DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
In response filed on July 13, 2026, the Applicant amended claims 20, 22, 24, 26, and 27; and cancelled claims 1-19, 21, 23, and 29. Claims 20, 22, and 24-28 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
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 .
Response to Amendments
v With respect to the rejection of claims 21-28 under 35 U.S.C. §112 (a), Applicant has appropriately amended the claims. The claims were amended and/or deleted such that they no longer recite the language that invoked special interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f), thereby rendering the associated rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §112 (a) moot. The rejections of claims 21-28 under 35 U.S.C. §112 (a) have been withdrawn.
v With respect to the rejection of claims 21-28 under 35 U.S.C. §112 (b), Applicant has appropriately amended the claims. The claims were amended and/or deleted such that they no longer recite the language that invoked special interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f), thereby rendering the associated rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §112 (b) moot. The rejections of claims 21-28 under 35 U.S.C. §112 (b) have been withdrawn.
v Applicant’s amendments, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered and are persuasive (the claims were cancelled). The rejections of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been withdrawn accordingly.
v Claims 1-19 were cancelled, thereby rendering the rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. §103 moot. The rejection of these claims has been withdrawn.
v Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of amended claims 20, 22, and 24-28 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant argues “Applicant submits that none of the cited references, either alone or in any proposed combination with one another, reports, teaches, or suggests the device of amended independent claim 1. In particular, neither Boston, nor Miller, nor Delfer, nor any proposed combination thereof, reports, teaches or suggests a system for preserving postage discounts in a mailstream, the system including: 1) a mailstream comprising a plurality of sequentially ordered printed mailsheets, wherein each mailsheet in the plurality has an identifier of its order within the mailstream; 2) a divert gate for diverting one or more mailsheets from the mailstream, wherein at least some of the diverted mailsheets contain errors; 3) a scanner for identifying mailsheets in the divert gate containing errors and their order within the mailstream; 4) a printer for reprinting mailsheets diverted from the mailstream and to then be returned to their order within the mailstream to thereby preserve the available postage discount for the mailsheet; and 5) one or more postal trays, wherein a reprinted mailsheet may be returned to a postal tray and/or location within a postal tray to qualify for an available postage discount, as recited in amended claim 1. Since such features are missing, none of the cited references can be used to maintain rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully asserts that on at least the basis of the foregoing amendments, the pending claims overcome the rejections noted above.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument that the combination of Boston, Miller, and Delfer fails to teach or suggest the claimed invention is entirely conclusory, and is therefore not persuasive. Furthermore, in response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As discussed in the rejection below, Boston clearly discloses diverting one or more mailpieces containing errors. However, although Boston discloses reprinting diverted mailpeices, Boston does not explicitly disclose a divert gate for performing the diverting. Similarly, although Boston clearly discloses that mailpieces containing errors are re-printed, Boston does not actually disclose a printer for printing the re-prints. In other words, although the functions are disclosed, the structure for performing these functions (although arguably inherent) are not actually disclosed by Boston. 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) and 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).
Furthermore, 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… returning the reprinted mailsheet to a postal tray and/or location within a postal tray to qualify for the available postage discount. 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]). Miller discloses 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… returning the reprinted mailsheet to a postal tray and/or location within a postal tray to qualify for the available postage discount ([0004]-[0009] “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…this invention…makes it easier to place mail pieces in the tray” – 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”, see also [0044] where reprinted corrected mail pieces is placed in corrected mail piece location in the mail tray). 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 and returning the reprinted mailsheet to a postal tray and/or location within a postal tray to qualify for the available postage discount, 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… returning the reprinted mailsheet to a postal tray and/or location within a postal tray to qualify for the available postage discount, 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.
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 20, 22, and 24-28 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)
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”, [0033] “even after it has been swept into a tray”)
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 for diverting 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… returning the reprinted mailsheet to a postal tray and/or location within a postal tray to qualify for the available postage discount
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… returning the reprinted mailsheet to a postal tray and/or location within a postal tray to qualify for the available postage discount
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]). Miller discloses
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… returning the reprinted mailsheet to a postal tray and/or location within a postal tray to qualify for the available postage discount ([0004]-[0009] “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…this invention…makes it easier to place mail pieces in the tray” – 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”, see also [0044] where reprinted corrected mail pieces is placed in corrected mail piece location in the mail tray)
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 and returning the reprinted mailsheet to a postal tray and/or location within a postal tray to qualify for the available postage discount, 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… returning the reprinted mailsheet to a postal tray and/or location within a postal tray to qualify for the available postage discount, 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 22, Boston teaches the system of claim 20;
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 24, Boston teaches the system of claim 20;
wherein mailpieces positioned within the mailstream immediately before and/or immediately after a mailpiece having the one or more diverted mailsheets are marked 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 20;
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 20;
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.
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights