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 amendment filed on 12/05/2025.
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.
This action is made FINAL.
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 either 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, or unpersuasive. Claims 1, 3-13, and 15-22 still stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Particularly, Applicant argues that Sansone et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2003/0206643, hereafter known as Sansone ‘643) does not teach the attribute information being prestored in a database in association with at least one first consignment unit on pages 16-17. As will be discussed in greater detail below, Maeda et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0091296, hereafter known as Maeda) has been used to teach this newly amended limitation. Maeda teaches 0th order processing in which attribute information of parcels is collected and stored prior to the inspection of the parcel for dangerous/unallowed contents.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments in section A. of Remarks are moot.
In section B. on pages 17-18 of Remarks, Applicant argues that the combination of Sansone ‘643 and Sansone ‘613 does not teach comparing prestored attribute information of a first consignment unit to other attribute information of a second consignment unit that is also stored in the same database. This argument is also moot because Maeda is used below to teach that the attribute information of both the first (prestored) and second consignment units are stored in a same database instead of Sansone ‘613. The amendment to require the attribute information associated with the first consignment unit be “prestored” makes this change in grounds necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on page 17 that the claimed invention is distinguished over the art because the claimed invention recites an “archival scan” while the prior art recites a “real-time scan”, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Claim 1 recites “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”. This limitation does not preclude the inspection performed in the prior art, as there is nothing in the claim language precluding the second consignment unit being evaluated after the first consignment unit. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation, and claim 1 as a whole, requires that a second consignment unit be identified in the database that is similar to the first consignment unit. The broadest reasonable interpretation does not, as Applicant is arguing, require that the attribute information of the second consignment unit be a part of the database before the trigger information regarding the first consignment is received. Therefore, the combination of Sansone ‘643 and Maeda updating the database with attribute/image information of parcels before they are inspected (Maeda) and comparing images of a current parcel and a past suspect parcel (Sansone ‘643) reads on the limitation of claim 1 at issue in the “archival scan” argument.
Therefore, the combination of Sansone ‘643 and Maeda teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as will be shown below. Similar reasoning applies to independent claims 11, 13, and 22. Applicant’s arguments that these independent claims and their respective dependent claims are allowable over the prior art are moot/unpersuasive. Claims 1, 3-13, and 15-22 still stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-13, and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sansone et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2003/0206643, hereafter known as Sansone ‘643) in view of Maeda et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0091296, hereafter known as Maeda).
Regarding claim 1, Sansone ‘643 teaches:
A method performed by at least one apparatus, the method comprising: - obtaining or causing obtaining trigger information associated with at least part of attribute information (see Fig. 4 and [0023] "The complete operation of the system 10 for identifying mail pieces that have similar attributes to mail pieces that are suspected of being contaminated will now be described with respect to the flow diagram of FIG. 4" thru [0031] for the overall method. See [0030] "If in either step 108 or step 114 it is determined that envelope 38 is contaminated, then in step 120 the envelope 38 is passed to marking device 48 where it is marked to identify the envelope 38 as suspected of containing a contaminant…then in step 126 an image of the envelope 38 is taken and a file of the suspect envelope 38…is produced" and [0031] "In step 128, the file of the suspect envelope 38 is sent to data center 20 for storing in database 24. Accordingly, each of the other post offices 14, 16 will have immediate access to the record of suspect envelope 38 to compare against all incoming mail at those locations as well" for obtaining trigger information of an envelope confirmed to be contaminated, associated with attribute information, and storing the attribute information of the image of the envelope in the database 24. Also see [0022] for a data record of attribute of the suspect mail piece stored in database 24 and [0024] for attribute information)
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 [0030] "If in either step 108 or step 114 it is determined that envelope 38 is contaminated, then in step 120 the envelope 38 is passed to marking device 48 where it is marked to identify the envelope 38 as suspected of containing a contaminant…then in step 126 an image of the envelope 38 is taken and a file of the suspect envelope 38…is produced" and [0031] "In step 128, the file of the suspect envelope 38 is sent to data center 20 for storing in database 24. Accordingly, each of the other post offices 14, 16 will have immediate access to the record of suspect envelope 38 to compare against all incoming mail at those locations as well" for obtaining the attribute information of the first contaminated envelope and storing the attribute information in the database based upon the trigger information of the envelope being determined to be contaminated)
determining or causing determining that attribute information associated with at least one second consignment unit is stored in the database (see [0023] "If an envelope is sensed in step 100, then in step 102 an image of the envelope is captured by imaging system 44", [0024] "In step 104, controller 30 compares the image of the envelope 38 to images of suspected mail pieces that are stored as records in database 24 of data center 20. Specifically, one or more attributes of the envelope 38 are compared to the attributes of the images stored in database 24", and [0025] "In step 106, it is determined if one or more of the attributes of envelope 38 match the attributes of any of the suspected mail pieces whose images are stored in database 24" for determining whether attributes associated with the second package are stored in the database as attributes of the first/suspect package. See [0028] for determining that attributes associated with the second consignment unit that match attribute information of the suspect envelope are stored in the database)
- generating alert information or causing alert information to be generated (see [0029] "From either step 140 or step 116, the method proceeds to step 118 where controller 30 triggers the alarm 36 to indicate to an operator that envelope 38 is being diverted to inspection container 64 or 54" for generating an alert)
-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 [0029] "From either step 140 or step 116, the method proceeds to step 118 where controller 30 triggers the alarm 36 to indicate to an operator that envelope 38 is being diverted to inspection container 64 or 54" and [0028] "then if in step 106 it is determined that envelope 38 has one or more attributes that are similar to the attributes of one or more of the suspect mail pieces from database 24, then in step 140 the envelope 38 will be immediately diverted from the processing stream by diverter 62 to inspection container 64 for further inspection and evaluation" and [0021] "Diverter 62 is coupled to controller 30, and can divert mail pieces to an inspection container 64 or pass a mail piece to contaminant detector 46 based on control signals from controller 30" for diverter 62 receiving alert information that an envelope is suspect and interrupting the normal processing of mail by sending the mail for additional inspection. Examiner notes that only one of the “causing” steps is required to teach the limitation as a whole.)
- wherein the respective attribute information comprises label information, physical information and/or image information relating to a respective consignment unit (see [0024] “controller 30 compares the image of the envelope 38 to images of suspected mail pieces that are stored as records in database 24 of data center 20. Specifically, one or more attributes of the envelope 38 are compared to the attributes of the images stored in database 24. Such attributes could include, for example, similar markings on the envelope 38, including return address, addressee information, or other types of markings, similar handwriting or printing style for any markings on the envelope, or similar postage applied to the envelope” for attributes including image information and physical information of handwriting)
As discussed above, Sansone ‘643 teaches storing images of mail temporarily in buffer 32 in [0017] for the piece of mail currently being compared to suspect mail pieces in the database before the buffer is subsequently erased or overwritten with the next piece to be examined (see [0026]). Therefore, while Sansone ‘643 teaches determining that attributes of the mail piece being examined are found in the database of suspect mail pieces, Sansone ‘643 does not explicitly teach that the attribute information being searched for is also stored in the database in association with the piece of mail being processed. Additionally, while Sansone ‘643 teaches storing images on suspect mail pieces during the inspection process, Sansone ‘643 also does not explicitly teach the attribute information associated with the first consignment (the suspect consignment) being prestored in a database in association with the at least one first consignment.
Maeda teaches attribute information associated with the at least one first consignment unit being prestored in a database in association with the at least one first consignment unit (see Fig. 7 step ST11 0-th order process and [0111] “The 0th-order process system 3 executes the information acquisition process (0th-order process) of acquiring the external appearance image, X-ray image, form information and tag information from the parcel M of the inspection target (ST11). The 0th-order process system 3 acquires a parcel ID (identification information such as a mail article number) of the parcel of the inspection target placed on the conveyor 22, and correlates, and registers in the upper-level apparatus 2, the parcel ID, and the information such as the external appearance image, X-ray image, form information and tag information” and see [0042] and [0026]-[0027] for the first database storing this “advance data” regarding parcels before they proceed to first and second inspections. See [0128] for registering the advance information into a second database that is then accessed in the course of primary inspection in [0139]. In combination with Sansone ‘643, this advance information regarding the parcels would be collected as part of a 0th order process before the inspection process to detect harmful/illegal substances begins).
As Maeda teaches that images and other attribute information of all parcels are captured and stored in the database before inspection occurs as discussed regarding Maeda [0042] and [0026]-[0027], Maeda further teaches that the attribute information for the first and second parcels (i.e. the image data of the second parcel being compared with the image of the suspect first parcel) are both stored in the same database when the comparison is performed (in combination with Sansone ‘643).
Regarding the prestoring of attribute information, since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of creating database files of attribute information for each parcel before inspecting the parcel for dangerous/illegal substances of Maeda for the creation of a database file for a first consignment during/after the inspection of the consignment for dangerous/illegal substances of Sansone ‘643.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include storing all mail piece images/attributes into a database as taught by Maeda in the system of Sansone ‘643, 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.
Particularly, storing image files and attributes of each new mail piece in a database would have predictable results when combined with the system of Sansone ‘643. The usage of the database to store all of the mail piece image files and attributes simply takes the images and attributes Sansone ‘643 already captures and stores them into a combined database instead of simply using the information one time in a buffer. The scanning and alerting process of Sansone ‘643 would be able to proceed with predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, and the database of Maeda would still function as an advance information store in the combination.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sansone ‘643 and Maeda teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Sansone ‘643 further 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 [0029] "From either step 140 or step 116, the method proceeds to step 118 where controller 30 triggers the alarm 36 to indicate to an operator that envelope 38 is being diverted to inspection container 64 or 54" and [0017] "An alarm 36, such as, for example, an audio or visual indicator, is coupled to controller 30 to indicate to an operator that a suspect mail piece or a mail piece having similar attributes to a suspect mail piece has been detected as further described below" for the alarm 136 receiving the alarm trigger from the controller and displaying a visual alert that the envelope is suspect)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sansone ‘643 and Maeda teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Sansone ‘643 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 [0017] "An alarm 36, such as, for example, an audio or visual indicator, is coupled to controller 30 to indicate to an operator that a suspect mail piece or a mail piece having similar attributes to a suspect mail piece has been detected as further described below" and [0021] "Diverter 62 is coupled to controller 30, and can divert mail pieces to an inspection container 64 or pass a mail piece to contaminant detector 46 based on control signals from controller 30" for the at least one second apparatus being at least an apparatus installed at a post office of a logistics system. See Figures 2A and 2B for the diverters and alarms being within the post office)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Sansone ‘643 and Maeda teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Sansone ‘643 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 [0018] "Post office 12 includes an imaging system 44, such as, for example, an envelope face scanner, for capturing an image of the mail pieces as they are received by the post office 12. The captured images of the mail pieces are stored in the mail piece face image buffer 32. The mail pieces are then passed to a contaminant detector 46 to determine if the mail pieces may contain a harmful contaminant" for checking whether the first package has a harmful contaminant. See [0030]-[0031] “If in either step 108 or step 114 it is determined that envelope 38 is contaminated, then in step 120 the envelope 38 is passed to marking device 48… in step 126 an image of the envelope 38 is taken and a file of the suspect envelope 38, as described with respect to FIG. 3, is produced and stored in archive 34… In step 128, the file of the suspect envelope 38 is sent to data center 20 for storing in database 24” for the trigger information of an image file of the first parcel being received after contamination is detected. See [0003] "attempts have been made to disrupt the postal system and use it as a weapon of terror and fear by the inclusion of harmful chemical or biological contaminants, such as, for example, the spore-forming bacterium Bacillus anthracis (anthrax), within or on a mail piece. Such contaminants can be carried in several forms, including for example, a powder form" for example of harmful contaminants)
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sansone ‘643 and Maeda teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Sansone ‘643 further teaches:
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 [0025] "In step 106, it is determined if one or more of the attributes of envelope 38 match the attributes of any of the suspected mail pieces whose images are stored in database 24. If more than one matching attribute is required for controller 30 to determine that envelope 38 has similar attributes to a suspect mail piece, a threshold limit could be set for the minimum number of attributes that must be the same, such as, for example, matching two or three attributes" for a number of matching attributes being the same between the first and second mail pieces needing to be at or above a threshold number for the mail pieces to be determined to be similar. Examiner notes that only one of the criteria is required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim)
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sansone ‘643 and Maeda teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Sansone ‘643 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 [0024] "Specifically, one or more attributes of the envelope 38 are compared to the attributes of the images stored in database 24. Such attributes could include, for example,...similar postage applied to the envelope" for information on the class of the mail pieces)
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Sansone ‘643 and Maeda teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Sansone ‘643 further teaches:
wherein the attribute information of a consignment unit comprises at least one of: - image information mail pieces that are stored as records in database 24 of data center 20. Specifically, one or more attributes of the envelope 38 are compared to the attributes of the images stored in database 24" for attribute information from image data)
Sansone ‘643 further teaches the comparison of addresses and other information printed and/or written on the envelope as discussed above. Sansone ‘643 does not explicitly teach an image recognition algorithm to obtain the image information discussed in the reference. Sansone ‘643 further does not explicitly teach object information obtained via an object recognition algorithm based on multiple images of multiple faces of the consignment unit and an image feature vector representative of the image taken of a surface of the consignment unit. Maeda 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 [0127] “when the advance data (sender information, receiver information, and article information) relating to the parcel ID acquired from the tag or the like is registered, the processor 31 may use the advance data, which is registered in the first database 15, as dictionary data of OCR processing for the image that the form reader 26 reads” and [0131] “The form information is information obtained as an OCR recognition result by the form reader 26 in regard to the form M1 attached to the parcel. The form information is, for example, information including sender information, receiver (destination) information, and article information indicative of the article content” for obtaining image attribute information via OCR processing of a form attached to a side of the parcel. Examiner notes that only one of the bullet points is required to teach the claim as a whole)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of OCR to obtain address data from address labels of Maeda to Sansone ‘643 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 Sansone ‘643 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 OCR to obtain address data from address labels. Further, applying OCR to obtain address data from address labels to Sansone ‘643 would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient obtaining of address data from parcels to be inspected. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using OCR to obtain address data automatically from images would improve accuracy and speed compared to a manual address capturing process.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Sansone ‘643 and Maeda teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Sansone ‘643 further teaches [0024] "Specifically, one or more attributes of the envelope 38 are compared to the attributes of the images stored in database 24. Such attributes could include, for example,...similar handwriting or printing style for any markings on the envelope". Sansone ‘643 also teaches address information being used in comparison. However, Sansone ‘643 does not explicitly teach using at least one of attribute information unique to a printer used for printing of a label of the consignment unit and derived from the consignment unit and label information related to the consignment unit. Maeda teaches:
wherein attribute information of a consignment unit comprises at least one of: (see [0024] “A form and a tag are attached to a parcel that is an article of the inspection target. Examples of the form include an address form indicative of a sender and a receiver of the parcel, and an article content application form indicative of the content” and [0131] “The form information is information obtained as an OCR recognition result by the form reader 26 in regard to the form M1 attached to the parcel. The form information is, for example, information including sender information, receiver (destination) information, and article information indicative of the article content” for address information taken from a label)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include address labels as taught by Maeda in Sansone ‘643, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. 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. In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the address information used in Sansone ‘643 could be placed on an address label without affecting the functioning of Sansone ‘643.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of OCR to obtain address data from address labels of Maeda to Sansone ‘643 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 Sansone ‘643 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 OCR to obtain address data from address labels. Further, applying OCR to obtain address data from address labels to Sansone ‘643 would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient obtaining of address data from parcels to be inspected. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using OCR to obtain address data automatically from images would improve accuracy and speed compared to a manual address capturing process.
Regarding claim 11, Sansone ‘643 teaches:
A system comprising at least one first apparatus (see Fig. 2A for system as a whole. See [0017] "Post office 12 includes a system process controller 30 upon which process routines are performed to implement the present invention”. See [0023] "The complete operation of the system 10 for identifying mail pieces that have similar attributes to mail pieces that are suspected of being contaminated will now be described with respect to the flow diagram of FIG. 4" thru [0031] for the overall method)
- obtaining or causing obtaining trigger information associated with at least part of attribute information the attribute information is associated with the at least one first consignment unit (see [0030] "If in either step 108 or step 114 it is determined that envelope 38 is contaminated, then in step 120 the envelope 38 is passed to marking device 48 where it is marked to identify the envelope 38 as suspected of containing a contaminant…then in step 126 an image of the envelope 38 is taken and a file of the suspect envelope 38…is produced" and [0031] "In step 128, the file of the suspect envelope 38 is sent to data center 20 for storing in database 24. Accordingly, each of the other post offices 14, 16 will have immediate access to the record of suspect envelope 38 to compare against all incoming mail at those locations as well" for obtaining trigger information of a contaminated envelope associated with attribute information and storing the attribute information of the image of the envelope in the database 24. Also see [0022] for a data record of attribute of the suspect mail piece stored in database 24)
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 [0030] "If in either step 108 or step 114 it is determined that envelope 38 is contaminated, then in step 120 the envelope 38 is passed to marking device 48 where it is marked to identify the envelope 38 as suspected of containing a contaminant…then in step 126 an image of the envelope 38 is taken and a file of the suspect envelope 38…is produced" and [0031] "In step 128, the file of the suspect envelope 38 is sent to data center 20 for storing in database 24. Accordingly, each of the other post offices 14, 16 will have immediate access to the record of suspect envelope 38 to compare against all incoming mail at those locations as well" for obtaining the attribute information of the first contaminated envelope and storing the attribute information in the database based upon the trigger information of the envelope being determined to be contaminated)
- determining or causing determining whether or not attribute information associated with at least one second consignment unit is stored in the database (see [0023] "If an envelope is sensed in step 100, then in step 102 an image of the envelope is captured by imaging system 44", [0024] "In step 104, controller 30 compares the image of the envelope 38 to images of suspected mail pieces that are stored as records in database 24 of data center 20. Specifically, one or more attributes of the envelope 38 are compared to the attributes of the images stored in database 24", and [0025] "In step 106, it is determined if one or more of the attributes of envelope 38 match the attributes of any of the suspected mail pieces whose images are stored in database 24" for determining whether attributes associated with the second package are stored in the database as attributes of the first/suspect package. See [0028] for determining that attributes associated with the second consignment unit that match attribute information of the suspect envelope are stored in the database. See [0026] for determining that the second consignment unit does not have attributes stored in the database)
if attribute information associated with at least one second consignment unit is determined to be stored in the database (see [0028] "then if in step 106 it is determined that envelope 38 has one or more attributes that are similar to the attributes of one or more of the suspect mail pieces from database 24, then in step 140 the envelope 38 will be immediately diverted from the processing stream by diverter 62 to inspection container 64 for further inspection and evaluation" and [0029] "From either step 140 or step 116, the method proceeds to step 118 where controller 30 triggers the alarm 36 to indicate to an operator that envelope 38 is being diverted to inspection container 64 or 54" for generating an alert when it is determined that the attributes of the two packages are similar)
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 [0029] "From either step 140 or step 116, the method proceeds to step 118 where controller 30 triggers the alarm 36 to indicate to an operator that envelope 38 is being diverted to inspection container 64 or 54" and [0028] "then if in step 106 it is determined that envelope 38 has one or more attributes that are similar to the attributes of one or more of the suspect mail pieces from database 24, then in step 140 the envelope 38 will be immediately diverted from the processing stream by diverter 62 to inspection container 64 for further inspection and evaluation" and [0021] "Diverter 62 is coupled to controller 30, and can divert mail pieces to an inspection container 64 or pass a mail piece to contaminant detector 46 based on control signals from controller 30" for diverter 62 receiving alert information that an envelope is suspect and interrupting the normal processing of mail by sending the mail for additional inspection. Examiner notes that only one of the “causing” steps is required to teach the limitation as a whole.)
- wherein the respective attribute information comprises label information, physical information and/or image information relating to a respective consignment unit (see [0024] “controller 30 compares the image of the envelope 38 to images of suspected mail pieces that are stored as records in database 24 of data center 20. Specifically, one or more attributes of the envelope 38 are compared to the attributes of the images stored in database 24. Such attributes could include, for example, similar markings on the envelope 38, including return address, addressee information, or other types of markings, similar handwriting or printing style for any markings on the envelope, or similar postage applied to the envelope” for attributes including image information and physical information of handwriting)
As discussed above, Sansone ‘643 teaches a system process controller 30, which strongly implies a processor and a memory including computer code for performing the functions of the controller in the Sansone ‘643 system. However, Sansone ‘643 does not explicitly teach the system comprising a processor and a memory comprising computer code to perform the recited functions.
Also as discussed above, Sansone ‘643 teaches storing images of mail temporarily in buffer 32 in [0017] for the piece of mail currently being compared to suspect mail pieces in the database before the buffer is subsequently erased or overwritten with the next piece to be examined (see [0026]). Therefore, while Sansone ‘643 teaches determining that attributes of the mail piece being examined are found in the database of suspect mail pieces, Sansone ‘643 does not explicitly teach that the attribute information being searched for is also stored in the database in association with the piece of mail being processed. Sansone ‘643 also does not explicitly teach the attribute information associated with the first consignment unit being prestored in a database.
Maeda teaches attribute information associated with the at least one first consignment unit being prestored in a database in association with the at least one first consignment unit (see Fig. 7 step ST11 0-th order process and [0111] “The 0th-order process system 3 executes the information acquisition process (0th-order process) of acquiring the external appearance image, X-ray image, form information and tag information from the parcel M of the inspection target (ST11). The 0th-order process system 3 acquires a parcel ID (identification information such as a mail article number) of the parcel of the inspection target placed on the conveyor 22, and correlates, and registers in the upper-level apparatus 2, the parcel ID, and the information such as the external appearance image, X-ray image, form information and tag information” and see [0042] and [0026]-[0027] for the first database storing this “advance data” regarding parcels before they proceed to first and second inspections. See [0128] for registering the advance information into a second database that is then accessed in the course of primary inspection in [0139]. In combination with Sansone ‘643, this advance information regarding the parcels would be collected as part of a 0th order process before the inspection process to detect harmful/illegal substances begins).
As Maeda teaches that images and other attribute information of all parcels are captured and stored in the database before inspection occurs as discussed regarding Maeda [0042] and [0026]-[0027], Maeda further teaches that the attribute information for the first and second parcels (i.e. the image data of the second parcel being compared with the image of the suspect first parcel) are both stored in the same database when the comparison is performed (in combination with Sansone ‘643).
Maeda further 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 prestored attribute information of the first consignment, since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of creating database files of attribute information for each parcel before inspecting the parcel for dangerous/illegal substances of Maeda for the creation of a database file for a first consignment during/after the inspection of the consignment for dangerous/illegal substances of Sansone ‘643.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include storing all mail piece images/attributes into a database as taught by Maeda in the system of Sansone ‘643, 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.
Particularly, storing image files and attributes of each new mail piece in a database would have predictable results when combined with the system of Sansone ‘643. The usage of the database to store all of the mail piece image files and attributes simply takes the images and attributes Sansone ‘643 already captures and stores them into a combined database instead of simply using the information one time in a buffer. The scanning and alerting process of Sansone ‘643 would be able to proceed with predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, and the database of Maeda would still function as an advance information store in the combination.
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 Sansone ‘643, 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 Sansone ‘643 and Maeda teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 above. Regarding the limitations introduced in claim 12, see the rejection of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 13, Sansone ‘643 teaches:
An apparatus (see Fig. 2A for system as a whole. See [0017] "Post office 12 includes a system process controller 30 upon which process routines are performed to implement the present invention”. See [0023] "The complete operation of the system 10 for identifying mail pieces that have similar attributes to mail pieces that are suspected of being contaminated will now be described with respect to the flow diagram of FIG. 4" thru [0031] for the overall method)
obtaining or causing obtaining trigger information associated with at least part of attribute information (see [0030] "If in either step 108 or step 114 it is determined that envelope 38 is contaminated, then in step 120 the envelope 38 is passed to marking device 48 where it is marked to identify the envelope 38 as suspected of containing a contaminant…then in step 126 an image of the envelope 38 is taken and a file of the suspect envelope 38…is produced" and [0031] "In step 128, the file of the suspect envelope 38 is sent to data center 20 for storing in database 24. Accordingly, each of the other post offices 14, 16 will have immediate access to the record of suspect envelope 38 to compare against all incoming mail at those locations as well" for obtaining trigger information of a contaminated envelope associated with attribute information and storing the attribute information of the image of the envelope in the database 24. Also see [0022] for a data record of attribute of the suspect mail piece stored in database 24)
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 [0030] "If in either step 108 or step 114 it is determined that envelope 38 is contaminated, then in step 120 the envelope 38 is passed to marking device 48 where it is marked to identify the envelope 38 as suspected of containing a contaminant…then in step 126 an image of the envelope 38 is taken and a file of the suspect envelope 38…is produced" and [0031] "In step 128, the file of the suspect envelope 38 is sent to data center 20 for storing in database 24. Accordingly, each of the other post offices 14, 16 will have immediate access to the record of suspect envelope 38 to compare against all incoming mail at those locations as well" for obtaining the attribute information of the first contaminated envelope and storing the attribute information in the database based upon the trigger information of the envelope being determined to be contaminated)
determining or causing determining whether or not attribute information associated with at least one second consignment unit is stored in the database (see [0023] "If an envelope is sensed in step 100, then in step 102 an image of the envelope is captured by imaging system 44", [0024] "In step 104, controller 30 compares the image of the envelope 38 to images of suspected mail pieces that are stored as records in database 24 of data center 20. Specifically, one or more attributes of the envelope 38 are compared to the attributes of the images stored in database 24", and [0025] "In step 106, it is determined if one or more of the attributes of envelope 38 match the attributes of any of the suspected mail pieces whose images are stored in database 24" for determining whether attributes associated with the second package are stored in the database as attributes of the first/suspect package. See [0028] for determining that attributes associated with the second consignment unit that match attribute information of the suspect envelope are stored in the database)
if attribute information associated with at least one second consignment unit is determined to be stored in the database (see [0028] "then if in step 106 it is determined that envelope 38 has one or more attributes that are similar to the attributes of one or more of the suspect mail pieces from database 24, then in step 140 the envelope 38 will be immediately diverted from the processing stream by diverter 62 to inspection container 64 for further inspection and evaluation" and [0029] "From either step 140 or step 116, the method proceeds to step 118 where controller 30 triggers the alarm 36 to indicate to an operator that envelope 38 is being diverted to inspection container 64 or 54" for generating an alert if it is determined that the attributes of the two packages are similar)
- 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 [0029] "From either step 140 or step 116, the method proceeds to step 118 where controller 30 triggers the alarm 36 to indicate to an operator that envelope 38 is being diverted to inspection container 64 or 54" and [0028] "then if in step 106 it is determined that envelope 38 has one or more attributes that are similar to the attributes of one or more of the suspect mail pieces from database 24, then in step 140 the envelope 38 will be immediately diverted from the processing stream by diverter 62 to inspection container 64 for further inspection and evaluation" and [0021] "Diverter 62 is coupled to controller 30, and can divert mail pieces to an inspection container 64 or pass a mail piece to contaminant detector 46 based on control signals from controller 30" for diverter 62 receiving alert information that an envelope is suspect and interrupting the normal processing of mail by sending the mail for additional inspection. Examiner notes that only one of the “causing” steps is required to teach the limitation as a whole.)
- wherein the respective attribute information comprises label information, physical information and/or image information relating to a respective consignment unit (see [0024] “controller 30 compares the image of the envelope 38 to images of suspected mail pieces that are stored as records in database 24 of data center 20. Specifically, one or more attributes of the envelope 38 are compared to the attributes of the images stored in database 24. Such attributes could include, for example, similar markings on the envelope 38, including return address, addressee information, or other types of markings, similar handwriting or printing style for any markings on the envelope, or similar postage applied to the envelope” for attributes including image information and physical information of handwriting)
As discussed above, Sansone ‘643 teaches a system process controller 30, which strongly implies a processor and a memory including computer code for performing the functions of the controller in the Sansone ‘643 apparatus. However, Sansone ‘643 does not explicitly teach the apparatus comprising a processor and a memory comprising computer code to perform the recited functions.
Also as discussed above, Sansone ‘643 teaches storing images of mail temporarily in buffer 32 in [0017] for the piece of mail currently being compared to suspect mail pieces in the database before the buffer is subsequently erased or overwritten with the next piece to be examined (see [0026]). Therefore, while Sansone ‘643 teaches determining that attributes of the mail piece being examined are found in the database of suspect mail pieces, Sansone ‘643 does not explicitly teach that the attribute information being searched for is also stored in the database in association with the piece of mail being processed. Sansone ‘643 also does not explicitly teach the attribute information associated with the first consignment unit being prestored in a database.
Maeda teaches attribute information associated with the at least one first consignment unit being prestored in a database in association with the at least one first consignment unit (see Fig. 7 step ST11 0-th order process and [0111] “The 0th-order process system 3 executes the information acquisition process (0th-order process) of acquiring the external appearance image, X-ray image, form information and tag information from the parcel M of the inspection target (ST11). The 0th-order process system 3 acquires a parcel ID (identification information such as a mail article number) of the parcel of the inspection target placed on the conveyor 22, and correlates, and registers in the upper-level apparatus 2, the parcel ID, and the information such as the external appearance image, X-ray image, form information and tag information” and see [0042] and [0026]-[0027] for the first database storing this “advance data” regarding parcels before they proceed to first and second inspections. See [0128] for registering the advance information into a second database that is then accessed in the course of primary inspection in [0139]. In combination with Sansone ‘643, this advance information regarding the parcels would be collected as part of a 0th order process before the inspection process to detect harmful/illegal substances begins).
As Maeda teaches that images and other attribute information of all parcels are captured and stored in the database before inspection occurs as discussed regarding Maeda [0042] and [0026]-[0027], Maeda further teaches that the attribute information for the first and second parcels (i.e. the image data of the second parcel being compared with the image of the suspect first parcel) are both stored in the same database when the comparison is performed (in combination with Sansone ‘643).
Maeda further 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 prestored attribute information of the first consignment, since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of creating database files of attribute information for each parcel before inspecting the parcel for dangerous/illegal substances of Maeda for the creation of a database file for a first consignment during/after the inspection of the consignment for dangerous/illegal substances of Sansone ‘643.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include storing all mail piece images/attributes into a database as taught by Maeda in the system of Sansone ‘643, 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 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 Sansone ‘643, 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 Sansone ‘643 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 Sansone ‘643 and Maeda teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 above. Regarding the limitations introduced in claim 16, see the rejection of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Sansone ‘643 and Maeda teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 above. Regarding the limitations introduced in claim 17, see the rejection of claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Sansone ‘643 and Maeda teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 above. Regarding the limitations introduced in claim 18, see the rejection of claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Sansone ‘643 and Maeda teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 above. Regarding the limitations introduced in claim 19, see the rejection of claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Sansone ‘643 and Maeda teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 above. Regarding the limitations introduced in claim 20, see the rejection of claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Sansone ‘643 and Maeda teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 above. Regarding the limitations introduced in claim 21, see the rejection of claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 22, Sansone ‘643 teaches:
(see Fig. 4 and [0023] "The complete operation of the system 10 for identifying mail pieces that have similar attributes to mail pieces that are suspected of being contaminated will now be described with respect to the flow diagram of FIG. 4" thru [0031] for the overall method. See [0030] "If in either step 108 or step 114 it is determined that envelope 38 is contaminated, then in step 120 the envelope 38 is passed to marking device 48 where it is marked to identify the envelope 38 as suspected of containing a contaminant…then in step 126 an image of the envelope 38 is taken and a file of the suspect envelope 38…is produced" and [0031] "In step 128, the file of the suspect envelope 38 is sent to data center 20 for storing in database 24. Accordingly, each of the other post offices 14, 16 will have immediate access to the record of suspect envelope 38 to compare against all incoming mail at those locations as well" for obtaining trigger information of a contaminated envelope associated with attribute information and storing the attribute information of the image of the envelope in the database 24. Also see [0022] for a data record of attribute of the suspect mail piece stored in database 24)
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 [0030] "If in either step 108 or step 114 it is determined that envelope 38 is contaminated, then in step 120 the envelope 38 is passed to marking device 48 where it is marked to identify the envelope 38 as suspected of containing a contaminant…then in step 126 an image of the envelope 38 is taken and a file of the suspect envelope 38…is produced" and [0031] "In step 128, the file of the suspect envelope 38 is sent to data center 20 for storing in database 24. Accordingly, each of the other post offices 14, 16 will have immediate access to the record of suspect envelope 38 to compare against all incoming mail at those locations as well" for obtaining the attribute information of the first contaminated envelope and storing the attribute information in the database based upon the trigger information of the envelope being determined to be contaminated)
determining or causing determining that attribute information associated with at least one second consignment unit is stored in the database (see [0023] "If an envelope is sensed in step 100, then in step 102 an image of the envelope is captured by imaging system 44", [0024] "In step 104, controller 30 compares the image of the envelope 38 to images of suspected mail pieces that are stored as records in database 24 of data center 20. Specifically, one or more attributes of the envelope 38 are compared to the attributes of the images stored in database 24", and [0025] "In step 106, it is determined if one or more of the attributes of envelope 38 match the attributes of any of the suspected mail pieces whose images are stored in database 24" for determining whether attributes associated with the second package are stored in the database as attributes of the first/suspect package. See [0028] for determining that attributes associated with the second consignment unit that match attribute information of the suspect envelope are stored in the database)
- generating alert information or causing alert information to be generated (see [0029] "From either step 140 or step 116, the method proceeds to step 118 where controller 30 triggers the alarm 36 to indicate to an operator that envelope 38 is being diverted to inspection container 64 or 54" for generating an alert)
-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 [0029] "From either step 140 or step 116, the method proceeds to step 118 where controller 30 triggers the alarm 36 to indicate to an operator that envelope 38 is being diverted to inspection container 64 or 54" and [0028] "then if in step 106 it is determined that envelope 38 has one or more attributes that are similar to the attributes of one or more of the suspect mail pieces from database 24, then in step 140 the envelope 38 will be immediately diverted from the processing stream by diverter 62 to inspection container 64 for further inspection and evaluation" and [0021] "Diverter 62 is coupled to controller 30, and can divert mail pieces to an inspection container 64 or pass a mail piece to contaminant detector 46 based on control signals from controller 30" for diverter 62 receiving alert information that an envelope is suspect and interrupting the normal processing of mail by sending the mail for additional inspection. Examiner notes that only one of the “causing” steps is required to teach the limitation as a whole.)
- wherein the respective attribute information comprises label information, physical information and/or image information relating to a respective consignment unit (see [0024] “controller 30 compares the image of the envelope 38 to images of suspected mail pieces that are stored as records in database 24 of data center 20. Specifically, one or more attributes of the envelope 38 are compared to the attributes of the images stored in database 24. Such attributes could include, for example, similar markings on the envelope 38, including return address, addressee information, or other types of markings, similar handwriting or printing style for any markings on the envelope, or similar postage applied to the envelope” for attributes including image information and physical information of handwriting)
As discussed above, Sansone ‘643 teaches storing images of mail temporarily in buffer 32 in [0017] for the piece of mail currently being compared to suspect mail pieces in the database before the buffer is subsequently erased or overwritten with the next piece to be examined (see [0026]). Therefore, while Sansone ‘643 teaches determining that attributes of the mail piece being examined are found in the database of suspect mail pieces, Sansone ‘643 does not explicitly teach that the attribute information being searched for is also stored in the database in association with the piece of mail being processed. Sansone ‘643 also does not explicitly teach the attribute information associated with the first consignment unit being prestored in a database.
Furthermore, while the process controller of Fig. 2A and [0017] of Sansone ‘643 strongly implies a non-transitory computer readable medium with program instructions to execute the method when performed by the process controller, Sansone ‘643 does explicitly teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program that causes a processor to execute the claimed method.
Maeda teaches attribute information associated with the at least one first consignment unit being prestored in a database in association with the at least one first consignment unit (see Fig. 7 step ST11 0-th order process and [0111] “The 0th-order process system 3 executes the information acquisition process (0th-order process) of acquiring the external appearance image, X-ray image, form information and tag information from the parcel M of the inspection target (ST11). The 0th-order process system 3 acquires a parcel ID (identification information such as a mail article number) of the parcel of the inspection target placed on the conveyor 22, and correlates, and registers in the upper-level apparatus 2, the parcel ID, and the information such as the external appearance image, X-ray image, form information and tag information” and see [0042] and [0026]-[0027] for the first database storing this “advance data” regarding parcels before they proceed to first and second inspections. See [0128] for registering the advance information into a second database that is then accessed in the course of primary inspection in [0139]. In combination with Sansone ‘643, this advance information regarding the parcels would be collected as part of a 0th order process before the inspection process to detect harmful/illegal substances begins).
As Maeda teaches that images and other attribute information of all parcels are captured and stored in the database before inspection occurs as discussed regarding Maeda [0042] and [0026]-[0027], Maeda further teaches that the attribute information for the first and second parcels (i.e. the image data of the second parcel being compared with the image of the suspect first parcel) are both stored in the same database when the comparison is performed (in combination with Sansone ‘643).
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 prestored attribute information of the first consignment, since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of creating database files of attribute information for each parcel before inspecting the parcel for dangerous/illegal substances of Maeda for the creation of a database file for a first consignment during/after the inspection of the consignment for dangerous/illegal substances of Sansone ‘643.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include storing all mail piece images/attributes into a database as taught by Maeda in the system of Sansone ‘643, 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 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 Sansone ‘643, 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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sansone ‘643 in view of Maeda and Mirjan et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0134307, hereafter known as Mirjan).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Sansone ‘643 and Maeda teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Sansone ‘643 further teaches in [0024] that handwriting styles are analyzed as part of the comparison process and in [0028] that the similarities between packages can be used as evidence to determine an actual sender of a suspect piece of mail. However, the combination of Sansone ‘643 and Maeda does not explicitly teach the determining of whether the parcel attributes of two parcels are similar using an AI-based/deep learning/machine learning based algorithm configured to compare at least a part of the attribute information. Mirjan teaches:
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 [0044] "In step 806, implement HWR/OCR analysis to identify recipient and sender...data store of identified handwriting 812 can be used to match past known handwriting samples with present handwriting under analysis, as well as, problem domain reduction" and [0045] and [0047] for a trained neural network used for handwriting recognition. See [0031] for neural network being a machine learning/artificial intelligence technique)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of neural network handwriting recognition algorithm of Mirjan to the combination of Sansone ‘643 and Maeda would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Mirjan to the teaching of the combination of Sansone ‘643 and Maeda 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 neural network handwriting recognition algorithm. Further, applying a neural network handwriting recognition algorithm to the combination of Sansone ‘643 and Maeda would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient comparison of handwriting attributes of mail pieces that is done per [0024] of Sansone ‘643. Further, by determining the sender based on their handwriting as in Mirjan, further evidence regarding the actual sender of a suspect package can be determined, which is desired by Sansone ‘643 [0028].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Call et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2009/0248319) teaches mail parcel screening using a variety of imaging and threat detection techniques
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on (571) 270-3445. 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
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628