Fig. 1 (Cont.) "Counterfeit? Yes/No" for a facilitator indicating a package is counterfeit (which Examiner is interpreting as "Trigger Information") and storing images (associated attribute information with the trigger data) using a device with DB interface to the Local Counterfeit Database 111. Also see Fig. 2 for a facilitator taking photos during inspection with a camera and [0094]-[0096] for the facilitator being a human or a robot. For other trigger information, see Fig. 1 CMS and [0161]-[0165] for brands/companies uploading trigger information about previously known counterfeit packages to the central database over the internet, which syncs daily with the local counterfeit database per [0078]-[0079] and [0150]. Examiner also notes that the daily syncing of [0150]-[0151] indicates that trigger information of counterfeit packages can also originate from other sorting facilities and be relayed via the central database to the local counterfeit database of the sorting facility. For at least part of the information being prestored, Examiner notes that Fig. 1 and [0145]-[0150] teach that every package going through the sorting facility, including the first package later confirmed to be counterfeit by facilitator inspection has its attribute information collected by the DWS system and stored in the local counterfeit database before sorting and further inspection determined the package was counterfeit)
obtaining or causing obtaining the attribute information associated with the at least one first consignment unit from the database based on the obtained trigger information (see [0152] "the provided data of the package is compared to already stored data in the counterfeit database and a search for matches is done using a virtual machine (VM) comprising a counterfeit comparison algorithm coupled to the database" for obtaining attribute information of a package designated as counterfeit by trigger information (provided by the facilitator/brand) and already stored in the local counterfeit database in the steps discussed above. The attribute information of this first package determined to be counterfeit is obtained for subsequent comparison to attribute information of a second package. See [0055]-[0061] for obtaining text, image, and label information from packages previously determined, based on the trigger information above, to be counterfeit to use in a comparison)
determining or causing determining that attribute information associated with at least one second consignment unit is stored in the database in association with the at least one second consignment unit that is similar to the attribute information associated with the at least one first consignment unit (see [0145]-[0150] for attribute information of a second package being determined by DWS and provided to and stored in the local counterfeit database. See [0152] "After the data/information of the package is uploaded to the local database 111, the provided data of the package is compared to already stored data in the counterfeit database and a search for matches is done using a virtual machine (VM) comprising a counterfeit comparison algorithm coupled to the database" and [0153]-[0156] for comparing stored attribute information of a second package to the obtained already-stored information of a first counterfeit package to see if the second package's attribute information is similar. See [0088]-[0090] for an algorithm for determining similarity percentages. See [0097] and [0179] for the comparison algorithm being a machine learning algorithm)
generating alert information or causing alert information to be generated (see [0166] "Also the figure illustrate, that the virtual machine (VM) communicates with the associated package sortation facility and assigns a custom sorter chute for the package, said package goes to that chute automatically during sortation if any counterfeit possibility is detected" for alerting the package sortation facility that a package might be counterfeit based on possible similarities. Also see [0091] and [0173])
providing or causing of providing the alert information to cause at least one apparatus to perform an action comprising at least one of:- causing a logistics process in relation to the at least one second consignment unit to be automatically interrupted based on the generated alert information by interrupting a transport processing of an unmanned ground vehicle (UGV) and/or a robot and/or an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV);- causing a logistics process in relation to the at least one second consignment unit to be automatically interrupted based on the generated alert information, and causing an unmanned ground vehicle (UGV) and/or a robot and/or an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to transport the at least one second consignment unit to a safe location;- causing a logistics process in relation to the at least one second consignment unit to be automatically interrupted based on the generated alert information by automatically interrupting transport of the at least one second consignment unit by a conveyor belt;- causing the at least one second consignment unit to be mechanically discharged from a conveyor belt transporting the second consignment unit based on the generated alert information (see [0166] "Also the figure illustrate, that the virtual machine (VM) communicates with the associated package sortation facility and assigns a custom sorter chute for the package, said package goes to that chute automatically during sortation if any counterfeit possibility is detected" for providing an alert assigning a custom chute for a suspect package to receive additional inspection. See [0030] "a ‘Sortation facility” may be understood as a facility for sortation of packages comprising anything between a single (conveyor) belt to a big central package facility with hundreds of belts" and [0091]-[0092] "if any counterfeit possibility is detected by the counterfeit comparison algorithm, communicating with the associated package sortation facility and assigns a custom sorter chute for the package, said package goes to that chute automatically during sortation. Specifically, such embodiments are particularly, but not exclusively, advantageous for providing method, wherein a detected potential counterfeit packages is sorted out from the sorting belt automatically" for interrupting transport of the suspect second package by a conveyor belt based on the specified chute in the alert information. While Examiner notes that mechanical discharge to the custom chute is further implied, Examiner notes that only one of the features listed is required to teach the limitations as a whole)
wherein the respective attribute information comprises label information, physical information and/or image information relating to a respective consignment unit (see [00145]-[0150] for respective attribute information obtained from packages entering the sorting facility comprising image information shipping label information and physical characteristics)
and - wherein the trigger information is obtained by the at least one apparatus by receiving the trigger information from an external apparatus, wherein the trigger information is obtained by the at least one apparatus in response to the at least one first consignment unit being determined as being or having been used to carry particular content (see Fig. 1 (Cont.) "Counterfeit? Yes/No" for a facilitator indicating a package is counterfeit (which Examiner is interpreting as "Trigger Data") and storing images (associated attribute information with the trigger data using a device with DB interface to the Local Counterfeit Database 111. Also see Fig, 2 for a facilitator taking photos during inspection with a camera and [0094]-[0096] for the facilitator being a human or a robot. A robot facilitator or a device of a human facilitator is an "external apparatus" (i.e. an apparatus different from the at least one apparatus performing the claimed method) as argued by Applicant on page 16 of 5/22/2026 Remarks because the facilitator device or robot is not performing the comparison. Similarly, [0161]-[0165] for brands/companies uploading trigger information about previously known counterfeit packages to the central database over the internet, which syncs daily with the local counterfeit database per [0078]-[0079] and [0150] is obtaining trigger information from external apparatus as neither the brands nor the central database is performing the comparison method)
Regarding claim 4, Unver teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Unver further teaches:
wherein the at least one apparatus caused to perform an action corresponds to or is comprised by at least one of - a stand-alone computer; - a mobile device; - an apparatus installed at a node of a logistics system; - a consignment unit sorting machine and/or a consignment unit examination apparatus; - a transport vehicle for transporting consignment units; - an unmanned aerial vehicle, UAV; - an unmanned ground vehicle, UGV; - a robot; - a control apparatus of a conveyor belt (see [0030] "a ‘Sortation facility” may be understood as a facility for sortation of packages comprising anything between a single (conveyor) belt to a big central package facility with hundreds of belts" and [0091]-[0092] "if any counterfeit possibility is detected by the counterfeit comparison algorithm, communicating with the associated package sortation facility and assigns a custom sorter chute for the package, said package goes to that chute automatically during sortation. Specifically, such embodiments are particularly, but not exclusively, advantageous for providing method, wherein a detected potential counterfeit packages is sorted out from the sorting belt automatically" for an apparatus performing an action corresponds to a control apparatus of a conveyor belt/apparatus installed at the sorting facility (node) of a logistics system/a consignment unit sorting machine to automatically remove the suspect item from the belt and send the suspect item to the chute automatically. Examiner notes that only one of the list of apparatuses is required to teach the claim)
Regarding claim 5, Unver teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Unver further teaches:
wherein the trigger information is obtained after and/or in response to the at least one first consignment unit being determined as being or having been used to carry at least one of: - explosive and/or flammable material; - illegal drugs; - illegal weapons; - at least one substance harmful to human health; - different illegal content (see [0028] “a ‘counterfeit package” may be understood as a package having a content being a counterfeit product”, [0157], and [0167] for trigger information is obtained in response to the package carrying counterfeit items (i.e. “different illegal content”). Further see [0119] for the content being detected being illegal drugs/medicine. See [0138] “a ‘illegal product” may be understood as anything like unlawful drugs or medicine sold on the black market”. Examiner notes only one of the listed items needs to be taught to teach the claim as a whole)
Regarding claim 6, Unver teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Unver further teaches:
further comprising: - determining or causing determining that attribute information stored in the database and associated with at least one second consignment unit is similar to the attribute information associated with the at least one first consignment unit, wherein the attribute information stored in the database and associated with at least one second consignment unit is determined to be similar to the attribute information associated with the at least one first consignment unit if at least one of the criteria are met:- a value representative of a similarity between the attribute information stored in the database and associated with at least one second consignment unit and attribute information associated with the at least one first consignment unit is equal to or above a predefined threshold;- a difference between at least one first parameter representative of attribute information associated with the at least one first consignment unit and at least one second parameter representative of attribute information associated with the at least one second consignment unit is equal to or below a corresponding at least one predetermined threshold (see [0153]-[0155] for the counterfeit comparison algorithm determining a percent possibility that the second package is counterfeit based on matches/similarity to counterfeit package attributes. See [0156] “if the counterfeit possibility is higher than a pre-determined threshold, the package is selected for further investigation” for the value representing a similarity between the second and first packages being above a threshold to trigger the additional inspection of the second package to determine if the second package is counterfeit. See algorithm in [0088]-[0089] for the percentage being based on similarity of text. Examiner notes that only one of the two listed methods is required to teach the claims as a whole)
Regarding claim 7, Unver teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Unver further teaches:
wherein attribute information of a consignment unit comprises at least one of: - information representative of a weight of the consignment unit; - information representative of a size of the consignment unit; - information representative of a geometrical shape of the consignment unit; - information representative of a material of the consignment unit;- information representative of a material and/or a dimension of a sealing element used for closing and/or sealing the consignment unit; - information of a class of the consignment unit; - physical information derived from a label of the consignment unit (see [0145]-[0149] for attribute information including label information, material information, weight information, dimension information. Also see [0083] for taping material, label location. Examiner notes that only one of the listed attribute types is required to teach the claim as a whole)
Regarding claim 8, Unver teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Unver further teaches:
wherein the attribute information of a consignment unit comprises at least one of: - image information obtained via an image recognition algorithm based on at least one image taken of at least one corresponding face of the consignment unit; - object information obtained via an object recognition algorithm based on at least two images taken of at least two corresponding faces of the consignment unit - at least one image feature vector representative of at least one image taken from at least one corresponding surface of the consignment unit (see [0052] “the method further comprises the step of reading the text of an image by Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and/or video coding. Specifically, such embodiments are particularly, but not exclusively, advantageous for providing a very effective recognition method for reading the text of an image on a package, so that the data on the package can be compared to the data stored in the counterfeit database” and [0061]-[0062] “if any text data matches is detected, the method further comprises the step: focusing on sender information by reading the shipping label using OCR and detect the sender of the package” for attribute information comprising image text information obtained via OCR based on an image of a shipping label, on at least one corresponding face, of a package. See [0063]-[0064] for the label being on the package. Examiner notes that only one of the object information, image information, or feature vector is required to teach the claim as a whole)
Regarding claim 9, Unver teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Unver further teaches:
wherein attribute information of a consignment unit comprises at least one of: - information unique to a printer used for printing of a label of the consignment unit and derived from the consignment unit; - label information related to the consignment unit (see [0145]-[0149], particularly [0149] “preferably being data of one or more of stickers on the package, such as barcode or logo, delivery partner, customs declaration, shipping label” for attribute information comprising label information related to the package. Examiner notes that only one of label information or information unique to a printer is required to teach the claim as a whole)
Regarding claim 10, Unver teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Unver further teaches:
further comprising: - determining or causing determining that attribute information stored in the database and associated with at least one second consignment unit is similar to the attribute information associated with the at least one first consignment unit using an artificial intelligence based and/or deep learning and/or machine learning based algorithm configured to compare at least part of attribute information associated with the at least one first consignment unit to attribute information associated with the at least one second consignment unit (see [0179]-[0181] “The results of the comparison and/or the investigation steps of the method is applied in for machine learning to train the counterfeit comparison algorithm for future counterfeit packages detections, preferably by adjusting the weighting of the comparison algorithm using the concept of: if the comparison algorithm makes a correct decision, the authenticity of the data used for decision making is increased, and if the comparison algorithm makes a false decision, the authenticity of the data used for decision making is decreased” for the counterfeit comparison algorithm that compares attribute information of a counterfeit package with a second package being machine learning based. Examiner notes that only one of machine learning, artificial intelligence, or deep learning is required to teach the claim)
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 3, 11-13, and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unver in view of Maeda et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0091296, hereafter known as Maeda).
Regarding claim 3, Unver teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Unver further teaches a device of the facilitator performing the further investigation in claim 1 and teaches that potential counterfeit packages and their corresponding chutes are communicated to the sorting facility in [0173]. However, Unver does not explicitly teach at least one of informing the recipient of the second package based on the alert information or the alert and/or identification information of the second package being displayed based on the alert information. Maeda teaches:
providing or causing of providing the alert information to cause at least one apparatus to perform an action comprising at least one of:- causing an alert and/or identification information of the at least one second consignment unit to be displayed based on the generated alert information;- causing a recipient of the at least one second consignment unit to be informed based on the generated alert information (see [0031] “The secondary inspection system 5 inspects in detail the parcel that was determined to require the secondary inspection in the primary processing system. For example, in the secondary inspection system 5, the operator unpacks the parcel and inspects the content of the parcel in detail. The secondary inspection system 5 displays the result of the primary inspection in the primary inspection system 4 and the information acquired in the 0th-order process, and accepts an input of information indicative of the result of the detailed inspection of the unpacked parcel by the operator” for displaying the result of a preliminary inspection on a display of a secondary inspection system. Also see [0163]. In combination with Unver, the communication of a package needing further inspection by a facilitator based on initial attribute comparison is displayed for the facilitator. Examiner notes that only one of the two “causing” limitations is required to teach claim 3 as a whole)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of displaying the alert information of a package deemed suspect during initial screening to a human performing further inspection of the suspect package of Maeda to the system of Unver would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Maeda to the teaching of Unver would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such displaying the alert information of a package deemed suspect during initial screening to a human performing further inspection of the suspect package. Further, applying displaying the alert information of a package deemed suspect during initial screening to a human performing further inspection of the suspect package to Unver would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for the facilitator performing the further inspection of the suspected counterfeit package in Unver to have greater visibility into what caused the system to suspect that the package was counterfeit and guide the facilitator’s further inspection. Particularly, by showing the facilitator what attributes of the package were deemed similar to counterfeit packages during the initial comparison, the facilitator can focus their inspection on these similar features to more quickly determine whether the package is counterfeit or not.
Regarding claim 11, Unver teaches:
A system comprising at least one first apparatus comprising at least one processor (see Fig. 1 and [0145] “FIG. 1 illustrates a catch flow-chart of detecting a possible counterfeit package within a sorting facility conducting sorter control e.g. via Sort Allocation Computer System (SAC)”, [0107] “a computer program comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out at least the following steps of the method of claim 1” and [0167]-[0171] for a system for detecting counterfeit packages comprising at least one processor/computer and computer code to perform the method)
- obtaining or causing obtaining trigger information associated with at least part of attribute information prestored in a database in association with at least one first consignment unit, wherein the attribute information is associated with the at least one first consignment unit (see Fig. 1 (Cont.) "Counterfeit? Yes/No" for a facilitator indicating a package is counterfeit (which Examiner is interpreting as "Trigger Information") and storing images (associated attribute information with the trigger data) using a device with DB interface to the Local Counterfeit Database 111. Also see Fig. 2 for a facilitator taking photos during inspection with a camera and [0094]-[0096] for the facilitator being a human or a robot. For other trigger information, see Fig. 1 CMS and [0161]-[0165] for brands/companies uploading trigger information about previously known counterfeit packages to the central database over the internet, which syncs daily with the local counterfeit database per [0078]-[0079] and [0150]. Examiner also notes that the daily syncing of [0150]-[0151] indicates that trigger information of counterfeit packages can also originate from other sorting facilities and be relayed via the central database to the local counterfeit database of the sorting facility. For at least part of the information being prestored, Examiner notes that Fig. 1 and [0145]-[0150] teach that every package going through the sorting facility, including the first package later confirmed to be counterfeit by facilitator inspection has its attribute information collected by the DWS system and stored in the local counterfeit database before sorting and further inspection determined the package was counterfeit)
obtaining or causing obtaining the attribute information associated with the at least one first consignment unit from the database based on the obtained trigger information (see [0152] "the provided data of the package is compared to already stored data in the counterfeit database and a search for matches is done using a virtual machine (VM) comprising a counterfeit comparison algorithm coupled to the database" for obtaining attribute information of a package designated as counterfeit by trigger information (provided by the facilitator/brand) and already stored in the local counterfeit database in the steps discussed above. The attribute information of this first package determined to be counterfeit is obtained for subsequent comparison to attribute information of a second package. See [0055]-[0061] for obtaining text, image, and label information from packages previously determined, based on the trigger information above, to be counterfeit to use in a comparison)
- determining or causing determining whether or not attribute information associated with at least one second consignment unit is stored in the database in association with the at least one second consignment unit that is similar to the attribute information associated with the at least one first consignment unit (see [0145]-[0150] for attribute information of a second package being determined by DWS and provided to and stored in the local counterfeit database. See [0152] "After the data/information of the package is uploaded to the local database 111, the provided data of the package is compared to already stored data in the counterfeit database and a search for matches is done using a virtual machine (VM) comprising a counterfeit comparison algorithm coupled to the database" and [0153]-[0156] for comparing stored attribute information of a second package to the obtained already-stored information of a first counterfeit package to see if the second package's attribute information is similar. See [0088]-[0090] for an algorithm for determining similarity percentages. See [0097] and [0179] for the comparison algorithm being a machine learning algorithm)
if attribute information associated with at least one second consignment unit is determined to be stored in the database in association with the at least one second consignment unit that is similar to the attribute information associated with the at least one first consignment unit:- generating alert information or causing alert information to be generated (see [0166] "Also the figure illustrate, that the virtual machine (VM) communicates with the associated package sortation facility and assigns a custom sorter chute for the package, said package goes to that chute automatically during sortation if any counterfeit possibility is detected" for alerting the package sortation facility that a package might be counterfeit based on possible similarities if attribute information is similar. Also see [0091] and [0173])
the system further comprising at least one second apparatus configured to perform: - obtaining or causing of obtaining the alert information from the at least one first apparatus; and the at least one second apparatus being further configured to perform at least one of: - automatically interrupting or causing an automatic interrupting a logistics processing of the at least one second consignment unit based on the alert information by interrupting a transport processing of an unmanned ground vehicle (UGV) and/or a robot and/or an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV); - automatically interrupting or causing an automatic interrupting a logistics processing of the at least one second consignment unit based on the generated alert information and causing an unmanned ground vehicle (UGV) and/or a robot and/or an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to transport the at least one second consignment unit to a safe location; - causing a logistics process in relation to the at least one second consignment unit to be automatically interrupted based on the generated alert information by automatically interrupting transport of the at least one second consignment unit by a conveyor belt; - causing the at least one second consignment unit to be mechanically discharged from a conveyor belt transporting the second consignment unit based on the generated alert information (see [0166] "Also the figure illustrate, that the virtual machine (VM) communicates with the associated package sortation facility and assigns a custom sorter chute for the package, said package goes to that chute automatically during sortation if any counterfeit possibility is detected" for providing an alert assigning a custom chute for a suspect package to receive additional inspection. See [0030] "a ‘Sortation facility” may be understood as a facility for sortation of packages comprising anything between a single (conveyor) belt to a big central package facility with hundreds of belts" and [0091]-[0092] "if any counterfeit possibility is detected by the counterfeit comparison algorithm, communicating with the associated package sortation facility and assigns a custom sorter chute for the package, said package goes to that chute automatically during sortation. Specifically, such embodiments are particularly, but not exclusively, advantageous for providing method, wherein a detected potential counterfeit packages is sorted out from the sorting belt automatically" for a second apparatus of the sortation facility and automatically sorting the suspect package to the assigned chute, thereby interrupting transport of the suspect second package by a conveyor belt based on the specified chute in the alert information. While Examiner notes that mechanical discharge to the custom chute is further implied, Examiner notes that only one of the features listed is required to teach the limitations as a whole)
- wherein the respective attribute information comprises label information, physical information and/or image information relating to a respective consignment unit (see [0145]-[0150] for respective attribute information obtained from packages entering the sorting facility comprising image information shipping label information and physical characteristics)
and - wherein the trigger information is obtained by the at least one first apparatus by receiving the trigger information from an external apparatus, wherein the trigger information is obtained by the at least one first apparatus in response to the at least one first consignment unit being determined as being or having been used to carry particular content (see Fig. 1 (Cont.) "Counterfeit? Yes/No" for a facilitator indicating a package is counterfeit (which Examiner is interpreting as "Trigger Data") and storing images (associated attribute information with the trigger data using a device with DB interface to the Local Counterfeit Database 111. Also see Fig, 2 for a facilitator taking photos during inspection with a camera and [0094]-[0096] for the facilitator being a human or a robot. A robot facilitator or a device of a human facilitator is an "external apparatus" (i.e. an apparatus different from the at least one apparatus performing the claimed method) as argued by Applicant on page 16 of 5/22/2026 Remarks because the facilitator device or robot is not performing the comparison. Similarly, [0161]-[0165] for brands/companies uploading trigger information about previously known counterfeit packages to the central database over the internet, which syncs daily with the local counterfeit database per [0078]-[0079] and [0150] is obtaining trigger information from external apparatus as neither the brands nor the central database is performing the comparison method)
As discussed above, Unver teaches a computer system and a computer performing the operations in computer code, which strongly implies a memory including the computer code for performing the functions of the Unver system. Unver also teaches databases storing attribute information of counterfeit packages. However, Unver does not explicitly teach the system comprising a memory comprising computer code to perform the recited functions.
Maeda teaches one first apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code, said at least one memory and said computer program code configured to, with said at least one processor, cause said at least one first apparatus to perform the claimed functions (see Fig. 2 upper-level apparatus 2 and [0026] “The upper-level apparatus 2 is an information management apparatus for managing information in the inspection system 1… the upper-level apparatus 2 stores, in a database, advance data that is information relating to parcels to be inspected, and updates the database storing the information including inspection results relating to the parcels, based on the information acquired from the respective systems 3, 4 and 5” and [0035]-[0039] for the apparatus being a computer with a processor that executes the programs stored in a memory to perform the inspection functions).
Regarding the apparatus with a processor and memory executing the functions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a processor and a memory comprising computer code to perform claimed functions as taught by Maeda in Unver, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Unver and Maeda teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 above. Unver further teaches:
wherein the at least one apparatus caused to perform an action corresponds to or is comprised by at least one of - a stand-alone computer; - a mobile device; - an apparatus installed at a node of a logistics system; - a consignment unit sorting machine and/or a consignment unit examination apparatus; - a transport vehicle for transporting consignment units; - an unmanned aerial vehicle, UAV; - an unmanned ground vehicle, UGV; - a robot; - a control apparatus of a conveyor belt (see [0030] "a ‘Sortation facility” may be understood as a facility for sortation of packages comprising anything between a single (conveyor) belt to a big central package facility with hundreds of belts" and [0091]-[0092] "if any counterfeit possibility is detected by the counterfeit comparison algorithm, communicating with the associated package sortation facility and assigns a custom sorter chute for the package, said package goes to that chute automatically during sortation. Specifically, such embodiments are particularly, but not exclusively, advantageous for providing method, wherein a detected potential counterfeit packages is sorted out from the sorting belt automatically" for an apparatus performing an action corresponds to a control apparatus of a conveyor belt/apparatus installed at the sorting facility (node) of a logistics system/a consignment unit sorting machine to automatically remove the suspect item from the belt and send the suspect item to the chute automatically. Examiner notes that only one of the list of apparatuses is required to teach the claim)
Regarding claim 13, Unver teaches:
An apparatus comprising at least one processor (see Fig. 1 and [0145] “FIG. 1 illustrates a catch flow-chart of detecting a possible counterfeit package within a sorting facility conducting sorter control e.g. via Sort Allocation Computer System (SAC)”, [0107] “a computer program comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out at least the following steps of the method of claim 1” and [0167]-[0171] for an apparatus for detecting counterfeit packages comprising at least one processor/computer and computer code to perform the method)
obtaining or causing obtaining trigger information associated with at least part of attribute information prestored in a database in association with at least one first consignment unit, wherein the attribute information is associated with the at least one first consignment unit (see Fig. 1 (Cont.) "Counterfeit? Yes/No" for a facilitator indicating a package is counterfeit (which Examiner is interpreting as "Trigger Information") and storing images (associated attribute information with the trigger data) using a device with DB interface to the Local Counterfeit Database 111. Also see Fig. 2 for a facilitator taking photos during inspection with a camera and [0094]-[0096] for the facilitator being a human or a robot. For other trigger information, see Fig. 1 CMS and [0161]-[0165] for brands/companies uploading trigger information about previously known counterfeit packages to the central database over the internet, which syncs daily with the local counterfeit database per [0078]-[0079] and [0150]. Examiner also notes that the daily syncing of [0150]-[0151] indicates that trigger information of counterfeit packages can also originate from other sorting facilities and be relayed via the central database to the local counterfeit database of the sorting facility. For at least part of the information being prestored, Examiner notes that Fig. 1 and [0145]-[0150] teach that every package going through the sorting facility, including the first package later confirmed to be counterfeit by facilitator inspection has its attribute information collected by the DWS system and stored in the local counterfeit database before sorting and further inspection determined the package was counterfeit)
obtaining or causing obtaining the attribute information associated with the at least one first consignment unit from the database based on the obtained trigger information (see [0152] "the provided data of the package is compared to already stored data in the counterfeit database and a search for matches is done using a virtual machine (VM) comprising a counterfeit comparison algorithm coupled to the database" for obtaining attribute information of a package designated as counterfeit by trigger information (provided by the facilitator/brand) and already stored in the local counterfeit database in the steps discussed above. The attribute information of this first package determined to be counterfeit is obtained for subsequent comparison to attribute information of a second package. See [0055]-[0061] for obtaining text, image, and label information from packages previously determined, based on the trigger information above, to be counterfeit to use in a comparison)
determining or causing determining whether or not attribute information associated with at least one second consignment unit is stored in the database in association with the at least one second consignment unit that is similar to the attribute information associated with the at least one first consignment unit (see [0145]-[0150] for attribute information of a second package being determined by DWS and provided to and stored in the local counterfeit database. See [0152] "After the data/information of the package is uploaded to the local database 111, the provided data of the package is compared to already stored data in the counterfeit database and a search for matches is done using a virtual machine (VM) comprising a counterfeit comparison algorithm coupled to the database" and [0153]-[0156] for comparing stored attribute information of a second package to the obtained already-stored information of a first counterfeit package to see if the second package's attribute information is similar. See [0088]-[0090] for an algorithm for determining similarity percentages. See [0097] and [0179] for the comparison algorithm being a machine learning algorithm)
if attribute information associated with at least one second consignment unit is determined to be stored in the database in association with the at least one second consignment unit that is similar to the attribute information associated with the at least one first consignment unit:- generating alert information or causing alert information to be generated (see [0166] "Also the figure illustrate, that the virtual machine (VM) communicates with the associated package sortation facility and assigns a custom sorter chute for the package, said package goes to that chute automatically during sortation if any counterfeit possibility is detected" for alerting the package sortation facility that a package might be counterfeit based on possible similarities if attribute information is similar. Also see [0091] and [0173])
providing or causing of providing the alert information to cause at least one apparatus to perform an action comprising at least one of:- causing a logistics process in relation to the at least one second consignment unit to be automatically interrupted based on the generated alert information by interrupting a transport processing of an unmanned ground vehicle (UGV) and/or a robot and/or an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV);- causing a logistics process in relation to the at least one second consignment unit to be automatically interrupted based on the generated alert information, and causing an unmanned ground vehicle (UGV) and/or a robot and/or an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to transport the at least one second consignment unit to a safe location;- causing a logistics process in relation to the at least one second consignment unit to be automatically interrupted based on the generated alert information by automatically interrupting transport of the at least one second consignment unit by a conveyor belt;- causing the at least one second consignment unit to be mechanically discharged from a conveyor belt transporting the second consignment unit based on the generated alert information (see [0166] "Also the figure illustrate, that the virtual machine (VM) communicates with the associated package sortation facility and assigns a custom sorter chute for the package, said package goes to that chute automatically during sortation if any counterfeit possibility is detected" for providing an alert assigning a custom chute for a suspect package to receive additional inspection. See [0030] "a ‘Sortation facility” may be understood as a facility for sortation of packages comprising anything between a single (conveyor) belt to a big central package facility with hundreds of belts" and [0091]-[0092] "if any counterfeit possibility is detected by the counterfeit comparison algorithm, communicating with the associated package sortation facility and assigns a custom sorter chute for the package, said package goes to that chute automatically during sortation. Specifically, such embodiments are particularly, but not exclusively, advantageous for providing method, wherein a detected potential counterfeit packages is sorted out from the sorting belt automatically" for a second apparatus of the sortation facility and automatically sorting the suspect package to the assigned chute, thereby interrupting transport of the suspect second package by a conveyor belt based on the specified chute in the alert information. While Examiner notes that mechanical discharge to the custom chute is further implied, Examiner notes that only one of the features listed is required to teach the limitations as a whole)
wherein the respective attribute information comprises label information, physical information and/or image information relating to a respective consignment unit (see [0145]-[0150] for respective attribute information obtained from packages entering the sorting facility comprising image information shipping label information and physical characteristics)
and - wherein the trigger information is obtained by the apparatus by receiving the trigger information from an external apparatus, wherein the trigger information is obtained by the apparatus in response to the at least one first consignment unit being determined as being or having been used to carry particular content (see Fig. 1 (Cont.) "Counterfeit? Yes/No" for a facilitator indicating a package is counterfeit (which Examiner is interpreting as "Trigger Data") and storing images (associated attribute information with the trigger data using a device with DB interface to the Local Counterfeit Database 111. Also see Fig, 2 for a facilitator taking photos during inspection with a camera and [0094]-[0096] for the facilitator being a human or a robot. A robot facilitator or a device of a human facilitator is an "external apparatus" (i.e. an apparatus different from the at least one apparatus performing the claimed method) as argued by Applicant on page 16 of 5/22/2026 Remarks because the facilitator device or robot is not performing the comparison. Similarly, [0161]-[0165] for brands/companies uploading trigger information about previously known counterfeit packages to the central database over the internet, which syncs daily with the local counterfeit database per [0078]-[0079] and [0150] is obtaining trigger information from external apparatus as neither the brands nor the central database is performing the comparison method)
As discussed above, Unver teaches a computer executing computer code to perform the recited operations, which strongly implies a memory including the computer code for performing the functions of the computer in Unver. However, Unver does not explicitly teach the apparatus comprising a memory comprising computer code to perform the recited functions.
Maeda teaches one first apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code, said at least one memory and said computer program code configured to, with said at least one processor, cause said at least one first apparatus to perform the claimed functions (see Fig. 2 upper-level apparatus 2 and [0026] “The upper-level apparatus 2 is an information management apparatus for managing information in the inspection system 1… the upper-level apparatus 2 stores, in a database, advance data that is information relating to parcels to be inspected, and updates the database storing the information including inspection results relating to the parcels, based on the information acquired from the respective systems 3, 4 and 5” and [0035]-[0039] for the apparatus being a computer with a processor that executes the programs stored in a memory to perform the inspection functions).
Regarding the apparatus with a processor and memory executing the functions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a processor and a memory comprising computer code to perform claimed functions as taught by Maeda in Unver, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Unver and Maeda teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 above. Regarding the limitations introduced in claim 15, see the rejection of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Unver and Maeda teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 above. Regarding the limitations introduced in claim 16, see the rejection of claim 12 above.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Unver and Maeda teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 above. Unver further teaches:
wherein the trigger information is obtained after and/or in response to the at least one first consignment unit being determined as being or having been used to carry at least one of: - explosive and/or flammable material; - illegal drugs; - illegal weapons; - at least one substance harmful to human health; - different illegal content (see [0028] “a ‘counterfeit package” may be understood as a package having a content being a counterfeit product”, [0157], and [0167] for trigger information is obtained in response to the package carrying counterfeit items (i.e. “different illegal content”). Further see [0119] for the content being detected being illegal drugs/medicine. See [0138] “a ‘illegal product” may be understood as anything like unlawful drugs or medicine sold on the black market”. Examiner notes only one of the listed items needs to be taught to teach the claim as a whole)
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Unver and Maeda teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 above. Unver further teaches:
said at least one memory and said computer program code configured to, with said at least one processor, cause said apparatus to further perform: - determining or causing determining whether or not attribute information stored in the database and associated with at least one second consignment unit is similar to the attribute information associated with the at least one first consignment unit, wherein attribute information stored in the database and associated with at least one second consignment unit is determined to be similar to the attribute information associated with the at least one first consignment unit if at least one of the criteria are met:- a value representative of a similarity between the attribute information stored in the database and associated with at least one second consignment unit and attribute information associated with the at least one first consignment unit is equal to or above a predefined threshold;- a difference between at least one first parameter representative of attribute information associated with the at least one first consignment unit and at least one second parameter representative of attribute information associated with the at least one second consignment unit is equal to or below a corresponding at least one predetermined threshold (see [0153]-[0155] for the counterfeit comparison algorithm determining a percent possibility that the second package is counterfeit based on matches/similarity to counterfeit package attributes. See [0156] “if the counterfeit possibility is higher than a pre-determined threshold, the package is selected for further investigation” for the value representing a similarity between the second and first packages being above a threshold to trigger the additional inspection of the second package to determine if the second package is counterfeit. See algorithm in [0088]-[0089] for the percentage being based on similarity of text. Examiner notes that only one of the two listed methods is required to teach the claims as a whole)
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Unver and Maeda teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 above. Unver further teaches:
wherein attribute information of a consignment unit comprises at least one of: - information representative of a weight of the consignment unit; - information representative of a size of the consignment unit;- information representative of a geometrical shape of the consignment unit; - information representative of a material of the consignment unit; - information representative of a material and/or a dimension of a sealing element used for closing and/or sealing the consignment unit; - information of a class of the consignment unit; - physical information derived from a label of the consignment unit (see [0145]-[0149] for attribute information including label information, material information, weight information, dimension information. Also see [0083] for taping material, label location. Examiner notes that only one of the listed attribute types is required to teach the claim as a whole)
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Unver and Maeda teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 above. Unver further teaches:
wherein attribute information of a consignment unit comprises at least one of: - image information obtained via an image recognition algorithm based on at least one image taken of at least one corresponding face of the consignment unit; - object information obtained via an object recognition algorithm based on at least two images taken of at least two corresponding faces of the consignment unit - at least one image feature vector representative of at least one image taken from at least one corresponding surface of the consignment unit (see [0052] “the method further comprises the step of reading the text of an image by Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and/or video coding. Specifically, such embodiments are particularly, but not exclusively, advantageous for providing a very effective recognition method for reading the text of an image on a package, so that the data on the package can be compared to the data stored in the counterfeit database” and [0061]-[0062] “if any text data matches is detected, the method further comprises the step: focusing on sender information by reading the shipping label using OCR and detect the sender of the package” for attribute information comprising image text information obtained via OCR based on an image of a shipping label, on at least one corresponding face, of a package. See [0063]-[0064] for the label being on the package. Examiner notes that only one of the object information, image information, or feature vector is required to teach the claim as a whole)
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Unver and Maeda teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 above. Unver further teaches:
wherein attribute information of a consignment unit comprises at least one of: - information unique to a printer used for printing of a label of the consignment unit and derived from the consignment unit; - label information related to the consignment unit (see [0145]-[0149], particularly [0149] “preferably being data of one or more of stickers on the package, such as barcode or logo, delivery partner, customs declaration, shipping label” for attribute information comprising label information related to the package. Examiner notes that only one of label information or information unique to a printer is required to teach the claim as a whole)
Regarding claim 22, Unver teaches:
(see [0107] “a computer program comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out at least the following steps of the method of claim 1:” and [0108]-[0113] for computer program code for executing the claimed functions)
obtaining or causing obtaining trigger information associated with at least part of attribute information prestored in a database in association with at least one first consignment unit, wherein the attribute information is associated with the at least one first consignment unit (see Fig. 1 (Cont.) "Counterfeit? Yes/No" for a facilitator indicating a package is counterfeit (which Examiner is interpreting as "Trigger Information") and storing images (associated attribute information with the trigger data) using a device with DB interface to the Local Counterfeit Database 111. Also see Fig. 2 for a facilitator taking photos during inspection with a camera and [0094]-[0096] for the facilitator being a human or a robot. For other trigger information, see Fig. 1 CMS and [0161]-[0165] for brands/companies uploading trigger information about previously known counterfeit packages to the central database over the internet, which syncs daily with the local counterfeit database per [0078]-[0079] and [0150]. Examiner also notes that the daily syncing of [0150]-[0151] indicates that trigger information of counterfeit packages can also originate from other sorting facilities and be relayed via the central database to the local counterfeit database of the sorting facility. For at least part of the information being prestored, Examiner notes that Fig. 1 and [0145]-[0150] teach that every package going through the sorting facility, including the first package later confirmed to be counterfeit by facilitator inspection has its attribute information collected by the DWS system and stored in the local counterfeit database before sorting and further inspection determined the package was counterfeit)
obtaining or causing obtaining the attribute information associated with the at least one first consignment unit from the database based on the obtained trigger information (see [0152] "the provided data of the package is compared to already stored data in the counterfeit database and a search for matches is done using a virtual machine (VM) comprising a counterfeit comparison algorithm coupled to the database" for obtaining attribute information of a package designated as counterfeit by trigger information (provided by the facilitator/brand) and already stored in the local counterfeit database in the steps discussed above. The attribute information of this first package determined to be counterfeit is obtained for subsequent comparison to attribute information of a second package. See [0055]-[0061] for obtaining text, image, and label information from packages previously determined, based on the trigger information above, to be counterfeit to use in a comparison)
determining or causing determining that attribute information associated with at least one second consignment unit is stored in the database in association with the at least one second consignment unit that is similar to the attribute information associated with the at least one first consignment unit (see [0145]-[0150] for attribute information of a second package being determined by DWS and provided to and stored in the local counterfeit database. See [0152] "After the data/information of the package is uploaded to the local database 111, the provided data of the package is compared to already stored data in the counterfeit database and a search for matches is done using a virtual machine (VM) comprising a counterfeit comparison algorithm coupled to the database" and [0153]-[0156] for comparing stored attribute information of a second package to the obtained already-stored information of a first counterfeit package to see if the second package's attribute information is similar. See [0088]-[0090] for an algorithm for determining similarity percentages. See [0097] and [0179] for the comparison algorithm being a machine learning algorithm)
generating alert information or causing alert information to be generated (see [0166] "Also the figure illustrate, that the virtual machine (VM) communicates with the associated package sortation facility and assigns a custom sorter chute for the package, said package goes to that chute automatically during sortation if any counterfeit possibility is detected" for alerting the package sortation facility that a package might be counterfeit based on possible similarities. Also see [0091] and [0173])
providing or causing of providing the alert information to cause at least one apparatus to perform an action comprising at least one of:- causing a logistics process in relation to the at least one second consignment unit to be automatically interrupted based on the generated alert information by interrupting a transport processing of an unmanned ground vehicle (UGV) and/or a robot and/or an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV);- causing a logistics process in relation to the at least one second consignment unit to be automatically interrupted based on the generated alert information, and causing an unmanned ground vehicle (UGV) and/or a robot and/or an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to transport the at least one second consignment unit to a safe location;- causing a logistics process in relation to the at least one second consignment unit to be automatically interrupted based on the generated alert information by automatically interrupting transport of the at least one second consignment unit by a conveyor belt;- causing the at least one second consignment unit to be mechanically discharged from a conveyor belt transporting the second consignment unit based on the generated alert information (see [0166] "Also the figure illustrate, that the virtual machine (VM) communicates with the associated package sortation facility and assigns a custom sorter chute for the package, said package goes to that chute automatically during sortation if any counterfeit possibility is detected" for providing an alert assigning a custom chute for a suspect package to receive additional inspection. See [0030] "a ‘Sortation facility” may be understood as a facility for sortation of packages comprising anything between a single (conveyor) belt to a big central package facility with hundreds of belts" and [0091]-[0092] "if any counterfeit possibility is detected by the counterfeit comparison algorithm, communicating with the associated package sortation facility and assigns a custom sorter chute for the package, said package goes to that chute automatically during sortation. Specifically, such embodiments are particularly, but not exclusively, advantageous for providing method, wherein a detected potential counterfeit packages is sorted out from the sorting belt automatically" for interrupting transport of the suspect second package by a conveyor belt based on the specified chute in the alert information. While Examiner notes that mechanical discharge to the custom chute is further implied, Examiner notes that only one of the features listed is required to teach the limitations as a whole)
wherein the respective attribute information comprises label information, physical information and/or image information relating to a respective consignment unit (see [00145]-[0150] for respective attribute information obtained from packages entering the sorting facility comprising image information shipping label information and physical characteristics)
and - wherein the trigger information is obtained by the at least one apparatus by receiving the trigger information from an external apparatus, wherein the trigger information is obtained by the at least one apparatus in response to the at least one first consignment unit being determined as being or having been used to carry particular content (see Fig. 1 (Cont.) "Counterfeit? Yes/No" for a facilitator indicating a package is counterfeit (which Examiner is interpreting as "Trigger Data") and storing images (associated attribute information with the trigger data using a device with DB interface to the Local Counterfeit Database 111. Also see Fig, 2 for a facilitator taking photos during inspection with a camera and [0094]-[0096] for the facilitator being a human or a robot. A robot facilitator or a device of a human facilitator is an "external apparatus" (i.e. an apparatus different from the at least one apparatus performing the claimed method) as argued by Applicant on page 16 of 5/22/2026 Remarks because the facilitator device or robot is not performing the comparison. Similarly, [0161]-[0165] for brands/companies uploading trigger information about previously known counterfeit packages to the central database over the internet, which syncs daily with the local counterfeit database per [0078]-[0079] and [0150] is obtaining trigger information from external apparatus as neither the brands nor the central database is performing the comparison method)
While the computer systems and computer executing the computer code of Unver strongly implies a non-transitory computer readable medium with program instructions to execute the method when performed by the computer, Unver does not explicitly teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program that causes a processor to execute the claimed method.
Maeda further teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program that causes a processor to execute the claimed method (see [0038] “The memory 12 is a storage device which stores programs and data. The memory 12 includes, for example, a ROM that is a read-only nonvolatile memory, a RAM that temporarily stores data, and a rewritable nonvolatile memory” and [0037] “The processor 11 executes an arithmetic process. The processor 11 is composed as, for example, a CPU. The processor 11 implements various processes by executing programs stored in the memory 12” and [0039] and claim 6 for the program performing the inspection processes).
Regarding the non-transitory computer-readable medium, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program that causes a processor to execute the claimed method as taught by Maeda in Unver, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Beckert et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2005/0278142) teaches a system for detecting mail with attributes indicating a higher risk of contamination
Baiera (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2009/0204415) teaches receiving data of recalled products and preventing their distribution when scanned at a retailer
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C MORONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4403. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached on (571) 270-3923. 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.
/M.C.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights