DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Priority
The instant application has a filing date of November 7, 2023, and claims for the benefit of prior-filed provisional application # 63/423,147, which was filed on November 7, 2022. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of the prior-filed provisional application is acknowledged.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 19, 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
35 U.S.C. § 112 (f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an optical module for identifying one or more mailsheets within the mailstream containing errors” recited in claim 21.
“a packaging module for packaging defined sets of mailsheets of the mailstream into respective mailpieces” recited in claim 23.
“a marking module configured to mark mailpieces positioned within the mailstream immediately before and/or immediately after a mailpiece having the one or more diverted mailsheets…” recited in claim 24.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
v Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are drawn to methods (i.e., a process). As such, claims 1-19 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Claim 11 (representative of independent claim(s) 1) recites/describes the following steps;
obtaining a plurality of sequentially ordered printed mailsheets in a moving mailstream, wherein each mailsheet in the plurality has an identifier of its order within the mailstream;
identifying one or more mailsheets containing errors;
removing mailsheets from the mailstream, wherein at least some of the removed mailsheets contain errors;
placing the movement of the mailstream on standby;
using the identifier of the one or more removed mailsheets to identify the mailsheets with errors and their order within the mailstream;
reprinting the mailsheets removed from the mailstream;
returning the reprinted mailsheets to their order within the mailstream, wherein returning a mailsheet to its order within the mailstream preserves the available postage discount for the mailsheet; and placing the movement of the mailstream off of standby
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth a process for preserving postage discounts in a mailstream while correcting mailsheet errors. More specifically, the process for preserving postage discounts in a mailstream while correcting mailsheet errors comprises obtaining a plurality of sequentially ordered printed mailsheets in a moving mailstream, wherein each mailsheet in the plurality has an identifier of its order within the mailstream; identifying one or more mailsheets containing errors; removing mailsheets from the mailstream, wherein at least some of the removed mailsheets contain errors; placing the movement of the mailstream on standby; using the identifier of the one or more removed mailsheets to identify the mailsheets with errors and their order within the mailstream; reprinting the mailsheets removed from the mailstream; returning the reprinted mailsheets to their order within the mailstream, wherein returning a mailsheet to its order within the mailstream preserves the available postage discount for the mailsheet; and placing the movement of the mailstream off of standby. This process amounts to a commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 11 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Independent claim(s) 1 recite/describe nearly identical steps (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Each of the depending claims likewise recite/describe these steps (by incorporation - and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Any element(s) recited in a dependent claim that are not specifically identified/addressed by the Examiner under step 2A (prong two) or step 2B of this analysis shall be understood to be an additional part of the abstract idea recited by that particular claim. The same reasoning is similarly applicable to the limitations in the remaining dependent claims, and their respective limitations are not reproduced here for the sake of brevity.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “addition element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claim(s) do not recite the additional elements/limitations. For example, although claims 1 and 11 require a step of “reprinting…mailsheets”, the claims do not recite/require a printer used to reprint the mailsheets.
However, even if one were to interpret the step of “reprinting the mailsheets removed from the mailstream (claim 11, claim 1 recites nearly identical), this would amount to using conventional machinery invoked merely as a tool to perform an existing process (i.e., printing/reprinting) and that are being used in their ordinary capacity. In other words, the claims invoke the printer merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. This is analogous to the requirement to print out the votes and print out the ballets in Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 126 USPQ2d 1498 (Fed. Cir. 2018)(determined by the Federal Circuit to be a Social Activity) which the Federal Circuit stated does not integrate the otherwise abstract idea into a practical application because the case law has consistently held that printers used in their ordinary capacity to print does are conventional and such printing does not transform an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Furthermore, although the claims recite a specific sequence of computer-implemented functions, and although the specification suggests certain functions may be advantageous for various reasons (e.g., business reasons), the Examiner has determined that the ordered combination of claim elements (i.e., the claims as a whole) are not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem. For example, Applicant’s published specification suggests that it is advantageous to implement the claimed business process because doing so can help preserve a discount for the entity printing the mailsheets (see, for example, Applicant’s published disclosure at paragraphs [0003] & [0010]). These are non-technical business advantages/improvements. At most, the ordered combination of claim elements is directed to a non-technical improvement to an abstract idea itself (e.g., an improved business process for preserving postage discounts in a mailstream while correcting mailsheet errors).
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). For example, claim 2 recites “wherein the one or more mailsheets are removed for containing one or more errors”. This is an abstract limitation which further sets forth the abstract idea encompassed by claim 2. This limitation is not an “additional element”, and therefore it is not subject to further analysis under Step 2A- Prong Two or Step 2B. The same logic applies to each of the other dependent claims, whose limitations are not being repeated here for the sake of brevity and clarity. With respect to the other dependent claims not specifically listed here - each of the limitations/elements recited in these dependent claims other than those identified as being “additional” elements above (at the beginning of the Prong One analysis), are further part of the abstract idea encompassed by each respective dependent claim (i.e. it should be understood that these limitations are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B:
In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an "inventive concept." An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966)
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the claim(s) do not recite the additional elements/limitations. For example, although claims 1 and 11 require a step of “reprinting…mailsheets”, the claims do not recite/require a printer used to reprint the mailsheets. However, even if one were to interpret the step of “reprinting the mailsheets removed from the mailstream (claim 11, claim 1 recites nearly identical), this would amount to using conventional machinery invoked merely as a tool to perform an existing process (i.e., printing/reprinting) and that are being used in their ordinary capacity. In other words, the claims invoke the printer merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. This is analogous to the requirement to print out the votes and print out the ballets in Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 126 USPQ2d 1498 (Fed. Cir. 2018)(determined by the Federal Circuit to be a Social Activity) which the Federal Circuit stated does not integrate the otherwise abstract idea into a practical application because the case law has consistently held that printers used in their ordinary capacity to print does are conventional and such printing does not transform an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea identified by the Examiner to which each respective claim is directed).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Examiner recommends amending the method claims to recite a particular arrangement of structural elements used to implement/perform certain steps of the claimed methods. For example, the claims could be amended to recite a particular arrangement comprising one or more computers/processors making certain determinations and operating in concert with one or more scanners used to identify the one or more mailsheet errors, one or more divert gates used to divert the mailsheets from the mailstream, one or more printers used to reprint the erroneous mailsheets, etc.. Adequately reciting this particular arrangement of components in combination with execution of the method steps may provide an inventive concept and result in patent eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The requirement for an adequate disclosure ensures that the public receives something in return for the exclusionary rights that are granted to the inventor by a patent, and sets forth the minimum requirements for the quality and quantity of information that must be contained in the patent to justify the grant.
v As discussed above claims 21, 23, and 24 invokes special claim interpretation provisions of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) via the recitation of “an optical module for identifying one or more mailsheets within the mailstream containing errors” (claim 21), “a packaging module for packaging defined sets of mailsheets of the mailstream into respective mailpieces” (claim 23), and “a marking module configured to mark mailpieces positioned within the mailstream immediately before and/or immediately after a mailpiece having the one or more diverted mailsheets…” (claim 24). The proper test for meeting the definiteness requirement of a § 112(f) limitation is that the corresponding structure must be disclosed in the specification itself in a way that one skilled in the art will understand what structure will perform the entire recited function. If there is no disclosure of structure for performing the entire recited function, the claim fails to satisfy the requirements of § 112(b) and should be found indefinite. Further, the structure disclosed in the written description must be clearly linked to or associated with the function recited in the claim, or the claim should be found indefinite. A § 112(f) claim limitation that is found to be indefinite under § 112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure that performs the entire claimed function will also lack adequate written description under § 112(a).
In this case, the written description does not clearly link corresponding structure to the functions of the recited “an optical module for identifying one or more mailsheets within the mailstream containing errors” (claim 21), “a packaging module for packaging defined sets of mailsheets of the mailstream into respective mailpieces” (claim 23), or “a marking module configured to mark mailpieces positioned within the mailstream immediately before and/or immediately after a mailpiece having the one or more diverted mailsheets…” (claim 24). The specification only makes reference to each of an “optical module” and a “packaging module” only in the claims. The specification only generally suggests that a mailpiece fabrication system may comprise “various modules” at paragraph [0004] and “modular components” at paragraph [0007]. Such general suggestion does not amount to a clear linking of sufficient structure to the claimed functions of these generic placeholders. Paragraph [0021] suggests that Fig. 2 illustrates “various modules”. However, Figure 2 merely shows black boxes, and does not reference an “optical module”, a “packaging module”, a “marking module”, or even optics, packaging or marking steps/functions. Paragraph [0033] again merely generally suggests that the system may comprise “several stations or modules” as well as a control system. Paragraph [0041] does mention a “marking module”, however this paragraph merely reiterates the function of “configured to physically mark mailpieces (along an edge thereof)” without disclosing any structure for performing this function. As such, there is no clear linking of sufficient structure to these generic placeholders and/or the claimed functions of these generic placeholders.
Paragraph [0031] of the published disclosure generally suggests that the “systems…of the present invention…can utilize a production mail inserter, allowing for faulty mailsheet identification, removal/diversion, reprinting, and reinsertion to occur for a given mailstream being processed via a production mail inserter. For example, the systems and methods of the present invention may be use modular inserter platforms, including, but not limited to, any one of the EVOLUTIONTM, MAILSTREAM EVOLUTIONTM, RIVAL™, and EPIC™ inserter platforms available from DMT Solutions Global Corporation dba BlueCrest (Danbury, CT).” However, per MPEP 2173.05(u) “It is important to recognize that a trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and is not the name of the goods themselves. Thus a trademark or trade name does not define or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name….If the trademark or trade name is used…to identify or describe a particular material or product…does not comply with the requirements of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). See also Eli Lilly & Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 837 Fed. Appx. 780, 784-85, 2020 USPQ2d 11531 (Fed. Cir. 2020)…since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to describe any particular material or product.” See also MPEP 608.01(v), which explains that trademarks and tradenames do not denote specific product/system characteristics. As such, the general suggestion that “modular inserter platforms, including, but not limited to, any one of the EVOLUTION™, MAILSTREAM EVOLUTIONTM, RIVAL™, and EPIC™ inserter platforms” could be used does not provide clear linking of sufficient structure to these generic placeholders and/or the claimed functions of these generic placeholders. As such, the claim fails to satisfy the requirements of § 112(b) and are indefinite.
A § 112(f) claim limitation that is found to be indefinite under § 112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure that performs the entire claimed function will also lack adequate written description under § 112(a). Claims 21, 23, and 24 (as well as claims 22 and 25-28 by virtue of their dependency on these claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 first paragraph accordingly.
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 21-28 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
v As discussed above claims 21, 23, and 24 invokes special claim interpretation provisions of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) via the recitation of “an optical module for identifying one or more mailsheets within the mailstream containing errors” (claim 21), “a packaging module for packaging defined sets of mailsheets of the mailstream into respective mailpieces” (claim 23), and “a marking module configured to mark mailpieces positioned within the mailstream immediately before and/or immediately after a mailpiece having the one or more diverted mailsheets…” (claim 24). The proper test for meeting the definiteness requirement of a § 112(f) limitation is that the corresponding structure must be disclosed in the specification itself in a way that one skilled in the art will understand what structure will perform the entire recited function. If there is no disclosure of structure for performing the entire recited function, the claim fails to satisfy the requirements of § 112(b) and should be found indefinite. Further, the structure disclosed in the written description must be clearly linked to or associated with the function recited in the claim, or the claim should be found indefinite.
In this case, the written description does not clearly link corresponding structure to the functions of the recited “an optical module for identifying one or more mailsheets within the mailstream containing errors” (claim 21), “a packaging module for packaging defined sets of mailsheets of the mailstream into respective mailpieces” (claim 23), or “a marking module configured to mark mailpieces positioned within the mailstream immediately before and/or immediately after a mailpiece having the one or more diverted mailsheets…” (claim 24). The specification only makes reference to each of an “optical module” and a “packaging module” only in the claims. The specification only generally suggests that a mailpiece fabrication system may comprise “various modules” at paragraph [0004] and “modular components” at paragraph [0007]. Such general suggestion does not amount to a clear linking of sufficient structure to the claimed functions of these generic placeholders. Paragraph [0021] suggests that Fig. 2 illustrates “various modules”. However, Figure 2 merely shows black boxes, and does not reference an “optical module”, a “packaging module”, a “marking module”, or even optics, packaging or marking steps/functions. Paragraph [0033] again merely generally suggests that the system may comprise “several stations or modules” as well as a control system. Paragraph [0041] does mention a “marking module”, however this paragraph merely reiterates the function of “configured to physically mark mailpieces (along an edge thereof)” without disclosing any structure for performing this function. As such, there is no clear linking of sufficient structure to these generic placeholders and/or the claimed functions of these generic placeholders.
Paragraph [0031] of the published disclosure generally suggests that the “systems…of the present invention…can utilize a production mail inserter, allowing for faulty mailsheet identification, removal/diversion, reprinting, and reinsertion to occur for a given mailstream being processed via a production mail inserter. For example, the systems and methods of the present invention may be use modular inserter platforms, including, but not limited to, any one of the EVOLUTIONTM, MAILSTREAM EVOLUTIONTM, RIVAL™, and EPIC™ inserter platforms available from DMT Solutions Global Corporation dba BlueCrest (Danbury, CT).” However, per MPEP 2173.05(u) “It is important to recognize that a trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and is not the name of the goods themselves. Thus a trademark or trade name does not define or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name….If the trademark or trade name is used…to identify or describe a particular material or product…does not comply with the requirements of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). See also Eli Lilly & Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 837 Fed. Appx. 780, 784-85, 2020 USPQ2d 11531 (Fed. Cir. 2020)…since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to describe any particular material or product.” See also MPEP 608.01(v), which explains that trademarks and tradenames do not denote specific product/system characteristics. As such, the general suggestion that “modular inserter platforms, including, but not limited to, any one of the EVOLUTION™, MAILSTREAM EVOLUTIONTM, RIVAL™, and EPIC™ inserter platforms” could be used does not provide clear linking of sufficient structure to these generic placeholders and/or the claimed functions of these generic placeholders. As such, the claim fails to satisfy the requirements of § 112(b) and are indefinite. Claims 21, 23, and 24 (as well as claims 22 and 25-28 by virtue of their dependency on these claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) accordingly.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
v Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boston et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2007/0177184, August 2, 2007 - hereinafter "Boston”) in view of Miller et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2003/0083781, May 1, 2003 - hereinafter "Miller”)
With respect to claim 1, Boston teaches a method, the method comprising:
obtaining a plurality of sequentially ordered printed mailsheets in a mailstream (Fig 1 shows a plurality of sequentially ordered printed mailsheets in a mailstream, [0031]-[0032] “during a mail run in execution by a document processing system…a plurality of documents of any type, but particularly those which may ultimately be designated as mail pieces…printed mail piece markings on it (e.g., text, barcodes, sequence numbers or graphics--printers not shown) is fed into a cutting module 104 for dividing the paper roll into individual sheets….accumulator (not shown), which combines pages from a multiple page a predetermined order…Once the documents comprising the mail piece are inserted into the envelope and sealed, the document may then be passed onto an output transport device 116, where it may be further processed downstream (e.g., processed by one or more imaging devices…” – therefore there exists a plurality of sequentially ordered printed mailsheets in a mailstream”
wherein each mailsheet in the plurality has an identifier of its order within the mailstream; (Fig 10 shows the sequence number (i.e., identifier) associated with each mailsheet that indicates the order of each mailsheet within the mailstream, [0031]-[0032] “…a plurality of documents of any type, but particularly those which may ultimately be designated as mail pieces… Additional components are printed…which are used in mail processing….a sequence number…printed mail piece markings on it (e.g., text, barcodes, sequence numbers or graphics--printers not shown) is fed into a cutting module 104 for dividing the paper roll into individual sheets… accumulator (not shown), which combines pages from a multiple page a predetermined order…” – each mailsheet has an identifier (sequence number) identifying its order in the mialstream, [0052] “Sequence numbers are typically printed onto mail pieces as a means of verifying that a series of pieces are continuously produced during the job run. Gaps between mail pieces, such as in the case of sequence gaps 606 and 607, indicate missing pieces that must be accounted for in order to signify ultimate completion of a job run”)
removing one or more mailsheets from the mailstream; ([0066] “piece was spoiled…pulled prior to the inserting process or diverted into a reject bin” – therefore one or more mailsheets comprising an error may be pulled/diverted from the mailstream before insertion or after insertion (e.g., as part of a mailpiece that has an error, consistent with dependent claim 6 which suggests that removing one or more mailsheets may comprise removing a mailpiece that comprises a defined set of mailsheets – both instances amount to removing one or more mailsheets from the mailstream), [0052] “…diverted…The process of accounting for errors that may occur during the job run is reconciliation…”)
using the identifier of the one or more removed mailsheets to identify the mailsheets and their order within the mailstream; ([0052] “Sequence numbers are typically printed onto mail pieces as a means of verifying that a series of pieces are continuously produced during the job run…indicate missing pieces that must be accounted for in order to signify ultimate completion of a job run…missing pieces…diverted…The process of accounting for errors that may occur during the job run is reconciliation…” – therefore the system determines the identifiers of one or more removed/diverted mailsheets to identify the mailsheets and their order within the mailstream that need to be accounted for and reconciled, see also Fig 10 which shows identifying that sequence number 13481 has a spoilage error and the system adds this mailsheet number to the error queue indicating it needs reconciliation, [0055] “spoilage errors are both established as requiring queuing upon being detected”)
reprinting the one or more mailsheets removed from the mailstream; and ([0065]-[0066] “reconcile…re-print may be ordered… if the customer does reprints to reconcile…a reprint button could be added to the interface…if the contents are damaged, then the piece must be reprinted and added to the mailing” – therefore a mailsheet associated with an error (e.g., which was pulled/diverted into a reject bin – i.e., removed from the mialstream) may be re-printed)
returning the reprinted one or more mailsheets to their order within the mailstream, ([0052] & [0065]-[0066] “Sequence numbers are typically printed onto mail pieces as a means of verifying that a series of pieces are continuously produced during the job run…indicate missing pieces that must be accounted for in order to signify ultimate completion of a job run…missing pieces…diverted…The process of accounting for errors that may occur during the job run is reconciliation…”… “reconcile…re-print may be ordered… if the customer does reprints to reconcile…a reprint button could be added to the interface… the piece can be handstuffed into another envelope and manually placed in the correct mail tray…if the contents are damaged, then the piece must be reprinted and added to the mailing” - the system uses the sequence numbers to identify mail sheets/pieces that have errors and that need to be reconciled (e.g., reprinted and added back to the mailstream in their correct order) for the printing job to be completed), ([0033] “A marker system may be added before the transport device 116 for marking the mailpiece associated with an error. This will enable the operator to quickly locate the mailpieces …the mark is generally placed on the piece immediately preceding or following the detected sequence error.” – therefore the reprinted mailpiece would be placed in its order within the mailstream by placing it between corresponding mailpieces having been marked along their respective edges)
Although Boston briefly suggests that the sequence error may be associated with a “pre-sort error or incorrect zip code” ([0044]), which explains that the sequence numbers and the order of the mail sheets/pieces in the mailstream in general may be associated with a pre-sort strategy, Boston does not appear to disclose that postage discounts are provided for maintaining mail sheet/piece order within a mailstream. Boston does not appear to disclose,
preserving postage discounts in a mailstream…wherein returning a reprinted mailsheet to its order within the mailstream preserves the available postage discount for the mailsheet
However, Miller discloses that mail sheets/pieces produced using document processing systems may be sequentially ordered so that postage discounts are obtained (e.g., pre-sort discounts or other bulk discounts) ([0004]-[0007] & [0028]-[0029]). Miller also suggests that rejected/erroneous mailpieces may be reprinted ([0038]) and that reprinted/replaced mailpieces are put back in their respective order (e.g., by using edge markings) to preserve such discounts ([0044])
preserving postage discounts in a mailstream…wherein returning a reprinted mailsheet to its order within the mailstream preserves the available postage discount for the mailsheet ([0004]-[0007] “The post office found that if the mailers were given postal discount rates for performing certain acts, such as the presorting of mail, i.e., by zip code, bundling the mail and the like, a great deal of time would be saved by the post office. As a result of such discounting, large mailers were encouraged to preprocess their mail, and mail processing equipment such as scales, inserters, folders, sorters and the like were developed to assist the mailer in their mailing operation….Another problem encountered by the prior art resulted when one or more mail trays dropped, and the contents of the mail trays were no longer in order. A large amount of labor was required to properly order the mail pieces in the dropped trays, or the post issued discounts for mailer tasks that were not performed by the mailer” – therefore sequentially ordered mailpieces organized and bundled by zip code may result in obtaining a postage discount and therefore ensuring the mail sheets/pieces are in order results in preserving an available postage discount, [0044] “An operator may remove the rejected mail piece, reprint a corrected mail piece, and place the corrected mail piece in the position of the removed mail piece. Hence, mail pieces 302 are in the same sequence order that was determined by create mail run 9” - returning a reprinted mailsheet to its order within the mailstream preserves the available postage discount for the mailsheet discussed in [0004]-[0007], edge marking may be used to facilitate the returning per [0028]-[0029] “a process for creating mail pieces in a mail run…the mail pieces are produced in block 10, i.e.; the contents of the mail piece are folded, inserted and sealed into the mail piece, which is addressed…. in ordered sequence that was determined by create mail run 9 (FIG. 1)….in a manner that the first mail piece 101 in the ordered sequence is flush with front panel 102, and the last mail piece in the ordered sequence is flush with back panel 103. Pattern 105 forms a continuous solid diagonal line from point A on the first mail piece next to panel 102 to point B on the mail piece next to panel 103; thus, no mail pieces 101 have been added or removed from tray 100. Hence, mail pieces 101 are in the same sequence order that was determined by create mail run 9”)
Miller suggests it is advantageous to returning a reprinted mailsheet to its order within the mailstream and wherein returning a reprinted mailsheet to its order within the mailstream preserves the available postage discount for the mailsheet, because doing so can reduce labor/time for the post office while providing economic benefit/incentive to the mailstream producer for returning a reprinted mailsheet to its order ([0004]-[0007] & [0028]-[0029] & [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Boston to include wherein returning a reprinted mailsheet to its order within the mailstream preserves the available postage discount for the mailsheet, as taught by Miller, because doing so can reduce labor/time for the post office while providing economic benefit/incentive to the mailstream producer for returning a reprinted mailsheet to its order.
With respect to claim 2, Boston teaches the method of claim 1;
wherein the one or more mailsheets are removed for containing one or more errors ([0002] “Document processing facilities often use document processing systems such as inserters to assemble and insert mail into envelopes…it is vital that any errors be minimized if not completely eliminated. Typical errors that may occur during a job run may include a sequence number error, document spoilage (e.g., document bent, wrinkled, or torn) and other such errors” – wrinkled/bent/torn document is a physical damage error to one or more mailsheets, [0034]-[0035] “imaging devices…optical scanner, reader, or camera…that enable positive recognition of a document or mail piece or detect flaws or errors in the finished mail…indicia print errors…envelope spoilage…tears or smudges, which is further indicative of printing problems or physical damage…and trigger an error to the system”, see also [0058]-[0059])
With respect to claim 3, Boston teaches the method of claim 2;
wherein the one or more errors comprise physical damage to the one or more mailsheets and/or misprinted text and/or graphics on the one or more mailsheets ([0002] “Document processing facilities often use document processing systems such as inserters to assemble and insert mail into envelopes…it is vital that any errors be minimized if not completely eliminated. Typical errors that may occur during a job run may include a sequence number error, document spoilage (e.g., document bent, wrinkled, or torn) and other such errors” – wrinkled/bent/torn document is a physical damage error to one or more mailsheets, [0035] “indicia print errors…envelope spoilage…tears or smudges, which is further indicative of printing problems or physical damage…and trigger an error to the system”, see also [0043] & [0058]-[0059])
With respect to claim 4, Boston teaches the method of claim 1;
wherein defined sets of the plurality of mailsheets of the mailstream are placed into respective carriers to form corresponding mailpieces ([0031]-[0032] “during a mail run in execution by a document processing system…a plurality of documents of any type, but particularly those which may ultimately be designated as mail pieces…document processing system for generating mail pieces, such as an inserter 100…individual sheets….Once they are folded, the documents are then placed into an accumulator (not shown), which combines pages from a multiple page a predetermined order for processing by a upright module 108, and assembled into the collation track 110. Once the documents are assembled, an insert feeder 112 may be provided for adding additional inserts or documents to the mail piece, and collating them for insertion into an envelope by an inserting station 114. Once the documents comprising the mail piece are inserted into the envelope and sealed…” – therefore defined sets of the plurality of mailsheets of the mailstream (e.g., pluralities of individual document sheets) are placed into respective envelopes (respective carriers) to form corresponding mailpieces)
With respect to claim 5, Boston teaches the method of claim 4;
wherein the carrier may include at least one of an envelope, a package, a box, a container, and a wrap ([0031]-[0032] “during a mail run in execution by a document processing system…a plurality of documents of any type, but particularly those which may ultimately be designated as mail pieces…document processing system for generating mail pieces, such as an inserter 100…individual sheets….Once they are folded, the documents are then placed into an accumulator (not shown), which combines pages from a multiple page a predetermined order for processing by a upright module 108, and assembled into the collation track 110. Once the documents are assembled, an insert feeder 112 may be provided for adding additional inserts or documents to the mail piece, and collating them for insertion into an envelope by an inserting station 114. Once the documents comprising the mail piece are inserted into the envelope and sealed…” – therefore the carrier may include at least an envelope)
With respect to claim 6, Boston teaches the method of claim 4;
wherein the step of removing one or more mailsheets from the mailstream comprises removing one or more defined sets of the plurality of mailsheets that cooperatively form corresponding mailpieces, wherein at least one of the mailsheets of a defined set of mailsheets contains an error (Fig 10 shows that the mail piece itself (i.e., the ordered set of sheets/inserts that have been placed into an envelope) may be identified using the optical scanner as being spoiled and therefore that this is what is diverted/rejected (i.e., removed from the mailstream) per [0066] “piece was spoiled…pulled prior to the inserting process or diverted into a reject bin”, [0052] “…diverted…The process of accounting for errors that may occur during the job run is reconciliation…”, [0034]-[0035] “imaging devices…optical scanner, reader, or camera…that enable positive recognition of a document or mail piece or detect flaws or errors in the finished mail…indicia print errors…envelope spoilage…tears or smudges, which is further indicative of printing problems or physical damage…and trigger an error to the system”, see also [0058]-[0059])
With respect to claim 7, Boston teaches the method of claim 6;
wherein the step of returning a reprinted mailsheet to its order within the mailstream comprises placing reprinted mailsheets into a carrier to form a reprinted mailpiece and placing the reprinted mailpiece to its order within the mailstream and immediately before and/or immediately after mailpieces that do not contain mailsheets that were removed (Fig 10 shows that a single mail piece (13481) may be spoiled (meaning the mailpieces immediately before (13480) and/or immediately after (13482) this mailpieces do not have error and therefore do not contain mailsheets that were removed) and per [0052] & [0065]-[0066] “Sequence numbers are typically printed onto mail pieces as a means of verifying that a series of pieces are continuously produced during the job run…indicate missing pieces that must be accounted for in order to signify ultimate completion of a job run…missing pieces…diverted…The process of accounting for errors that may occur during the job run is reconciliation…”… “reconcile…re-print may be ordered… if the customer does reprints to reconcile…a reprint button could be added to the interface… the piece can be handstuffed into another envelope and manually placed in the correct mail tray…if the contents are damaged, then the piece must be reprinted and added to the mailing” - reprinting comprises reprinting the mainsheets and stuffing them in another envelope (i.e., placing reprinted mailsheets into a carrier to form a reprinted mailpiece) and the system uses the sequence numbers to identify mail pieces that have errors and that need to be reprinted and added back to the mailstream in their correct order and therefore the reprinted mailpiece is returned to its order within the mailstream and immediately before and/or immediately after mailpieces that do not contain mailsheets that were removed, [0033] “A marker system may be added before the transport device 116 for marking the mailpiece associated with an error. This will enable the operator to quickly locate the mailpieces …the mark is generally placed on the piece immediately preceding or following the detected sequence error.” – therefore the reprinted mailpiece would be placed in its order within the mailstream by placing it between corresponding mailpieces without errors)
With respect to claim 8, Boston teaches the method of claim 7;
wherein one or more mailpieces positioned within the mailstream immediately before and/or immediately after a mailpiece having the one or more removed mailsheets are marked along their respective edges ([0033] “A marker system may be added before the transport device 116 for marking the mailpiece associated with an error. This will enable the operator to quickly locate the mailpieces with an error that needs to be reconciled….the mark is generally placed on the piece immediately preceding or following the detected sequence error. Other techniques for identifying error mailpieces can be implemented by those skilled in the art.” – therefore one or more mailpieces positioned within the mailstream immediately before and/or immediately after a mailpiece having the one or more removed mailsheets are marked along their respective edges)
With respect to claim 9, Boston teaches the method of claim 8;
wherein the step of placing a reprinted mailpiece to its order within the mailstream comprises placing the reprinted mailpiece between corresponding mailpieces at least one of which has been marked along its respective edge ([0033] “A marker system may be added before the transport device 116 for marking the mailpiece associated with an error. This will enable the operator to quickly locate the mailpieces with an error that needs to be reconciled….so that it is easily visible in a stack of mail even after it has been swept into a tray…the mark is generally placed on the piece immediately preceding or following the detected sequence error. Other techniques for identifying error mailpieces can be implemented by those skilled in the art.” – therefore the reprinted mailpiece would be placed in its order within the mailstream by placing it between corresponding mailpieces having been marked along their respective edges)
Although Boston discloses marking mailpiece edges, including marking a mailpiece immediately preceding or following a mailpiece having an error ([0033]), Boston does not appear to disclose marking both of the preceding and following mailpieces. Boston does not appear to disclose,
placing the reprinted mailpiece between corresponding mailpieces having been marked along their respective edges
However, Miller discloses using edge markings to identify a location within a mailstream to insert reprinted mailpieces to preserve discounts ([0044]). Miller discloses
placing the reprinted mailpiece between corresponding mailpieces having been marked along their respective edges ([0044] “An operator may remove the rejected mail piece, reprint a corrected mail piece, and place the corrected mail piece in the position of the removed mail piece. Hence, mail pieces 302 are in the same sequence order that was determined by create mail run 9” - returning a reprinted mailsheet to its order within the mailstream preserves the available postage discount for the mailsheet discussed in [0004]-[0007], edge marking may be used to facilitate the returning per [0028]-[0029] “a process for creating mail pieces in a mail run…the mail pieces are produced in block 10, i.e.; the contents of the mail piece are folded, inserted and sealed into the mail piece, which is addressed…. in ordered sequence that was determined by create mail run 9 (FIG. 1)….in a manner that the first mail piece 101 in the ordered sequence is flush with front panel 102, and the last mail piece in the ordered sequence is flush with back panel 103. Pattern 105 forms a continuous solid diagonal line from point A on the first mail piece next to panel 102 to point B on the mail piece next to panel 103; thus, no mail pieces 101 have been added or removed from tray 100. Hence, mail pieces 101 are in the same sequence order that was determined by create mail run 9” – all mailpeices are marked to indicate the correct order/sequence and per Figs 4 and 15 it shows that the pieces before and after a missing/diverted mailpiece (Fig 4 tag 11) or otherwise erroneous mailpiece (Fig 15 tags 310 and 311) have been marked on their respective edges to indicate the location where the missing/erroneous mailpiece needs to be placed/reincerted)
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 the mailpiece edge marker and marking logic/instructions of Miller (which includes marking mailpieces before and after mailpieces that need to be replaced along their respective edges, and therefore wherein the step of placing a reprinted mailpiece to its order within the mailstream comprises placing the reprinted mailpiece between corresponding mailpieces having been marked along their respective edges) for the mailpiece edge marker and marking logic/instructions of Boston (which includes marking either the preceding/following mailpiece adjacent the mailpieces that need to be replaced along its edge, and therefore wherein the step of placing a reprinted mailpiece to its order within the mailstream comprises placing the reprinted mailpiece between corresponding mailpieces at least one of which has been marked along its respective edge). Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
With respect to claim 10, Boston teaches the method of claim 1;
wherein the step of returning a reprinted mailsheet to its order within the mailstream comprises returning the reprinted mailsheet to a postal tray and/or location within a postal tray ([0065] “manually stuffed and placed in the correct mail tray”)
As discussed above with respect to claim 1, Boston does not disclose that the sequence order is used and maintained to qualify for the available postage discount. However, as discussed above with respect to claim 1, Miller discloses that mail sheets/pieces produced using document processing systems may be sequentially ordered so that postage discounts are obtained (e.g., pre-sort discounts or other bulk discounts) ([0004]-[0007] & [0028]-[0029]). Miller also suggests that rejected/erroneous mailpieces may be reprinted ([0038]) and that reprinted/replaced mailpieces are put back in their respective order (e.g., by using edge markings) to preserve such discounts ([0044]). The combination of Boston and Miller, as established above with respect to the rejection of claim 1, therefore discloses that the step of returning a reprinted mailsheet to its order within the mailstream comprises returning the reprinted mailsheet to a postal tray and/or location within a postal tray to qualify for the available postage discount. The motivation for combining these references is established above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
With respect to claim 11, Boston teaches a method, the method comprising:
obtaining a plurality of sequentially ordered printed mailsheets in a moving mailstream, (Fig 1 shows a plurality of sequentially ordered printed mailsheets in a moving mailstream, [0031]-[0032] “during a mail run in execution by a document processing system…a plurality of documents of any type, but particularly those which may ultimately be designated as mail pieces…printed mail piece markings on it (e.g., text, barcodes, sequence numbers or graphics--printers not shown) is fed into a cutting module 104 for dividing the paper roll into individual sheets….accumulator (not shown), which combines pages from a multiple page a predetermined order…Once the documents comprising the mail piece are inserted into the envelope and sealed, the document may then be passed onto an output transport device 116, where it may be further processed downstream (e.g., processed by one or more imaging devices…” – therefore there exists a plurality of sequentially ordered printed mailsheets in a mailstream)
wherein each mailsheet in the plurality has an identifier of its order within the mailstream; (Fig 10 shows the sequence number (i.e., identifier) associated with each mailsheet that indicates the order of each mailsheet within the mailstream, [0031]-[0032] “…a plurality of documents of any type, but particularly those which may ultimately be designated as mail pieces… Additional components are printed…which are used in mail processing….a sequence number…printed mail piece markings on it (e.g., text, barcodes, sequence numbers or graphics--printers not shown) is fed into a cutting module 104 for dividing the paper roll into individual sheets… accumulator (not shown), which combines pages from a multiple page a predetermined order…” – each mailsheet has an identifier (sequence number) identifying its order in the mialstream, [0052] “Sequence numbers are typically printed onto mail pieces as a means of verifying that a series of pieces are continuously produced during the job run. Gaps between mail pieces, such as in the case of sequence gaps 606 and 607, indicate missing pieces that must be accounted for in order to signify ultimate completion of a job run”)
identifying one or more mailsheets containing errors; ([0002] “Document processing facilities often use document processing systems such as inserters to assemble and insert mail into envelopes…it is vital that any errors be minimized if not completely eliminated. Typical errors that may occur during a job run may include a sequence number error, document spoilage (e.g., document bent, wrinkled, or torn) and other such errors” – wrinkled/bent/torn document is a physical damage error to one or more mailsheets, [0034]-[0035] “imaging devices…optical scanner, reader, or camera…that enable positive recognition of a document or mail piece or detect flaws or errors in the finished mail…indicia print errors…envelope spoilage…tears or smudges, which is further indicative of printing problems or physical damage…and trigger an error to the system”, see also [0058]-[0059])
removing mailsheets from the mailstream, wherein at least some of the removed mailsheets contain errors; ([0066] “piece was spoiled…pulled prior to the inserting process or diverted into a reject bin” – therefore one or more mailsheets comprising an error may be pulled/diverted from the mailstream before insertion or after insertion (e.g., as part of a mailpiece that has an error, consistent with dependent claim 18 which suggests that removing one or more mailsheets may comprise removing a mailpiece that comprises a defined set of mailsheets – both instances amount to removing one or more mailsheets from the mailstream), [0052] “…diverted…The process of accounting for errors that may occur during the job run is reconciliation…”)
placing the movement of the mailstream on standby; ([0048]-[0049] “Once the event settings are established, the production run is placed underway (events 504 and 506). If errors are detected (event 508), a determination must then be made as to whether the error is one requiring queuing or one requiring machine stoppage…If, however, an error occurs that results in a particular tolerance or constraint setting being triggered (event 510), then a stop error is generated and the document processing system is stopped in its entirety (event 512)” – various thresholds are used to determine whether to queue the errors or actually place the mailstream in standby (i.e., stop it) and when a threshold is exceeded the movement of the mailstream is placed in standby), [0047] “the document processing system may employ a piece count constraint, wherein a predetermined number of pieces of mail contain an error…indicates a significant production error requiring immediate action”, see also [0043])
using the identifier of the one or more removed mailsheets to identify the mailsheets with errors and their order within the mailstream; ([0052] “Sequence numbers are typically printed onto mail pieces as a means of verifying that a series of pieces are continuously produced during the job run…indicate missing pieces that must be accounted for in order to signify ultimate completion of a job run…missing pieces…diverted…The process of accounting for errors that may occur during the job run is reconciliation…” – therefore the system determines the identifiers of one or more removed/diverted mailsheets to identify the mailsheets and their order within the mailstream that need to be accounted for and reconciled, see also Fig 10 which shows identifying that sequence number 13481 has a spoilage error and the system adds this mailsheet number to the error queue indicating it needs reconciliation, [0055] “spoilage errors are both established as requiring queuing upon being detected”)
reprinting the mailsheets removed from the mailstream; ([0065]-[0066] “reconcile…re-print may be ordered… if the customer does reprints to reconcile…a reprint button could be added to the interface…if the contents are damaged, then the piece must be reprinted and added to the mailing” – therefore a mailsheet associated with an error (e.g., which was pulled/diverted into a reject bin – i.e., removed from the mialstream) may be re-printed)
returning the reprinted mailsheets to their order within the mailstream, ([0052] & [0065]-[0066] “Sequence numbers are typically printed onto mail pieces as a means of verifying that a series of pieces are continuously produced during the job run…indicate missing pieces that must be accounted for in order to signify ultimate completion of a job run…missing pieces…diverted…The process of accounting for errors that may occur during the job run is reconciliation…”… “reconcile…re-print may be ordered… if the customer does reprints to reconcile…a reprint button could be added to the interface… the piece can be handstuffed into another envelope and manually placed in the correct mail tray…if the contents are damaged, then the piece must be reprinted and added to the mailing” - the system uses the sequence numbers to identify mail sheets/pieces that have errors and that need to be reconciled (e.g., reprinted and added back to the mailstream in their correct order) for the printing job to be completed), ([0033] “A marker system may be added before the transport device 116 for marking the mailpiece associated with an error. This will enable the operator to quickly locate the mailpieces …the mark is generally placed on the piece immediately preceding or following the detected sequence error.” – therefore the reprinted mailpiece would be placed in its order within the mailstream by placing it between corresponding mailpieces having been marked along their respective edges)
placing the movement of the mailstream off of standby ([0050] “reconcile the stop error and restart the system”, see also Fig 5 after tag 516 where the mailstream is started after the errors that caused the machine to stop are reconciled, [0007] “the job run is not restarted until the error is handled (event 320)” )
Although Boston briefly suggests that the sequence error may be associated with a “pre-sort error or incorrect zip code” ([0044]), which explains that the sequence numbers and the order of the mail sheets/pieces in the mailstream in general may be associated with a pre-sort strategy, Boston does not appear to disclose that postage discounts are provided for maintaining mail sheet/piece order within a mailstream. Boston does not appear to disclose,
preserving postage discounts in a mailstream… wherein returning a mailsheet to its order within the mailstream preserves the available postage discount for the mailsheet
However, Miller discloses that mail sheets/pieces produced using document processing systems may be sequentially ordered so that postage discounts are obtained (e.g., pre-sort discounts or other bulk discounts) ([0004]-[0007] & [0028]-[0029]). Miller also suggests that rejected/erroneous mailpieces may be reprinted ([0038]) and that reprinted/replaced mailpieces are put back in their respective order (e.g., by using edge markings) to preserve such discounts ([0044])
preserving postage discounts in a mailstream…wherein returning a mailsheet to its order within the mailstream preserves the available postage discount for the mailsheet ([0004]-[0007] “The post office found that if the mailers were given postal discount rates for performing certain acts, such as the presorting of mail, i.e., by zip code, bundling the mail and the like, a great deal of time would be saved by the post office. As a result of such discounting, large mailers were encouraged to preprocess their mail, and mail processing equipment such as scales, inserters, folders, sorters and the like were developed to assist the mailer in their mailing operation….Another problem encountered by the prior art resulted when one or more mail trays dropped, and the contents of the mail trays were no longer in order. A large amount of labor was required to properly order the mail pieces in the dropped trays, or the post issued discounts for mailer tasks that were not performed by the mailer” – therefore sequentially ordered mailpieces organized and bundled by zip code may result in obtaining a postage discount and therefore ensuring the mail sheets/pieces are in order results in preserving an available postage discount, [0044] “An operator may remove the rejected mail piece, reprint a corrected mail piece, and place the corrected mail piece in the position of the removed mail piece. Hence, mail pieces 302 are in the same sequence order that was determined by create mail run 9” - returning a reprinted mailsheet to its order within the mailstream preserves the available postage discount for the mailsheet discussed in [0004]-[0007], edge marking may be used to facilitate the returning per [0028]-[0029] “a process for creating mail pieces in a mail run…the mail pieces are produced in block 10, i.e.; the contents of the mail piece are folded, inserted and sealed into the mail piece, which is addressed…. in ordered sequence that was determined by create mail run 9 (FIG. 1)….in a manner that the first mail piece 101 in the ordered sequence is flush with front panel 102, and the last mail piece in the ordered sequence is flush with back panel 103. Pattern 105 forms a continuous solid diagonal line from point A on the first mail piece next to panel 102 to point B on the mail piece next to panel 103; thus, no mail pieces 101 have been added or removed from tray 100. Hence, mail pieces 101 are in the same sequence order that was determined by create mail run 9”)
Miller suggests it is advantageous to returning a mailsheet to its order within the mailstream and wherein returning a mailsheet to its order within the mailstream preserves the available postage discount for the mailsheet, because doing so can reduce labor/time for the post office while providing economic benefit/incentive to the mailstream producer for returning a reprinted mailsheet to its order ([0004]-[0007] & [0028]-[0029] & [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Boston to include wherein returning a mailsheet to its order within the mailstream preserves the available postage discount for the mailsheet, as taught by Miller, because doing so can reduce labor/time for the post office while providing economic benefit/incentive to the mailstream producer for returning a reprinted mailsheet to its order.
With respect to claim 12, Boston teaches the method of claim 11;
wherein the one or more mailsheets are removed for containing an error ([0002] “Document processing facilities often use document processing systems such as inserters to assemble and insert mail into envelopes…it is vital that any errors be minimized if not completely eliminated. Typical errors that may occur during a job run may include a sequence number error, document spoilage (e.g., document bent, wrinkled, or torn) and other such errors” – wrinkled/bent/torn document is a physical damage error to one or more mailsheets, [0034]-[0035] “imaging devices…optical scanner, reader, or camera…that enable positive recognition of a document or mail piece or detect flaws or errors in the finished mail…indicia print errors…envelope spoilage…tears or smudges, which is further indicative of printing problems or physical damage…and trigger an error to the system”, see also [0058]-[0059])
With respect to claim 13, Boston teaches the method of claim 12;
wherein the error comprises physical damage to the one or more mailsheets and/or misprinted text and/or graphics on the one or more mailsheets ([0002] “Document processing facilities often use document processing systems such as inserters to assemble and insert mail into envelopes…it is vital that any errors be minimized if not completely eliminated. Typical errors that may occur during a job run may include a sequence number error, document spoilage (e.g., document bent, wrinkled, or torn) and other such errors” – wrinkled/bent/torn document is a physical damage error to one or more mailsheets, [0035] “indicia print errors…envelope spoilage…tears or smudges, which is further indicative of printing problems or physical damage…and trigger an error to the system”, see also [0043] & [0058]-[0059])
With respect to claim 14, Boston teaches the method of claim 11;
wherein defined sets of the plurality of mailsheets of the mailstream are placed into respective carriers to form corresponding mailpieces ([0031]-[0032] “during a mail run in execution by a document processing system…a plurality of documents of any type, but particularly those which may ultimately be designated as mail pieces…document processing system for generating mail pieces, such as an inserter 100…individual sheets….Once they are folded, the documents are then placed into an accumulator (not shown), which combines pages from a multiple page a predetermined order for processing by a upright module 108, and assembled into the collation track 110. Once the documents are assembled, an insert feeder 112 may be provided for adding additional inserts or documents to the mail piece, and collating them for insertion into an envelope by an inserting station 114. Once the documents comprising the mail piece are inserted into the envelope and sealed…” – therefore defined sets of the plurality of mailsheets of the mailstream (e.g., pluralities of individual document sheets) are placed into respective envelopes (respective carriers) to form corresponding mailpieces)
With respect to claim 15, Boston teaches the method of claim 14;
wherein the carrier may include at least one of an envelope, a package, a box, a container, and a wrap ([0031]-[0032] “during a mail run in execution by a document processing system…a plurality of documents of any type, but particularly those which may ultimately be designated as mail pieces…document processing system for generating mail pieces, such as an inserter 100…individual sheets….Once they are folded, the documents are then placed into an accumulator (not shown), which combines pages from a multiple page a predetermined order for processing by a upright module 108, and assembled into the collation track 110. Once the documents are assembled, an insert feeder 112 may be provided for adding additional inserts or documents to the mail piece, and collating them for insertion into an envelope by an inserting station 114. Once the documents comprising the mail piece are inserted into the envelope and sealed…” – therefore the carrier may include at least an envelope)
With respect to claim 16, Boston teaches the method of claim 14;
wherein the step of removing mailsheets from the mailstream comprises: diverting, from the mailstream, a first set of mailsheets having at least one mailsheet containing an error; and diverting, from the mailstream, all subsequent sets of mailsheets immediately following the first set of mailsheets ([0066] “piece was spoiled…pulled prior to the inserting process or diverted into a reject bin” – therefore one or more mailsheets comprising an error may be pulled/diverted from the mailstream before insertion or after insertion (e.g., as part of a mailpiece that has an error, consistent with dependent claim 18 which suggests that removing one or more mailsheets may comprise removing a mailpiece that comprises a defined set of mailsheets – both instances amount to removing one or more mailsheets from the mailstream), [0052] “…diverted…The process of accounting for errors that may occur during the job run is reconciliation…”, also per [0005] “errors capable of affecting the integrity of all other mail pieces…(e.g., when improper indicia being applied to one mail piece affects all subsequent mail pieces)” and [0047] “piece count constraint…” & [0058] the print error may be sequential and caused by a printer quality/format error and may affect a plurality of sequential mailpieces and therefore the system would divert a first set of mailsheets (a first mailpiece) as well as one or more subsequent mailpieces (i.e., all subsequent sets of mailsheets immediately following the first set of mailsheets))
With respect to claim 17, Boston teaches the method of claim 16;
wherein the step of reprinting the mailsheets removed from the mailstream comprises reprinting all sets of mailsheets diverted from the mailstream ([0065]-[0066] “reconcile…re-print may be ordered… if the customer does reprints to reconcile…a reprint button could be added to the interface…if the contents are damaged, then the piece must be reprinted and added to the mailing” – therefore a mailsheet associated with an error (e.g., which was pulled/diverted into a reject bin – i.e., removed from the mialstream) may be re-printed)
With respect to claim 18, Boston teaches the method of claim 17;
wherein the step of returning reprinted mailsheets to their order within the mailstream comprises placing the sets of reprinted mailsheets into respective carriers to form corresponding reprinted mailpieces and placing the reprinted mailpieces immediately after a previously formed mailpiece that does not contain mailsheets that were removed (Fig 10 shows that a mail piece (13481) may be spoiled (meaning the mailpieces immediately before (13480) this mailpieces does not have error and therefore does not contain mailsheets that were removed) and per [0052] & [0065]-[0066] “Sequence numbers are typically printed onto mail pieces as a means of verifying that a series of pieces are continuously produced during the job run…indicate missing pieces that must be accounted for in order to signify ultimate completion of a job run…missing pieces…diverted…The process of accounting for errors that may occur during the job run is reconciliation…”… “reconcile…re-print may be ordered… if the customer does reprints to reconcile…a reprint button could be added to the interface… the piece can be handstuffed into another envelope and manually placed in the correct mail tray…if the contents are damaged, then the piece must be reprinted and added to the mailing” - reprinting comprises reprinting the mainsheets and stuffing them in another envelope (i.e., placing reprinted mailsheets into a carrier to form a reprinted mailpiece) and the system uses the sequence numbers to identify mail pieces that have errors and that need to be reprinted and added back to the mailstream in their correct order and therefore the reprinted mailpiece is returned to its order within the mailstream and immediately after a previous mailpiece that does not contain mailsheets that were removed, [0033] “A marker system may be added before the transport device 116 for marking the mailpiece associated with an error. This will enable the operator to quickly locate the mailpieces …the mark is generally placed on the piece immediately preceding…the detected sequence error.”)
With respect to claim 19, Boston teaches the method of claim 11;
wherein the step of the reprinted mailsheets to their order within the mailstream comprises returning the reprinted mailsheets to a postal tray and/or location within a postal tray ([0065] “manually stuffed and placed in the correct mail tray”)
As discussed above with respect to claim 11, Boston does not disclose that the sequence order is used and maintained to qualify for the available postage discount. However, as discussed above with respect to claim 11, Miller discloses that mail sheets/pieces produced using document processing systems may be sequentially ordered so that postage discounts are obtained (e.g., pre-sort discounts or other bulk discounts) ([0004]-[0007] & [0028]-[0029]). Miller also suggests that rejected/erroneous mailpieces may be reprinted ([0038]) and that reprinted/replaced mailpieces are put back in their respective order (e.g., by using edge markings) to preserve such discounts ([0044]). The combination of Boston and Miller, as established above with respect to the rejection of claim 1, therefore discloses that the step of returning reprinted mailsheets to their order within the mailstream comprises returning the reprinted mailsheets to a postal tray and/or location within a postal tray to qualify for the available postage discount. The motivation for combining these references is established above with respect to the rejection of claim 11.
v Claims 20-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boston et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2007/0177184, August 2, 2007 - hereinafter "Boston”) in view of Delfer et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,754,434 - hereinafter "Delfer”) in view of Miller et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2003/0083781, May 1, 2003 - hereinafter "Miller”)
With respect to claim 20, Boston teaches a system, the system comprising:
a mailstream comprising a plurality of sequentially ordered printed mailsheets, (Fig 1 shows a plurality of sequentially ordered printed mailsheets in a moving mailstream, [0031]-[0032] “during a mail run in execution by a document processing system…a plurality of documents of any type, but particularly those which may ultimately be designated as mail pieces…printed mail piece markings on it (e.g., text, barcodes, sequence numbers or graphics--printers not shown) is fed into a cutting module 104 for dividing the paper roll into individual sheets….accumulator (not shown), which combines pages from a multiple page a predetermined order…Once the documents comprising the mail piece are inserted into the envelope and sealed, the document may then be passed onto an output transport device 116, where it may be further processed downstream (e.g., processed by one or more imaging devices…” – therefore there exists a plurality of sequentially ordered printed mailsheets in a mailstream)
wherein each mailsheet in the plurality has an identifier of its order within the mailstream; (Fig 10 shows the sequence number (i.e., identifier) associated with each mailsheet that indicates the order of each mailsheet within the mailstream, [0031]-[0032] “…a plurality of documents of any type, but particularly those which may ultimately be designated as mail pieces… Additional components are printed…which are used in mail processing….a sequence number…printed mail piece markings on it (e.g., text, barcodes, sequence numbers or graphics--printers not shown) is fed into a cutting module 104 for dividing the paper roll into individual sheets… accumulator (not shown), which combines pages from a multiple page a predetermined order…” – each mailsheet has an identifier (sequence number) identifying its order in the mialstream, [0052] “Sequence numbers are typically printed onto mail pieces as a means of verifying that a series of pieces are continuously produced during the job run. Gaps between mail pieces, such as in the case of sequence gaps 606 and 607, indicate missing pieces that must be accounted for in order to signify ultimate completion of a job run”)
diverting one or more mailsheets from the mailstream, wherein at least some of the diverted mailsheets contain errors; ([0066] “piece was spoiled…pulled prior to the inserting process or diverted into a reject bin” – therefore one or more mailsheets comprising an error may be pulled/diverted from the mailstream before insertion or after insertion (e.g., as part of a mailpiece that has an error, consistent with dependent claim 18 which suggests that removing one or more mailsheets may comprise removing a mailpiece that comprises a defined set of mailsheets – both instances amount to removing one or more mailsheets from the mailstream), [0052] “…diverted…The process of accounting for errors that may occur during the job run is reconciliation…”)
a scanner for identifying mailsheets…containing errors and their order within the mailstream; and ([0034]-[0035] “imaging devices…optical scanner, reader, or camera…that enable positive recognition of a document or mail piece or detect flaws or errors in the finished mail…indicia print errors…envelope spoilage…tears or smudges, which is further indicative of printing problems or physical damage…and trigger an error to the system”, [0002] “Document processing facilities often use document processing systems such as inserters to assemble and insert mail into envelopes…it is vital that any errors be minimized if not completely eliminated. Typical errors that may occur during a job run may include a sequence number error, document spoilage (e.g., document bent, wrinkled, or torn) and other such errors” – wrinkled/bent/torn document is a physical damage error to one or more mailsheets, see also [0058]-[0059])
reprinting mailsheets diverted from the mailstream and to then be returned to their order within the mailstream ([0065]-[0066] “reconcile…re-print may be ordered… if the customer does reprints to reconcile…a reprint button could be added to the interface…if the contents are damaged, then the piece must be reprinted and added to the mailing” – therefore a mailsheet associated with an error (e.g., which was pulled/diverted into a reject bin – i.e., removed from the mialstream) may be re-printed, also per [0052] & [0065]-[0066] “Sequence numbers are typically printed onto mail pieces as a means of verifying that a series of pieces are continuously produced during the job run…indicate missing pieces that must be accounted for in order to signify ultimate completion of a job run…missing pieces…diverted…The process of accounting for errors that may occur during the job run is reconciliation…”… “reconcile…re-print may be ordered… if the customer does reprints to reconcile…a reprint button could be added to the interface… the piece can be handstuffed into another envelope and manually placed in the correct mail tray…if the contents are damaged, then the piece must be reprinted and added to the mailing” - the system uses the sequence numbers to identify mail sheets/pieces that have errors and that need to be reconciled (e.g., reprinted and added back to the mailstream in their correct order) for the printing job to be completed), ([0033] “A marker system may be added before the transport device 116 for marking the mailpiece associated with an error. This will enable the operator to quickly locate the mailpieces …the mark is generally placed on the piece immediately preceding or following the detected sequence error.” – therefore the reprinted mailpiece would be placed in its order within the mailstream by placing it between corresponding mailpieces having been marked along their respective edges)
Although Boston discloses diverting one or more mailpieces containing errors, and although Boston discloses reprinting diverted mailpeices, Boston does not explicitly disclose a divert gate or a printer (for printing the re-prints). Boston does not appear to disclose,
a divert gate for diverting one or more mailsheets from the mailstream…mailsheets in the divert gate containing errors
a printer for reprinting mailsheets diverted from the mailstream
preserving postage discounts in a mailstream… mailsheets…to then be returned to their order within the mailstream to thereby preserve the available postage discount for the mailsheet
However, Delfer discloses
a divert gate for diverting one or more mailsheets from the mailstream…mailsheets in the divert gate containing errors (Fig 1 “second diverter tray” and 17:60-64 “The form of the page rejection means or diverter can vary. but a movable arm, lever. or plate that deflects or directs the waste pages downward into a waste receptacle is contemplated” – divert gate for diverting one or more mailsheets from the mailstream, 29:65-67 “error condition…misprint…causes the statement to be diverted out of the normal flow for correction”, see also 6:24 “diverter mechanism sends…into the diverter tray”, 13:6-27 “mailer flap…pre-set angle…just long enough to offset the arriving bill…lands in the diverter tray” – divert gate for diverting one or more mailsheets from the mailstream)
a printer for reprinting mailsheets diverted from the mailstream (Fig 1 “laser printer for remakes”, 7:20-24 “if any bills require remakes, the system…inputs the bill sequence number into the second PC; an appropriate printer in the system prints the remade bill”, see also 8:38-50)
Delfer suggests it is advantageous to include a divert gate for diverting one or more mailsheets from the mailstream (mailsheets in the divert gate containing errors) and a printer for reprinting mailsheets diverted from the mailstream, because such components enable the system to actually divert the one or more mailsheets and enables the system to actually reprint the diverted mailsheets (see citations above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Miller to include a divert gate for diverting one or more mailsheets from the mailstream (mailsheets in the divert gate containing errors) and a printer for reprinting mailsheets diverted from the mailstream, as taught by Delfer, because such components enable the system to actually divert the one or more mailsheets and enables the system to actually reprint the diverted mailsheets (Delfer merely discloses the desired functionality, not the system components to achieve this functionality).
Furthermore, 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 divert gate for diverting one or more mailsheets from the mailstream (mailsheets in the divert gate containing errors) and a printer for reprinting mailsheets diverted from the mailstream, as taught by Delfer, in the system of Boston, 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. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that doing so would enable the system to actually divert the one or more mailsheets and enables the system to actually reprint the diverted mailsheets (Delfer merely discloses the desired functionality, not the system components to achieve this functionality).
Although Boston briefly suggests that the sequence error may be associated with a “pre-sort error or incorrect zip code” ([0044]), which explains that the sequence numbers and the order of the mail sheets/pieces in the mailstream in general may be associated with a pre-sort strategy, Boston does not appear to disclose that postage discounts are provided for maintaining mail sheet/piece order within a mailstream. Boston does not appear to disclose,
preserving postage discounts in a mailstream… mailsheets…to then be returned to their order within the mailstream to thereby preserve the available postage discount for the mailsheet
However, Miller discloses that mail sheets/pieces produced using document processing systems may be sequentially ordered so that postage discounts are obtained (e.g., pre-sort discounts or other bulk discounts) ([0004]-[0007] & [0028]-[0029]). Miller also suggests that rejected/erroneous mailpieces may be reprinted ([0038]) and that reprinted/replaced mailpieces are put back in their respective order (e.g., by using edge markings) to preserve such discounts ([0044])
preserving postage discounts in a mailstream… mailsheets…to then be returned to their order within the mailstream to thereby preserve the available postage discount for the mailsheet ([0004]-[0007] “The post office found that if the mailers were given postal discount rates for performing certain acts, such as the presorting of mail, i.e., by zip code, bundling the mail and the like, a great deal of time would be saved by the post office. As a result of such discounting, large mailers were encouraged to preprocess their mail, and mail processing equipment such as scales, inserters, folders, sorters and the like were developed to assist the mailer in their mailing operation….Another problem encountered by the prior art resulted when one or more mail trays dropped, and the contents of the mail trays were no longer in order. A large amount of labor was required to properly order the mail pieces in the dropped trays, or the post issued discounts for mailer tasks that were not performed by the mailer” – therefore sequentially ordered mailpieces organized and bundled by zip code may result in obtaining a postage discount and therefore ensuring the mail sheets/pieces are in order results in preserving an available postage discount, [0044] “An operator may remove the rejected mail piece, reprint a corrected mail piece, and place the corrected mail piece in the position of the removed mail piece. Hence, mail pieces 302 are in the same sequence order that was determined by create mail run 9” - returning a reprinted mailsheet to its order within the mailstream preserves the available postage discount for the mailsheet discussed in [0004]-[0007], edge marking may be used to facilitate the returning per [0028]-[0029] “a process for creating mail pieces in a mail run…the mail pieces are produced in block 10, i.e.; the contents of the mail piece are folded, inserted and sealed into the mail piece, which is addressed…. in ordered sequence that was determined by create mail run 9 (FIG. 1)….in a manner that the first mail piece 101 in the ordered sequence is flush with front panel 102, and the last mail piece in the ordered sequence is flush with back panel 103. Pattern 105 forms a continuous solid diagonal line from point A on the first mail piece next to panel 102 to point B on the mail piece next to panel 103; thus, no mail pieces 101 have been added or removed from tray 100. Hence, mail pieces 101 are in the same sequence order that was determined by create mail run 9”)
Miller suggests it is advantageous to returning a mailsheet to its order within the mailstream and wherein returning a mailsheet to its order within the mailstream preserves the available postage discount for the mailsheet, because doing so can reduce labor/time for the post office while providing economic benefit/incentive to the mailstream producer for returning a reprinted mailsheet to its order ([0004]-[0007] & [0028]-[0029] & [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Boston in view of Delfour to include wherein preserving postage discounts in a mailstream… mailsheets…to then be returned to their order within the mailstream to thereby preserve the available postage discount for the mailsheet, as taught by Miller, because doing so can reduce labor/time for the post office while providing economic benefit/incentive to the mailstream producer for returning a reprinted mailsheet to its order.
With respect to claim 21, Boston teaches the system of claim 20;
further comprising an optical module for identifying one or more mailsheets within the mailstream containing errors ([0034]-[0035] “imaging devices…optical scanner, reader, or camera…that enable positive recognition of a document or mail piece or detect flaws or errors in the finished mail…indicia print errors…envelope spoilage…tears or smudges, which is further indicative of printing problems or physical damage…and trigger an error to the system”, [0002] “Document processing facilities often use document processing systems such as inserters to assemble and insert mail into envelopes…it is vital that any errors be minimized if not completely eliminated. Typical errors that may occur during a job run may include a sequence number error, document spoilage (e.g., document bent, wrinkled, or torn) and other such errors” – wrinkled/bent/torn document is a physical damage error to one or more mailsheets, see also [0058]-[0059])
With respect to claim 22, Boston teaches the system of claim 21;
wherein the error comprises physical damage to the one or more mailsheets and/or misprinted text and/or graphics on the one or more mailsheets ([0002] “Document processing facilities often use document processing systems such as inserters to assemble and insert mail into envelopes…it is vital that any errors be minimized if not completely eliminated. Typical errors that may occur during a job run may include a sequence number error, document spoilage (e.g., document bent, wrinkled, or torn) and other such errors” – wrinkled/bent/torn document is a physical damage error to one or more mailsheets, [0035] “indicia print errors…envelope spoilage…tears or smudges, which is further indicative of printing problems or physical damage…and trigger an error to the system”, see also [0043] & [0058]-[0059])
With respect to claim 23, Boston teaches the system of claim 20;
further comprising a packaging module for packaging defined sets of mailsheets of the mailstream into respective mailpieces (Fig 1 tag 114 and [0032]-[0034] the system’s inserter is a “packaging module” that packages defined sets of mailsheets of the mailstream into respective mailpieces)
With respect to claim 24, Boston teaches the system of claim 23;
further comprising a marking module configured to mark mailpieces positioned within the mailstream immediately before and/or immediately after a mailpiece having the one or more diverted mailsheets to thereby indicate the location within the mailstream where a diverted mailsheet should be returned once reprinted and packaged into a corresponding mailpiece ([0033] “A marker system may be added before the transport device 116 for marking the mailpiece associated with an error. This will enable the operator to quickly locate the mailpieces with an error that needs to be reconciled….the mark is generally placed on the piece immediately preceding or following the detected sequence error. Other techniques for identifying error mailpieces can be implemented by those skilled in the art.” – therefore the system comprises a marker system (a marking module) configured to mark mailpieces positioned within the mailstream immediately before and/or immediately after a mailpiece having the one or more diverted mailsheets to thereby indicate the location within the mailstream where a diverted mailsheet should be returned once reprinted and packaged into a corresponding mailpiece)
With respect to claim 25, Boston teaches the system of claim 24;
wherein the mailpieces positioned within the mailstream immediately before and/or immediately after a mailpiece having the one or more diverted mailsheets are marked along their edge ([0033] “A marker system may be added before the transport device 116 for marking the mailpiece associated with an error. This will enable the operator to quickly locate the mailpieces with an error that needs to be reconciled….the mark is generally placed on the piece immediately preceding or following the detected sequence error. Other techniques for identifying error mailpieces can be implemented by those skilled in the art.”)
With respect to claim 26, Boston teaches the system of claim 23;
wherein the one or more diverted mailsheets comprise a set of mailsheets having at least one mailsheet containing an error such that the printer is configured to reprint the set of diverted mailsheets to thereby be placed into a carrier and form a corresponding reprinted mailpiece be returned to is order within the mailstream (Fig 10 shows that a single mail piece (13481) may be spoiled (meaning the mailpieces immediately before (13480) and/or immediately after (13482) this mailpieces do not have error and therefore do not contain mailsheets that were removed) and per [0052] & [0065]-[0066] “Sequence numbers are typically printed onto mail pieces as a means of verifying that a series of pieces are continuously produced during the job run…indicate missing pieces that must be accounted for in order to signify ultimate completion of a job run…missing pieces…diverted…The process of accounting for errors that may occur during the job run is reconciliation…”… “reconcile…re-print may be ordered… if the customer does reprints to reconcile…a reprint button could be added to the interface… the piece can be handstuffed into another envelope and manually placed in the correct mail tray…if the contents are damaged, then the piece must be reprinted and added to the mailing” - reprinting comprises reprinting the mainsheets and stuffing them in another envelope (i.e., placing reprinted mailsheets into a carrier to form a reprinted mailpiece) and the system uses the sequence numbers to identify mail pieces that have errors and that need to be reprinted and added back to the mailstream in their correct order and therefore the reprinted mailpiece is returned to its order within the mailstream and immediately before and/or immediately after mailpieces that do not contain mailsheets that were removed, [0033] “A marker system may be added before the transport device 116 for marking the mailpiece associated with an error. This will enable the operator to quickly locate the mailpieces …the mark is generally placed on the piece immediately preceding or following the detected sequence error.” – therefore the reprinted mailpiece would be placed in its order within the mailstream by placing it between corresponding mailpieces without errors)
Examiner notes Delfer discloses the printer itself, as already discussed above with respect to claim 21.
With respect to claim 27, Boston teaches the system of claim 23;
wherein the divert gate is configured to: divert, from the mailstream, a first set of mailsheets having at least one mailsheet containing an error; and diverting, from the mailstream, all subsequent sets of mailsheets immediately following the first set of mailsheets ([0066] “piece was spoiled…pulled prior to the inserting process or diverted into a reject bin” – therefore one or more mailsheets comprising an error may be pulled/diverted from the mailstream before insertion or after insertion (e.g., as part of a mailpiece that has an error, consistent with dependent claim 18 which suggests that removing one or more mailsheets may comprise removing a mailpiece that comprises a defined set of mailsheets – both instances amount to removing one or more mailsheets from the mailstream), [0052] “…diverted…The process of accounting for errors that may occur during the job run is reconciliation…”, also per [0005] “errors capable of affecting the integrity of all other mail pieces…(e.g., when improper indicia being applied to one mail piece affects all subsequent mail pieces)” and [0047] “piece count constraint…” & [0058] the print error may be sequential and caused by a printer quality/format error and may affect a plurality of sequential mailpieces and therefore the system would divert a first set of mailsheets (a first mailpiece) as well as one or more subsequent mailpieces (i.e., all subsequent sets of mailsheets immediately following the first set of mailsheets))
Examiner notes Delfer discloses the divert gate itself, as already discussed above with respect to claim 21. Examiner also notes Delfer discloses diverting subsequent bills (sets of mailsheets) immediately following an erroneous bill (10:5-20)
With respect to claim 28, Boston teaches the system of claim 27;
wherein the printer is configured to: reprint the first set of diverted mailsheets to thereby be placed into a carrier and form a corresponding reprinted first mailpiece; and reprint all subsequent sets of diverted mailsheets to thereby be placed into respective carriers and form corresponding reprinted subsequent mailpieces (Fig 10 shows that a single mail piece (13481) may be spoiled (meaning the mailpieces immediately before (13480) and/or immediately after (13482) this mailpieces do not have error and therefore do not contain mailsheets that were removed) and per [0052] & [0065]-[0066] “Sequence numbers are typically printed onto mail pieces as a means of verifying that a series of pieces are continuously produced during the job run…indicate missing pieces that must be accounted for in order to signify ultimate completion of a job run…missing pieces…diverted…The process of accounting for errors that may occur during the job run is reconciliation…”… “reconcile…re-print may be ordered… if the customer does reprints to reconcile…a reprint button could be added to the interface… the piece can be handstuffed into another envelope and manually placed in the correct mail tray…if the contents are damaged, then the piece must be reprinted and added to the mailing” - reprinting comprises reprinting the mainsheets and stuffing them in another envelope (i.e., placing reprinted mailsheets into a carrier to form a reprinted mailpiece) and the system uses the sequence numbers to identify mail pieces that have errors and that need to be reprinted and added back to the mailstream in their correct order and therefore the reprinted mailpiece is returned to its order within the mailstream and immediately before and/or immediately after mailpieces that do not contain mailsheets that were removed, [0033] “A marker system may be added before the transport device 116 for marking the mailpiece associated with an error. This will enable the operator to quickly locate the mailpieces …the mark is generally placed on the piece immediately preceding or following the detected sequence error.” – therefore the reprinted mailpiece would be placed in its order within the mailstream by placing it between corresponding mailpieces without errors)
Examiner notes Delfer discloses the printer itself, as already discussed above with respect to claim 21.
With respect to claim 29, Boston teaches the system of claim 20;
further comprising one or more postal trays, wherein a reprinted mailsheet may be returned to a postal tray and/or location within a postal tray ([0065] “manually stuffed and placed in the correct mail tray”)
As discussed above with respect to claim 20, Boston does not disclose that the sequence order is used and maintained to qualify for the available postage discount. However, as discussed above with respect to claim 20, Miller discloses that mail sheets/pieces produced using document processing systems may be sequentially ordered so that postage discounts are obtained (e.g., pre-sort discounts or other bulk discounts) ([0004]-[0007] & [0028]-[0029]). Miller also suggests that rejected/erroneous mailpieces may be reprinted ([0038]) and that reprinted/replaced mailpieces are put back in their respective order (e.g., by using edge markings) to preserve such discounts ([0044]). The combination of Boston and Miller, as established above with respect to the rejection of claim 1, therefore discloses that the step of returning a reprinted mailsheet to its order within the mailstream comprises returning the reprinted mailsheet to a postal tray and/or location within a postal tray to qualify for the available postage discount. The motivation for combining these references is established above with respect to the rejection of claim 20.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Paul (U.S. PG Pub No. 2008/0091460, April 17, 2008) teaches a mailstream processing system comprising imaging devices to detect errors in mail sheets/pieces and diverters used to divert erroneous sheets/pieces, and further wherein postal discounts are provided for pre-sorting mail sheets/pieces.
Terkel et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2013/0074721, March 28, 2013) teaches a mailstream processing system comprising imaging devices to detect errors in mail sheets/pieces and diverters used to divert erroneous sheets/pieces, and further wherein postal discounts are provided for pre-sorting mail sheets/pieces.
Weilacher (U.S. PG Pub No. 2008/0053327, March 6, 2008) teaches a mailstream processing system where edge marking devices mark edges of defective mailpieces and/or the mailpieces adjacent to defective mailpieces
“IMb Tracing™ User Guide” (Published by the Unites States Postal Service on January 9, 2012 and made available at https://www.usps.com/mailtracking/_pdf/imb-tracing-user-guide-v1-6-final.pdf ) teaches using sequence numbers to facilitate mailpiece ordering/sorting
Conclusion
No claim is allowed
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M DETWEILER whose telephone number is (571)272-4704. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at telephone number (571)-270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAMES M DETWEILER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621