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 the Claims
Claims 11-16, 18, 19, 21, and 24-35 are currently pending. Claims 11, 12, 16, 19, 21, and 24 were amended in the reply filed July 24, 2025. Claims 1-10, 17, 20, and 22 were cancelled and claims 25-35 were added.
Examiner notes that the limitation “wherein the database is used by a plurality of mailing entities”, which previously appeared at the end of claim 12 (Claims 2/28/2025), appears to have been removed in the current claims (Claims 7/24/2025) but is not marked (i.e. the text is removed from the claim instead of being marked with a strikethrough). This limitation is being treated as removed from claim 12.
Priority
Application 18/197,665 was filed on May 15, 2023 and claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/341,709, filed May 13, 2022.
Response to Arguments
Objections:
Applicant has cancelled claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, rendering the objection to those claims moot. Applicant's amendments overcome the objection made to claims 11, 21, and 24 it is withdrawn.
112(a)/(b):
Applicant has cancelled claims 7 and 8 rendering the rejection of those claims moot.
35 U.S.C § 101:
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the “now claimed invention is for data lifecycle management of a network database including mail-related information for clients of multiple mailing entities”, which is “neither a method of organizing human activity nor a mental process” (Remarks p. 12). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s claims still recite the same abstract ideas as before. Any “data lifecycle management” is directed towards the abstract idea of maintaining mailing addresses. Examiner notes that the claims are still directed towards a “method for return mail processing and lifecycle data hygiene” (Claims 12 and 35), which helps illustrate that the underlying abstract idea has not changed.
Applicant further argues that “the claims tie the process steps to a particular technical environment” and “the added limitations cannot be characterized as well-understood, routine, or conventional” (Remarks p. 12). Examiner interprets Applicant’s argument to mean that, for the reasons argued above, the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself under Step 2B (see MPEP 2106.05). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Here the claims merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception because they only specify that that abstract idea is executed on a generic computer. Examiner notes that the process steps regarding how addresses are collected, revised, maintained, etc. are part of the abstract idea and are not a “particular technical environment”.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that the added limitations cannot be characterized as well-understood, routine, or conventional, Applicant further argues that the “added limitations cannot be characterized as well-understood, routine, or conventional, for at least the reason that they cannot be found in the cited art” (Remarks p. 12). Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the added claim limitations are taught in the cited art below. Furthermore, Examiner notes that it is the additional elements (i.e. not the abstract idea itself) that are analyzed in order to determine if they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05(I)). Here, the additional elements are generic computer components (e.g., a database, a network), described at a high-level of detail and used in their ordinary capacity (e.g., sending, receiving, and storing data). As such, they do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
35 U.S.C § 103:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous prior art rejections have been considered, but are not persuasive. Examiner notes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the amended claim limitations are taught by the cited references as described in the 103 rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites, “wherein the profiles and addresses are first updated in the working database” (emphasis added). Claim 11 depends upon claim 12, which recites multiple types of addresses (i.e., “input address”, “standardized address”, “client address”, and “undeliverable standardized address”). It is therefore unclear, which address claim 11 refers to. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 11 is interpreted to refer to any of the addresses listed in claim 12. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 35 recites “identifying any business rule associated with the mailing entity providing the mailing addresses; and identifying any client addresses with no associated standardized address in the database and making a recommendation regarding client addresses with no standardized address consistent with the identified business rules;” (emphasis added). This limitation “the identified business rules” has insufficient antecedent basis in the claim because the first part of the claim recites “any business rule”, which is singular, but the second part recites “the identified business rules”, which is plural. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 35 is interpreted to mean that one or more business rules are identified. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 11-16, 18, 19, 21, and 24-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent Claims
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 1:
Independent claim 12 recites, building profiles accessible in real-time by a plurality of mailing entities,
wherein each profile has an associated input address and an association with one or more of the mailing entities;
reviewing the input addresses for accuracy;
identifying any input addresses needing correction;
revising the identified input address such that all addresses are standardized addresses;
receiving client addresses, from a mailing entity of the plurality of mailing entities, for a mailing;
pre-mailing sorting, wherein pre-mailing sorting comprises:
reviewing the client addresses against the standardized addresses;
identifying any client addresses needing correction and correcting the client addresses needing correction;
and identifying any client addresses with no associated standardized address and making a recommendation regarding client addresses with no standardized address;
sending mailpieces to a plurality of the standardized addresses;
and post-mailing updating, wherein post-mailing updating comprises:
receiving a returned mailpiece having an associated undeliverable standardized address; and revising the profile with the undeliverable standardized address;
wherein each mailing entity has one or more associated business rules for undeliverable standardized address, and wherein revising the profile with the undeliverable standardized address comprises revising the profile based on one or more business rules of mailing entities associated with the profile, including the mailing entity providing the client addresses;
and wherein the business rules comprise at least one of (a) limitations on a mailing entity's geographic reach; (b) an authority, or lack thereof, to revise the undeliverable standardized address without mailing entity approval, or (c) a legal duty for a number of attempted deliveries to make to the undeliverable standardized address.
The limitations above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation cover “certain methods of organizing human activity” (including sales activities or behaviors, or business relations). Specifically, maintaining mailing addresses is a sales activity or behavior, and/or business relations. Examiner particularly notes that the addresses are associated with customer profiles and applying business rules to mail (see Applicant’s specification paragraphs [0036] and [0032]).
The limitations above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation cover “mental processes” (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion). Specifically, creating profiles, reviewing, correcting and standardizing addresses, sending mail, and recommending how to handle returned mail can all be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper.
Independent claim 35 recites, maintaining profiles accessible by a plurality of mailing entities,
wherein each profile has an associated standardized address and an association with one or more of the mailing entities,
wherein each mailing entity has one or more associated business rules;
receiving, from a mailing entity of the plurality of mailing entities, client addresses for a mailing;
pre-mailing sorting, wherein pre-mailing sorting comprises:
reviewing the client addresses against the standardized addresses;
identifying any client addresses needing correction and correcting the client addresses needing correction;
identifying any business rule associated with the mailing entity providing the mailing addresses;
and identifying any client addresses with no associated standardized address and making a recommendation regarding client addresses with no standardized address consistent with the identified business rules;
sending mailpieces to a plurality of the standardized addresses matching the client addresses; and
post-mailing updating, wherein post-mailing updating comprises:
receiving a returned mailpiece having an associated undeliverable standardized address; and
revising the profile with the undeliverable standardized address;
and wherein revising the profile with the undeliverable standardized address comprises revising the profile based on one or more business rules of mailing entities associated with the profile;
and wherein the business rules comprise at least one of (a) limitations on a mailing entity's geographic reach; (b) an authority, or lack thereof, to revise the undeliverable standardized address without mailing entity approval, or (c) a legal duty for a number of attempted deliveries to make to the undeliverable standardized address.
The limitations above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation cover “certain methods of organizing human activity” (including sales activities or behaviors, or business relations). Specifically, maintaining mailing addresses is a sales activity or behavior, and/or business relations. Examiner particularly notes that the addresses are associated with customer profiles and applying business rules to mail (see Applicant’s specification paragraphs [0036] and [0032]).
The limitations above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation cover “mental processes” (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion). Specifically, creating profiles, reviewing, correcting and standardizing addresses, sending mail, and recommending how to handle returned mail can all be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claims 12 and 35 as a whole amount to: merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or “apply it”; or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Independent claims 12 and 35 recite the following additional elements to perform the above recited steps: a database (claims 12 and 35), a network (claims 12 and 35), and a secure interface (claim 35). These additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality, and are recited at a high level of generality. As such, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Individually and as a whole, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because the claims do not: improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter; amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
Independent claims 12 and 35 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Alone or in combination, the additional elements do not contribute significantly more than the judicial exception and as a result, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 13-16, 18, 19, 21, 24-26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 34 recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations without reciting any additional elements. They are therefore, ineligible for the reasons as discussed above with respect to independent claims 12 and 35. The additional elements in claims 11, 27, and 33 are discussed below.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
Dependent claims 11, 27, and 33 recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea. Claims 11, 27, and 33 also recite the additional elements of a working database (claim 11), a user interface (claim 27), a database server (claim 33) and a machine learning model (claim 33). Each of these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that when viewed as a whole, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
With respect to claims 11, 27, and 33, as discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., applying the exception using a generic computer component, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of a working database, a user interface, a database server, a machine learning model, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 11, 27, and 33 are also ineligible.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 12, 14-16, 18, 19, and 24-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0191651 to Hungerpiller et al. (Hungerpiller) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0287742 to Woolston et al. (Woolston).
As to claim 12, Hungerpiller teaches, and post-mailing updating, wherein post-mailing updating comprises: receiving a returned mailpiece having an associated undeliverable (“FIG. 2 illustrates the processing logic performed at the returned mail application servers for the handling of mail determined to be undeliverable. Processing starts in logic block 200 with the delivery of the physical envelopes to the return mail service provider from the United States Postal Service” and “Each piece of mail to be sent by a subscriber to its own customers is optically encoded on its face or back side with a block of machine-readable data in the form of a two-dimensional (2-D) barcode that can include a wide variety of information …” [0023 and 0016-0017]);
revising the profile with the undeliverable (“FIG. 3 illustrates the processing logic for updating address records associated with returned mail …” [0024]);
wherein each mailing entity has one or more associated business rules for undeliverable (“… in any event, at the service provider's location, thousands of pieces of undeliverable mail sent originally by many subscribers [i.e., mailing entities] to their customers are received either directly from the post office or from subscribers” and “… In decision block 302, a test is made to determine if the sender (originator) wants the return mail application service provider to provide corrected addresses for intended recipients …” [0018 and 0024]),
and wherein revising the profile with the undeliverable (“… As indicated in output block 306, the original mail sender picks up the data records of the undeliverable USPS mail. If a determination is made in decision block 302 that the sender wants to have correct addresses provided for the intended recipients, then the return mail application server then sends the returned mail data records to an address update service bureau, such as the USPS NCOA address correction databases or the databases provided by licensed service providers …” [0024]);
and wherein the business rules comprise at least one of (a) limitations on a mailing entity's geographic reach; (b) an authority, or lack thereof, to revise the undeliverable standardized address without mailing entity approval, or (c) a legal duty for a number of attempted deliveries to make to the undeliverable standardized address (“… As indicated in output block 306, the original mail sender picks up the data records of the undeliverable USPS mail. If a determination is made in decision block 302 that the sender wants to have correct addresses provided for the intended recipients, then the return mail application server then sends the returned mail data records to an address update service bureau, such as the USPS NCOA address correction databases or the databases provided by licensed service providers …” [0024] Examiner notes that Hungerpillar teaches option (b). Examiner further notes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation and per paragraph [0041] of Applicant’s specification, option (b) is interpreted to include “the ability to revise a bad address” as is taught by Hungerpillar).
Hunderpillar does not teach, building a database of profiles, accessible in real-time by a plurality of mailing entities over a network, wherein each profile has an associated input address and an association with one or more of the mailing entities; reviewing the input addresses for accuracy; identifying any input addresses needing correction; revising the identified input address such that all addresses in the database are standardized addresses; receiving client addresses, from a mailing entity of the plurality of mailing entities, for a mailing; pre-mailing sorting, wherein pre-mailing sorting comprises: reviewing the client addresses against the standardized addresses in the database; identifying any client addresses needing correction and correcting the client addresses needing correction; identifying any client addresses with no associated standardized address in the database and making a recommendation regarding client addresses with no standardized address; sending mailpieces to a plurality of the standardized addresses. However, Woolston teaches, building a database of profiles, accessible in real-time by a plurality of mailing entities over a network, wherein each profile has an associated input address and an association with one or more of the mailing entities (“The method includes receiving name and address data associated with a customer, wherein the name and address data include a plurality of names and associated addresses. The name and address data are populated into an initial database and storing the initial database into a storage device. The initial database has a plurality of records [i.e., profiles], wherein each of the records includes a name and an address …” and “… For the purpose of this illustration, a client [i.e., mailing entity] is the business entity that wishes to communicate with customers to achieve some business objective. The client usually maintains the integrity and accuracy of their customer address lists; although some clients may choose to contract for the address maintenance service …” and “… These same processes can be performed in real time on local server/computer 146 or in real time mode hosted from a remote site …” and “FIG. 7 illustrates a network or host computer platform, as may typically be used to implement a server …” [0005-0007 and 0021-0023 and 0036 and 0069-0071]);
reviewing the input addresses for accuracy (“Referring now to FIG. 3, customer address data 114, 148 is provided by the client or is captured by the address reader OCR system 13, respectively, and transferred to the address service provider 154 for address maintenance services [i.e., review] …” [0032-0034]);
identifying any input addresses needing correction (“… Computer terminal operators will key in the address and addressee data from the image and use computer assistance to identify the addressee and updated address …” [0035]);
revising the identified input addresses such that all addresses in the database are standardized addresses (“… The address maintenance service 450 starts by performing address resolution system 300 processing to obtain a postal authority certified [i.e., standardized] address (ZIP+4 delivery code) and a delivery point (street number) that passes validation against the postal authorities list of approved numbers” [0036]);
receiving client addresses, from a mailing entity of the plurality of mailing entities, for a mailing (“It is further desirable to provide a system for creating run time directories containing names and addresses for a plurality of mail pieces. The system includes a receiving unit for receiving name and address data …” and “Four major entities are involved in the process to update address data on a mail processor in our example. Number one is the group of clients 1 through n (110, 120, 130) that have a communication requirement to customers …” [0006-007 and 0023-0026]);
pre-mailing sorting, wherein pre-mailing sorting comprises: reviewing the client addresses against the standardized addresses in the database (“… When an address match is found in the address run time directory 242, the next test is for suppression services, step 612. If the SUP flag is set, the name must be read from the mailpiece and compared to the names in the name run time directory 240 column 223 …” [0060-0064]);
identifying any client addresses needing correction and correcting the client addresses needing correction (“… If none of these flags are set, the original customer address is correct (column 226) as presented, step 622, and control is transferred to step 650 …” [0060-0064]);
identifying any client addresses with no associated standardized address in the database and making a recommendation regarding client addresses with no standardized address (“… Address Resolver 340 receives Failed Certified 303, and outputs via path 348 to Selection Processor 350. Address Resolver 340 may also receive input 349 from Selection Processor 350 if a sufficient confidence value was not received from the process that obtained an address resolution 341, 342, 343 or 344. If a certified address can not be determined 351, this data is sent to the bad address compiler 380 where it is complied with addresses that failed 332 the address certifier 330. This list will be provide to the client or processed by the Address Service Provider (AS Provider) 154 to purge these addresses from the address list.” [0041-0045] Examiner notes that “certified” as taught by Woolston, means that the address complies with the ZIP+4 standard (see Woolston [0039]) and therefore, Failed Certified is analogous to not standard);
sending mailpieces to a plurality of the standardized addresses (“Four major entities are involved in the process to update address data on a mail processor in our example. Number one is the group of clients 1 through n (110, 120, 130) that have a communication requirement to customers. These clients have chosen the postal authority 158 to deliver the information to the customer in the form of mailpieces 112, 122, 132 … This enables the client to deliver mailpieces to the postal authority with corrected address data without having to perform these services using their IT department” and “… Once a certified address has been identified for the mailpiece being processed the delivery point data (11 digit ZIP code for the USPS) is provided to the barcode generator along with other required data so that the postal authority barcode can be created …” [0023-0025 and 0066]);
wherein the database is used by a plurality of mailing entities (“Business entities that form a part of the address maintenance service which is performed on mail processing equipment are given numerous titles by those familiar with the postal service …” [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein each profile has an associated input address and an association with one or more of the mailing entities; reviewing the input addresses for accuracy; identifying any input addresses needing correction; revising the identified input address such that all addresses in the database are standardized addresses; receiving client addresses, from a mailing entity of the plurality of mailing entities, for a mailing; pre-mailing sorting, wherein pre-mailing sorting comprises: reviewing the client addresses against the standardized addresses in the database; identifying any client addresses needing correction and correcting the client addresses needing correction; identifying any client addresses with no associated standardized address in the database and making a recommendation regarding client addresses with no standardized address; sending mailpieces to a plurality of the standardized addresses, as taught by Woolston with the return mail processing of Hungerpillar. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Woolston that doing so would improve address maintenance services for address quality so that move updates are reduced and so that less mail, which is processed by the postal authority, is undeliverable as addressed [0003].
While Hungerpillar teaches an undeliverable address, Hungerpillar does not teach a standardized address. However, Woolston teaches the use of standardized addresses (“The address maintenance service 450 starts by performing address resolution system 300 processing to obtain a postal authority certified [i.e., standardized] address (ZIP+4 delivery code) and a delivery point (street number) that passes validation against the postal authorities list of approved numbers” [0036]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the 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 the address of Hungerpillar for the standardized address of Woolston. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Woolston that doing so would improve address maintenance services for address quality so that move updates are reduced and so that less mail, which is processed by the postal authority, is undeliverable as addressed [0003].
As to claim 14, Hungerpillar in view of Woolston teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above. Hungerpillar further teaches, wherein revising the profile with the undeliverable address comprises revising the undeliverable address to a revised address (“FIG. 3 illustrates the processing logic for updating address records associated with returned mail … If a determination is made in decision block 302 that the sender wants to have correct addresses provided for the intended recipients, then the return mail application server then sends the returned mail data records to an address update service bureau, such as the USPS NCOA address correction databases or the databases provided by licensed service providers …” [0024]).
While Hungerpillar teaches, wherein revising the profile with the undeliverable address comprises revising the undeliverable address to a revised address, Hungerpillar does not teach a standardized address. However, Woolston teaches the use of standardized addresses (“The address maintenance service 450 starts by performing address resolution system 300 processing to obtain a postal authority certified [i.e., standardized] address (ZIP+4 delivery code) and a delivery point (street number) that passes validation against the postal authorities list of approved numbers” [0036]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the 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 the address of Hungerpillar for the standardized address of Woolston. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Woolston that doing so would improve address maintenance services for address quality so that move updates are reduced and so that less mail, which is processed by the postal authority, is undeliverable as addressed [0003].
As to claim 15, Hungerpillar in view of Woolston teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above. Hungerpillar further teaches, wherein a search for a correct address is done for the returned mailpiece and wherein the revised address is the correct address (“In one embodiment, the application server 50 transmits to the address service's computer 25 the inaccurate and/or out-of-date address of the intended recipient of each piece of returned mail. In response, the service provider's computer 25 returns to the application server the correct and up-to-date address of the intended recipient.” [0020]).
As to claim 16, Hungerpillar in view of Woolston teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above. Hungerpiller further teaches, receiving a plurality of pieces of returned mail either physically or electronically (“Referring to FIG. 1, at the service provider's location, the returned mail (block 15) is passed through a high volume mail sorter 20 and optical scanner 40. The optical scanner 40 reads the information previously optically encoded onto each mail piece before it was sent.” [0019]);
identifying and flagging the recipient address of each of the plurality of pieces of returned mail (“The information scanned from the returned mail pieces may be processed in a number of ways by the application server 50 depending upon the desired services to be provided. In one exemplary embodiment, the application server is programmed to sort [i.e., flag] the data in an appropriate way initially, for example, by subscriber. The addresses of the addressees may then be extracted from the scanned data for processing.” [0019]);
and using the one or more business rules of at least one mailing entity to process the flagged recipient addresses (“… The updated data files are then transferred electronically to the subscriber's computer 70, 80, which is provided with software to receive and interpret the data, update the subscriber's mailing list with the new addresses contained in the data, and to update the subscriber client or customer files to reflect any other information that may be transmitted with the data. The subscriber may use this updated information as it deems appropriate [i.e., use business rules] …” [0022]).
As to claim 18, Hungerpillar in view of Woolston teaches all of the limitations of claim 16 as discussed above. Hungerpillar further teaches, wherein processing the flagged recipient addresses comprises searching for updated addresses (“FIG. 3 illustrates the processing logic for updating address records associated with returned mail. Processing starts as indicated in logic block 300 with the identification [i.e., flagging] of output files by customer number and the queuing of the output files for additional address correction services … If a determination is made in decision block 302 that the sender wants to have correct addresses provided for the intended recipients, then the return mail application server then sends the returned mail data records to an address update service bureau, such as the USPS NCOA address correction databases or the databases provided by licensed service providers …” [0024]).
As to claim 19, Hungerpillar in view of Woolston teaches all of the limitations of claim 18 as discussed above. Hungerpillar further teaches, further comprising updating a reference address corresponding to a flagged recipient address with the updated address for the flagged recipient address (“… The addresses of the intended [i.e., flagged] recipients are then updated when possible based on information provided by the service bureau as indicated in output block 310. The updated records are provided to the return mail service provider as indicated in logic block 312.” [0024]),
and resending the piece of mail to the updated address (“… Alternatively, the subscriber may forgo such a re-mailing and simply use the updated addresses for the next successive mailing cycle” [0022]).
As to claim 24, Hungerpillar in view of Woolston teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above. Hungerpillar does not teach, deleting profiles associated with the input addresses needing correction that cannot be fixed. However, Woolston teaches, deleting profiles associated with the input addresses needing correction that cannot be fixed (“… If a certified address can not be determined 351, this data is sent to the bad address compiler 380 where it is complied with addresses that failed 332 the address certifier 330. This list will be provide to the client or processed by the Address Service Provider (AS Provider) 154 to purge these addresses from the address list” [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, deleting profiles associated with the input addresses needing correction that cannot be fixed, as taught by Woolston with the return mail processing of Hungerpillar. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Woolston that doing so would improve address maintenance services for address quality so that move updates are reduced and so that less mail, which is processed by the postal authority, is undeliverable as addressed [0003].
As to claim 25, Hungerpillar in view of Woolston teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above. Hungerpillar further teaches, and further comprising notifying at least one mailing entity of the plurality of mailing entities that the profile has been revised (“… Upon receiving updated addresses, the new address data is delivered to the subscriber in electronic form for us in updating the subscriber's customer address files” and “… The updated data files are then transferred electronically to the subscriber's computer 70, 80, which is provided with software to receive and interpret the data, update the subscriber's mailing list with the new addresses contained in the data, and to update the subscriber client or customer files to reflect any other information that may be transmitted with the data …” [0008 and 0021-0022]).
As to claim 26, Hungerpillar in view of Woolston teaches all of the limitations of claim 25 as discussed above. Hungerpillar further teaches, wherein at least some of the profiles are associated with two or more mailing entities (“… In any event, at the service provider's location, thousands of pieces of undeliverable mail sent originally by many subscribers to their customers are received either directly from the post office or from subscribers” and “… These may be the same address services that historically have been accessed as a research source by the return mail handling staff of subscribers in manually updating addresses of returned mail …” [0018 and 0020]),
and wherein notifying at least one mailing entity of the plurality of mailing entities that the profile has been revised comprises notifying each of the plurality of mailing entities associated with the profile that the profile has been revised (“… Upon receiving updated addresses, the new address data is delivered to the subscriber in electronic form for us in updating the subscriber's customer address files” and “… The updated data files are then transferred electronically to the subscriber's computer 70, 80, which is provided with software to receive and interpret the data, update the subscriber's mailing list with the new addresses contained in the data, and to update the subscriber client or customer files to reflect any other information that may be transmitted with the data …” [0008 and 0021-0022]).
As to claim 27, Hungerpillar in view of Woolston teaches all of the limitations of claim 25 as discussed above. Hungerpillar does not teach, wherein notifying at least one mailing entity comprises presenting the revised profile on a user interface. However, Woolston teaches, wherein notifying at least one mailing entity comprises presenting the revised profile on a user interface (“… Computer terminal operators will key in the address and addressee data from the image and use computer assistance to identify the addressee and updated address …” [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein notifying at least one mailing entity comprises presenting the revised profile on a user interface, as taught by Woolston with the return mail processing of Hungerpillar. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Woolston that doing so would improve address maintenance services for address quality so that move updates are reduced and so that less mail, which is processed by the postal authority, is undeliverable as addressed [0003].
As to claim 28, Hungerpillar in view of Woolston teaches all of the limitations of claim 25 as discussed above. Hungerpillar does not teach, wherein the presented, revised profile is updated in real-time. However, Woolston teaches, wherein the presented, revised profile is updated in real-time (“… These same processes can be performed in real time on local server/computer 146 or in real time mode hosted from a remote site …” [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the presented, revised profile is updated in real-time, as taught by Woolston with the return mail processing of Hungerpillar. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Woolston that doing so would improve address maintenance services for address quality so that move updates are reduced and so that less mail, which is processed by the postal authority, is undeliverable as addressed [0003].
As to claim 29, Hungerpillar in view of Woolston teaches all of the limitations of claim 25 as discussed above. Hungerpillar does not teach, wherein presenting the revised profile includes presenting a likelihood of success of delivery. However, Woolston teaches, wherein presenting the revised profile includes presenting a likelihood of success of delivery (“… Additionally, or alternatively, Address Resolver 340 or Selection Processor 350 or Point Resolver 310 may assign confidence values. Distinct confidence levels indicate the probability of successful delivery by the postal authority …” [0044-0045]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein presenting the revised profile includes presenting a likelihood of success of delivery, as taught by Woolston with the return mail processing of Hungerpillar. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Woolston that doing so would improve address maintenance services for address quality so that move updates are reduced and so that less mail, which is processed by the postal authority, is undeliverable as addressed [0003].
As to claim 30, Hungerpillar in view of Woolston teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above. Hungerpillar further teaches, wherein revising the profile with the undeliverable (“… For instance, the database clearly would contain the identity of the intended recipient and the new updated address retrieved from the address service's computer 25 …” and “… As indicated in output block 306, the original mail sender picks up the data records of the undeliverable USPS mail. If a determination is made in decision block 302 that the sender wants to have correct addresses provided for the intended recipients, then the return mail application server then sends the returned mail data records to an address update service bureau, such as the USPS NCOA address correction databases or the databases provided by licensed service providers …” [0021-0022 and 0024]).
While Hungerpillar teaches an undeliverable address, Hungerpillar does not teach a standardized address. However, Woolston teaches the use of standardized addresses (“The address maintenance service 450 starts by performing address resolution system 300 processing to obtain a postal authority certified [i.e., standardized] address (ZIP+4 delivery code) and a delivery point (street number) that passes validation against the postal authorities list of approved numbers” [0036]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the 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 the address of Hungerpillar for the standardized address of Woolston. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Woolston that doing so would improve address maintenance services for address quality so that move updates are reduced and so that less mail, which is processed by the postal authority, is undeliverable as addressed [0003].
As to claim 31, Hungerpillar in view of Woolston teaches all of the limitations of claim 30 as discussed above. Hungerpillar further teaches, and further comprising remailing a mailpiece to the revised address (“… Alternatively, the subscriber may forgo such a re-mailing and simply use the updated addresses for the next successive mailing cycle” [0022]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0191651 to Hungerpiller et al. (Hungerpiller) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0287742 to Woolston et al. (Woolston) and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0276916 to Dearing et al. (Dearing).
As to claim 11, Hungerpillar in view of Woolston teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above. Hungerpillar in view of Woolston does not teach, wherein the database comprises an in-use database and further comprises a working database, wherein the profiles and addresses are first updated in the working database. However, Dearing teaches, wherein the database comprises an in-use database and further comprises a working database, wherein the profiles and addresses are first updated in the working database (“… Completed and corrected addresses may be stored in a master address database, such as AMS database 107, and later uploaded to another database, such as DPF database 109, which may be a subset of the master database” and “… The system may also display another message asking whether the address has been recently added to the master database, along with buttons to receive a user selection to answer the question. If the user acknowledges that the address may have been recently added to the master database, the system may provide an additional display window stating that the record may be placed in Pending status to await DPF validation …” [0021 and 0074]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the database comprises an in-use database and further comprises a working database, wherein the profiles and addresses are first updated in the working database, as taught by Dearing with the return mail processing of Hungerpillar in view of Woolston. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Dearing that doing so would resolve an uncorrected address [0012].
Claims 13 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0191651 to Hungerpiller et al. (Hungerpiller) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0287742 to Woolston et al. (Woolston) and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0135963 to Fogel et al. (Fogel).
As to claim 13, Hungerpillar in view of Woolston teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above. Hungerpillar in view of Woolston does not teach, wherein revising the profile with the undeliverable standardized address comprises deleting the profile from the database. However, Fogel teaches, wherein revising the profile with the undeliverable address comprises deleting the profile from the database (“… In some cases, the old address (i.e., the address which resulted in nondelivery) may be stricken from the recipient database unless it can be updated by conventional address updating/cleansing processes.” [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art