DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/29/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending and subject to a final office action mailed 12/29/2026. Claims 1, 4-11, 13-20 were amended; no claim was cancelled, or added in a reply filed 04/29/2026. Therefore claims 1-20 are currently pending and subject to the non-final office action below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks p. 10-13, filed 04/29/2026, with respect to 101 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 101 rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 103 rejection have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 8-11, 14, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reich (US 2003/0093383) in view of McBride (US 10,713,634) and Babbar (US 2017/0142479).
As per claim 1/10/19, Reich discloses a method, implemented on a computing device associated with a mail service and including at least one processor and a non-transitory memory, for tracking a mail piece to be carried and delivered by the mail service, the method comprising:
obtaining images of a plurality of mail pieces (paragraph 16, “The customer indicates whether the purchase is for a single or bulk mailings 170. Where the purchase is for a single mailing 172, the customer provides the Post with information 104. The information includes payment means, and delivery address (or zip code) or date of purchase. The date of purchase as recorded by the Post may also be used in the franking formulation. In addition, the customer may provide other related/identifying information such as mail piece or parcel size or weight so as to obtain accurate postage… The customer affixes the code to the mail piece or parcel 110. The affixing may be in the form of printing with a machine operated printer, manually writing the code on the mail piece or parcel, affixing a properly printed label, and the like. The method then continues to step 112.”, [0018] The customer deposits the mail piece or parcel or mail piece in the post which receives the mail piece or parcel or mail piece and scans the code thereon 112. A determination is made whether the code was properly scanned 114--the scan of the code, once decoded produces usable data. If the scan was properly scanned 116, the method proceeds to step 118. If the code was not properly scanned 120, the mail piece or parcel image is sent to a videocoding device including a display and data entry means suitable for an operator to view and manually enter the data related to the Electronic Postage data set and code 12X. );
automatically identifying as a target mail piece, from the plurality of mail pieces, a mail piece that has no stamp in a stamp zone at an upper right corner of a front side of the mail piece and that includes a user-added mark, using the images of the plurality of mail pieces ([0016]…The customer affixes the code to the mail piece or parcel 110. The affixing may be in the form of printing with a machine operated printer, manually writing the code on the mail piece or parcel, affixing a properly printed label, and the like. The method then continues to step 112... [0017] Returning to step 170, if the customer desires codes for bulk or large volume mailings 176, the customer is provided with a prefix and algorithm 178. In addition, the customer may be provided with a personal identification number (PIN) which is later used for authentication... [0018] The customer deposits the mail piece or parcel or mail piece in the post which receives the mail piece or parcel or mail piece and scans the code thereon 112. A determination is made whether the code was properly scanned 114--the scan of the code, once decoded produces usable data. If the scan was properly scanned 116, the method proceeds to step 118. If the code was not properly scanned 120, the mail piece or parcel image is sent to a videocoding device including a display and data entry means suitable for an operator to view and manually enter the data related to the Electronic Postage data set and code 12X. A determination is made whether the videocode successfully recovered the code 124…[0029] FIG. 3 depicts a second Tan 30. The second Tan comprises a two digit precode 32, followed by four digit numeric code 34 and two digit resulting code 36. The two digit precode can be assigned to large volume mailers or associated with a select time period (select day, week, etc.). The precode comprises alphanumeric characters. The numeric code is depicted as the same as the above first TAN for example purposes. As with the above, the numeric code may be generated sequentially or via application of an algorithm (complex or simple). A complex and/or encryption algorithm is applied to the date code and precode. The result of the application produces the resulting code 36. The second TAN 30 comprises the precode, daily code and resulting code. The second TAN 30 and date of purchase 38 are applied to a mail piece or parcel as depicted in FIG. 4. The application is in the top right-hand corner 40 where postage is normally placed. Authentication of the second TAN 30 then becomes a matter of comparing the resulting code to the one Post derived from the precode and date of purchase--information obtained from the mail piece or parcel. Where the resulting code does not match, the mail piece or parcel is not authorized.”)
upon identifying the target mail piece, authenticate/validate a franking code (paragraph 19, 29-30, “[0019] Returning to step 118, the code is authenticated. A determination is then made whether the TAN is based on a single mailing (first TAN) or bulk mailing (second TAN) 182. In the event it is a first TAN to be authenticated 184, an electronic memory is query to determine if the TAN and delivery address have matches therein 186 (per step 109). A match would indicate whether the TAN is authentic (134, 138). In the event of a second TAN 188, the TAN is recalculated using the date of purchase and algorithm associated with that date so as to generate a suffix code 190. The generated suffix code is compared to the suffix code printed on the mail piece or parcel. A match would indicate authenticity (134, 138). If the code is not authentic 136, the method proceeds to step 130, wherein the mail piece or parcel is set aside. If the code is authentic 138 a tracking code is printed on the mail piece or parcel 140 and the mail piece or parcel is routed accordingly. Application of identification codes are known in the art. “)
applying an identity (ID) tag on the mail piece (“[0006]… receiving said mail piece or parcel with franking code affixed thereon; verifying authenticity of said franking code; and printing an identification code on said mail piece or parcel, [0019]… If the code is authentic 138 a tracking code is printed on the mail piece or parcel 140 and the mail piece or parcel is routed accordingly…claim 1, “and printing an tracking code on said mail piece or mail piece if said franking code is authentic.”);
a tracking code is applied to the target mail piece to determine its delivery status information (paragraph 19, “If the code is authentic 138 a tracking code is printed on the mail piece or parcel 140 and the mail piece or parcel is routed accordingly. “)
However, Reich does not disclose but McBride discloses generating a hash value of an image of the target mail piece by applying a hash function to the image of the target mail piece (col. 21:54 to col. 22:3, “(68) It should be appreciated that a token generated from an image of a portion of a mail piece, as used in embodiments such as shown in FIG. 3, may comprise the actual image and/or information derived there from. For example, a hash algorithm or other algorithm operable to provide a reduced dataset which uniquely maps to the portion of the mail piece imaged may be utilized in providing tokens according to embodiments.”, claim 9, “receive an image of a mail piece from a user device, wherein the image includes address information associated with the mail piece; execute a hash function against the image of the mail piece to generate a token from the image of the mail piece; store the token at the memory; transmit information to the user device to indicate that the token generated from the image of the mail piece has been activated, and wherein activation of the token indicates that the token is a valid postage indicium; receive a second image of the mail piece, wherein the second image of the mail piece is captured by an imaging device operating within a mail stream into which the mail piece has been placed; execute the hash function against the second image of the mail piece; and validate a result of the execution of the hash function against the second image of the mail piece and the token stored at the memory to determine whether the mail piece is associated with an activated token”)
determining a match between the hash value of the image of the target mail piece and one of a plurality of previously stored hash values (claim 9, “receive an image of a mail piece from a user device, wherein the image includes address information associated with the mail piece; execute a hash function against the image of the mail piece to generate a token from the image of the mail piece; store the token at the memory; transmit information to the user device to indicate that the token generated from the image of the mail piece has been activated, and wherein activation of the token indicates that the token is a valid postage indicium; receive a second image of the mail piece, wherein the second image of the mail piece is captured by an imaging device operating within a mail stream into which the mail piece has been placed; execute the hash function against the second image of the mail piece; and validate a result of the execution of the hash function against the second image of the mail piece and the token stored at the memory to determine whether the mail piece is associated with an activated token”)
wherein each of the plurality of previously stored hash values is generated by applying the hash function to one or more pixels of a respective image of a corresponding other mail piece using an application on a user device of a corresponding user (22:43-48, “(71) As shown in FIG. 4, a user may utilize mobile communication handset 124 to request postage for a mail piece. For example, the user may use a SMS application, an electronic mail application, a postage indicia acquisition application, or other resource of mobile communication handset 124 to communicate a request for postage to activation system 110.” , 22:59-23:3, “(72) According to embodiments, imaging apparatus 123 of mobile communication handset 124 is operated to photograph a portion of the mail piece (e.g., front face of the mail piece) for communication of information regarding the mail piece (e.g., the image, data derived from the image, etc.) to activation system 110 as or with a request for postage. Such mail piece information may be utilized in deriving a token for application on the mail piece (e.g., somewhat as in the embodiment of FIG. 3, although the generated token in this embodiment is applied to the mail piece), in providing information regarding a mail piece that was posted (e.g., as proof of posting of a particular item), etc.”, claim 9, “receive an image of a mail piece from a user device, wherein the image includes address information associated with the mail piece; execute a hash function against the image of the mail piece to generate a token from the image of the mail piece; store the token at the memory; transmit information to the user device to indicate that the token generated from the image of the mail piece has been activated, and wherein activation of the token indicates that the token is a valid postage indicium; receive a second image of the mail piece, wherein the second image of the mail piece is captured by an imaging device operating within a mail stream into which the mail piece has been placed; execute the hash function against the second image of the mail piece; and validate a result of the execution of the hash function against the second image of the mail piece and the token stored at the memory to determine whether the mail piece is associated with an activated token”);
identifying, based on a result of the determining the match, a user associated with the target mail piece (3:16-22, “For example, a token used for activation as a postage indicium may include account information (e.g., user identification information, mobile communication handset identification information, account identification information, etc.) therein. Additionally or alternatively, such account information may be provided separate from the token itself.”, 22:23-29, “ For example, database 112 may store a look up table associating pseudo random code numbers with user account numbers for use according to embodiments of the invention. The foregoing information, or a portion thereof, (e.g., such as in the case of an address of the user) may be obtained from information (e.g., return address information) otherwise present some mail pieces according to embodiments of the invention.”, 20:8-14, “For example, information regarding the user (e.g., user identification information), the mobile communication handset (e.g., mobile communication handset identification information) used with respect to the token, etc. may be utilized to identify an appropriate account from which to obtain funds for proper activation of the token.”);
tracking, based on the identity (ID) tag, the mail piece to determine its delivery status information (col. 5:63-66, 11:54-Col. 12:22, col. 20:58-67, “); and
providing the delivery status information of the mail piece to a mobile device of the user (col. 20:49-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by McBride in the teaching of Reich, in order to activate postage indicia and provide postage indicia using mobile communication handsets (please see McBride col. 13:14-15).
However, Reich in view of McBride does not disclose but Babbar discloses generating a hash value of a first image by applying a hash function to one or more pixels of the first image and determining a match between the hash value of the first image and the hash value of a second image (paragraph 29, “In some embodiments, the hash function depicts some characteristics of the pixels that form it, along with the spatial orientation of the pixels.”, paragraph 30-34, “On the other hand, two very different images can create very similar hash values, which creates a problem during image comparison. By looking at the hash values, it can be determined if the images are different, but not how different they are or where the difference lies spatially in the images. [0031] In accordance with an embodiment, disclosed herein is a hash algorithm where by the Hash(Ref Image)−Hash(Test Image) generates an number indicative of the area where the two images are different. The hash may be computed by using the Y, U and V (or R, G, and B) values of each pixel in the image. It is generally understood that each of the Y, U and V values are represented by a 8 bit number, however the process applies for the values represented by 4 bits too. [0032] In some embodiments, for each image, three hash values are created: one for each of the Y, U and V domains of the pixels of the image. So, each image may be represented by a combination of three numbers (HashY, HashU, HashV). [0033] In some embodiments, Hash Y=Σ (w.sub.ij*(Y value of the pixel at coordinate (i,j))), where w.sub.ij is a value represented by the value=(i+j). It is contemplated that functional value w.sub.ij can be made more complex (e.g., (log i+log j), etc.). [0034] As provided, the hash function summation is a summation of i from 0 to number of pixels in the image lengthwise and a summation of j from 0 to number of pixels in the image height wise “).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Babbar in the teaching of Reich in view of McBride, 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.
As per claim 2/11, Reich does not disclose but McBride discloses collecting the mail piece mailed by the user for delivery; capturing, using a camera associated with the computing device, a picture of a front side of the mail piece; and generating, based on the picture, the image of the mail piece (3:50-4:7, “(11) Activation of tokens through use of a mobile communication handset according to embodiments of the invention may provide activation of tokens as value bearing postage indicia at various times other than when imaging apparatus of the mobile communication handset communicates information regarding a token to an activation system. For example, an imaging apparatus (e.g., camera, barcode reader, etc.) of the mobile communication handset may be operated to photograph an unactivated token, communicate information regarding that token (e.g., the image, data derived from the image, etc.) along with account information (e.g., user identification information, mobile communication handset identification information, account identification information, etc.) to an activation system using a network interface of the mobile communication handset. Thereafter, when the mail piece is processed by a postal service information regarding the token thereon (e.g, an image of the token, data derived from an image of the token, etc.) acquired by postal service processing equipment may to analyze token information provided by users and determine an appropriate account for use in activating the token, and thus cause the unactivated token to be activated and have a postage value (e.g., as may be indicated by an associated postage indicium or postage indicium information) associated therewith.”).
As per claim 5/14, Reich does not disclose but McBride discloses detecting no stamp in the stamp zone at the upper right corner of the front side of the mail piece; detecting one or more marks put by the user in the stamp zone; and determining to charge the user based on a payment method pre-stored in the application by the user (Col. 17:12-34, col. 22:4-29)(please see claim 1 rejection for combination rationale).
As per claim 8/17, Reich does not disclose but McBride discloses determining, through the application, a user account of the user associated with the mail piece; and charging the user for delivering the mail piece based on pre-stored payment method information associated with the user account (col. 3:5-21, col. 4:45-55, col. 15:13-30, col.22:4-29).
As per claim 9/18, Reich does not disclose but McBride discloses obtaining an image of an additional mail piece; generating an additional hash value of the image of the additional mail piece by applying the hash function to the image of the additional mail piece; determining that there is no match between the additional hash value and any of the plurality of stored hash values (claim 9, “receive a second image of the mail piece, wherein the second image of the mail piece is captured by an imaging device operating within a mail stream into which the mail piece has been placed; execute the hash function against the second image of the mail piece; and validate a result of the execution of the hash function against the second image of the mail piece and the token stored at the memory to determine whether the mail piece is associated with an activated token.”).
marking the additional mail piece for returning to a sender of the additional mail piece (20:40-49, “However, if the postage indicium is not valid (e.g., the token is unactivated or does not have an appropriate postage value associated therewith), validation system 130 may prevent further processing (e.g., direct the mail item to a “return to sender” bin). If desired, such a closed loop system may operate to activate a token determined to be unactivated, as discussed above, and thus allow the mail item to continue in the mail stream after such activation has been performed.”).
However, Reich in view of McBride does not disclose but Babbar discloses generating a hash value of a first image by applying a hash function to one or more pixels of the first image (paragraph 29, “In some embodiments, the hash function depicts some characteristics of the pixels that form it, along with the spatial orientation of the pixels.”, paragraph 30-34, “On the other hand, two very different images can create very similar hash values, which creates a problem during image comparison. By looking at the hash values, it can be determined if the images are different, but not how different they are or where the difference lies spatially in the images. [0031] In accordance with an embodiment, disclosed herein is a hash algorithm where by the Hash(Ref Image)−Hash(Test Image) generates an number indicative of the area where the two images are different. The hash may be computed by using the Y, U and V (or R, G, and B) values of each pixel in the image. It is generally understood that each of the Y, U and V values are represented by a 8 bit number, however the process applies for the values represented by 4 bits too. [0032] In some embodiments, for each image, three hash values are created: one for each of the Y, U and V domains of the pixels of the image. So, each image may be represented by a combination of three numbers (HashY, HashU, HashV). [0033] In some embodiments, Hash Y=Σ (w.sub.ij*(Y value of the pixel at coordinate (i,j))), where w.sub.ij is a value represented by the value=(i+j). It is contemplated that functional value w.sub.ij can be made more complex (e.g., (log i+log j), etc.). [0034] As provided, the hash function summation is a summation of i from 0 to number of pixels in the image lengthwise and a summation of j from 0 to number of pixels in the image height wise “).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Babbar in the teaching of Reich in view of McBride, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reich (US 2003/0093383) in view of McBride (US 10,713,634) and Babbar, as rejected in claim 2, in further view of Narasimha (US 2013/0287256).
As per claim 3/12, Reich does not disclose but McBride discloses performing image processing on the picture of the front side of the mail piece to generate the image of the mail piece (col. 13:64-col. 14:11)(please see claim 1 rejection for combination rationale).
However, Reich in view of McBride does not disclose but Nirasimha discloses wherein the image processing comprises at least one of the following operations: orientation normalization, brightness normalization, color normalization, dimension normalization, shape normalization (paragraph 73, fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Narasimha in the teaching of Reich in view of McBride, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reich (US 2003/0093383) in view of McBride (US 10,713,634) and Babbar, as rejected in claim 1, in further view of DeLa Vergne (US 8875985).
As per claim 4/13, Reich discloses associating the ID tag with the image of the mail piece; and associating the ID tag with the user (paragraph 39-40, the ID tag is associated with through the list in the database).
However, Reich does not disclose but Dela Vergne discloses spraying the ID tag on a back side of the mail piece (Col. 9:6-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Dela Vergne in the teaching of Reich, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reich (US 2003/0093383) in view of McBride (US 10,713,634) and Babbar, as rejected in claim 1, in further view of Narasimha (US 2013/0287256).
As per claim 6/15, Reich does not disclose but McBride discloses wherein each of the plurality of stored hash values is obtained based on the following operations performed by the application: displaying an instruction instructing the corresponding user to put handwriting in at least one specified zone on a front side of the corresponding other mail piece (23:24-26, “(74) Activated token 142 provided by activation system 110 may be communicated to mobile communication handset 124 for display to a user, such as upon a screen thereof.”, 23:31-36, “Token 142 of such an embodiment may comprise a string of characters (e.g., alphanumeric text, graphic symbols, icons, etc.) which may be applied upon the mail piece (e.g., handwritten upon the mail piece) as an activated token having postage value associated therewith.”, 23:35-37, “Accordingly, a user may transcribe activated token 142 upon the mail piece to provide postage acceptable to a delivery service provider.”).
activating a camera on the user device to take a picture of the front side of the corresponding other mail piece (col. 4:34-55, col. 22:4-29);
performing image processing on the picture of the front side of the corresponding other mail piece to generate the respective image of the corresponding other mail piece (col. 13:64-col. 14:11),
applying the hash function to the respective image to generate a candidate hash value (col. 21:54-22:3, claim 9); and
sending, to the computing device, the candidate hash value and a user ID of the corresponding user (col. 22:4-29, claim 9).
However, Reich in view of McBride does not disclose but Babbar discloses generating a hash value of a first image by applying a hash function to one or more pixels of the first image (paragraph 29, “In some embodiments, the hash function depicts some characteristics of the pixels that form it, along with the spatial orientation of the pixels.”, paragraph 30-34, “On the other hand, two very different images can create very similar hash values, which creates a problem during image comparison. By looking at the hash values, it can be determined if the images are different, but not how different they are or where the difference lies spatially in the images. [0031] In accordance with an embodiment, disclosed herein is a hash algorithm where by the Hash(Ref Image)−Hash(Test Image) generates an number indicative of the area where the two images are different. The hash may be computed by using the Y, U and V (or R, G, and B) values of each pixel in the image. It is generally understood that each of the Y, U and V values are represented by a 8 bit number, however the process applies for the values represented by 4 bits too. [0032] In some embodiments, for each image, three hash values are created: one for each of the Y, U and V domains of the pixels of the image. So, each image may be represented by a combination of three numbers (HashY, HashU, HashV). [0033] In some embodiments, Hash Y=Σ (w.sub.ij*(Y value of the pixel at coordinate (i,j))), where w.sub.ij is a value represented by the value=(i+j). It is contemplated that functional value w.sub.ij can be made more complex (e.g., (log i+log j), etc.). [0034] As provided, the hash function summation is a summation of i from 0 to number of pixels in the image lengthwise and a summation of j from 0 to number of pixels in the image height wise “).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Babbar in the teaching of Reich in view of McBride, 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.
However, Reich in view of McBride does not disclose but Narasimha wherein the image processing comprises at least one of the following operations: orientation normalization, brightness normalization, color normalization, dimension normalization, shape normalization (paragraph 73, fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Nirasimha in the teaching of Reich in view of McBride, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reich (US 2003/0093383) in view of McBride (US 10,713,634) and Babbar, as rejected in claim 1, in further view of Blohm (US 20200290089).
As per claim 7/16, Reich in view of McBride does not disclose but Blohm discloses checking uniqueness of the candidate hash value based on hash values in a database associated with the mail service; storing the candidate hash value as one of the plurality of stored hash values when the uniqueness is established; and instructing, through the application, the corresponding user to add more handwriting on the front side of the corresponding other mail piece and to take a new picture of the front side of the corresponding other mail piece, when the uniqueness is not established (paragraph 53, “There may be situations where mail item management data 176 includes multiple entries, i.e., for different mail items, with the same hash value. This may occur, for example, if the images for multiple mail items are so similar that the resulting hash values are the same. For example, two mail items may have a very similar mailing label and no other distinguishing features, e.g., such as artifacts. According to an embodiment, in response to determining that mail item management data 176 includes multiple entries, i.e., for different mail items, with the same hash value, mail item manager 170 provides a notification to allow manual resolution. For example, mail item manager 170 may generate and display a notification on a user interface of mail item manger 170, generate and transmit a notification to an administrative user e.g., via email, messaging, etc. In response to a notification, a user may manually inspect the image data for the entries with the same hash value and take corrective action, such as changing the image and/or hash value for one or more of the entries”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Blohm in the teaching of Reich in view of McBride, 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.
Non-Obviousness
No prior art was applied to claim 20 because applying the combination of Reich in view of McBride and Babbar to DeLa Vergne (US 8875985) and Narasimha (US 2013/0287256) would result in a piece meal rejection motivated by impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR ZEROUAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7255. The examiner can normally be reached Flex schedule.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at (571) 272-6782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
OMAR . ZEROUAL
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/OMAR ZEROUAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights