DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending and subject to a non-final office action mailed 04/24/2025. Claims 1, 6, 9-10, 15 and 18-19 were amended; no claim was cancelled, or added in a reply filed 10/23/2025. Therefore claims 1-20 are currently pending and subject to the final office action below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/23/2025 in regards to section 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “With respect to Step 2A of the test for subject matter eligibility, the claims do not recite, i.e., are not directed to, an abstract idea. The Action alleges that the claim recites certain methods of organizing human activity. Applicant respectfully disagrees.” Remarks p. 9
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The proper inquiry under step 2A, prong one is not whether the claims fit neatly within a single example such as “methods of organizing human activity”, but whether the focus of the claim as a whole falls within any recognized abstract idea category.
Here, the claim recites a sequence of steps involving collecting image data, mathematically transforming that data into a hash, comparing the hash to stored values, identifying a user base don the comparison and reporting delivery status information. These steps collectively fall within the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, comparing and using information to identify and notify a user, which is a well-recognized abstract concept independent of whether it is characterized as “organizing human activity”.
Applicant argues “The Office Action states that the claim element, "generating a hash value," "covers an impulse purchase which is a method of organizing human activity." Office Action at paragraph 5. Applicant respectfully submits that the hash value generated in amended claim 1 is not related to impulse purchases, nor is it any other kind of method of organizing human activity.” (remarks p. 10).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s focus on “impulse purchases” is misplaced. Even assuming arguendo that the Office’s Action’s analogy was imprecise, the eligibility analysis does not turn on whether the claim literally involves impulse purchases.
Rather, the relevant question is whether the claimed steps are directed to abstract information processing, which they are. Generating a hash value and comparing it to stored hash values are classic data analysis and comparison operations, which remain abstract regardless of the particular example cited in the Action. Thus, Applicant’s rebuttal does not negate the abstract nature of the claim.
Applicant argues “generating a hash function, as recited in the independent claims hereof, is a computer function performed by a machine that involves analyzing an image file, at a pixel level, and deriving a value from the machine analysis of pixels from the image….Generating a hash value, based on one or more pixels in an image file, is not a step that could be performed by a human, being performed, faster, by a computer. Generating a hash value, based on one or more pixels in an image, can only be performed by a machine.” (remarks p. 10).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The argument that a step “can only be performed by a machine” is not determinative under 101. Mathematical operations, data transformations, and comparisons remain abstract even when they are impractical or impossible to perform mentally. The claim recites no specific technological improvement to hashing or image analysis; rather, it applies known mathematical techniques to data derived from an image. Accordingly, the machine only nature of the operation does not remove it from abstract.
Applicant argues that “While Applicant admits that, in a vacuum, a hash function is mathematical in nature, the claim, in context, recites generating a hash value based on "one or more pixels" of an image file. This kind of hashing, based on pixels in an image file, is not a mental step, nor is it a method of organizing human activity.” (remarks p. 10).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Merely specifying that the data being hashed originates from image pixels does not change the nature of the operation. Applying a mathematical function to image data is still a mathematical transformation of data, which is an abstract idea. The claim does not recite a specific pixel selection technique, a new hashing algorithm, or an improvement to image processing technology. Thus, the reference to pixels does not meaningfully limit the claim or alter its abstract focus.
Applicant argues “The elements recited by Applicant's independent claims integrate any allegedly abstract idea into a practical application. For example, a computing device is used to analyze pixels of the image, and create computer readable data (e.g. a hash value) relating to the image. Such hashing, on the pixels of the image, is a species of image processing, which is widely recognized as a practical application for computer based inventions under Prong 2.” (remarks p. 11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. While image processing can, in some cases, constitute a practical application, the present claims do not recite how the image processing is improved or applied in a non-conventional manner.
The hashing is described at a high level of generality and is used merely as an intermediary step to identify a user and track mail. The claim does not improve image processing technology itself; rather, it uses conventional image processing techniques as apart of an abstract information handling workflow. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under prong two.
Applicant argues “using a hash function on an image file, and comparing the resulting hash value to hash values of other image files, improves the operation of the computer performing the image processing and the comparison. The solution, of using a hash function and storing hash values, greatly increase the efficiency of the computer system by having to process substantially less data, which can be done substantially more quickly, than would an alternative solution such as storing the images themselves in the database and comparing the image to the database of other image” (remarks p. 11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. This alleged efficiency improvement is not recited with sufficient specificity in the claims. The claims do not quantify, define, or technically constrain how efficiency is achieved, nor doe they describe any non-conventional data structures or processing techniques. Using hash values instead of full data objects for comparison is a well known and routine technique, and generic efficiency gains associated with such techniques do not supply an inventive concept.
Applicant argues “the claimed invention integrates any purported abstract idea into a practical application, namely a computer system that performs image processing efficiently, and is able to perform additional practical functions such as identifying a user from an image of a piece of mail the user sent, and tracking the piece of mail through the mail system.” (remarks p. 11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Tracking mail and providing delivery status information are well understood, conventional activities in the field of mail services. These steps merely apply the results of the abstract data processing steps to a known field and therefore constitute field of use limitations or post solution activity. They do not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea nor transform it into a patent eligible application.
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claim 1/10/19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “ obtaining an image of the mail piece; generating a hash value of the image of the mail piece by applying a hash function to one or more pixels to the image of the mail piece; determining a match between the hash value and one of a plurality of stored hash values, wherein each of the plurality of stored hash values is generated by applying the hash function to one or more pixels to a respective image of a corresponding other mail piece corresponding user; identifying, based on a result of the determining the match, a user associated with mailing of the mail piece; applying an identity (ID) tag on the mail piece; tracking, based on the identity (ID) tag, the mail piece to determine its delivery status information; and providing the delivery status information of the mail piece to the user.”
The limitations of above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers tracking a mail piece which is a method of organizing a human activity and mathematical relationships. That is, the method allows for commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and mathematical concepts.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites a computing device associated with a mail service and including at least one processor and a non-transitory memory, an application on a user device of a corresponding user and a mobile device (claim 1/10/19). Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements, alone or in combination, are nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a general computer.
Dependent claims 2/11 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1/10 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (a camera associated with the computing device is recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to field of use) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claims 3/12 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1/10 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (image processing including orientation normalization, brightness normalization, color normalization, dimension normalization and shape normalization is recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to field of use) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claims 4/13 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1/10 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claims 5/14 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1/10 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (application by the user is recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to field of use) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claims 6/15 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1/10 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (camera on the user device, image processing, image processing including orientation normalization, brightness normalization, color normalization, dimension normalization and shape normalization and computing device are recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to field of use) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claims 7/16 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1/10 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (database is recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to field of use) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claims 8/17 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1/10 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (application is recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to field of use) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claims 9/18 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1/10 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (application is recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to field of use) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 20 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 19 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (application is recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to field of use) or providing significantly more limitations.
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, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dearing (US 2012/0011068) in view of McBride (US 10,713,634) and Babbar (US 2017/0142479).
As per claim 1/10/19, Dearing 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 an image of the mail piece (paragraph 37);
generating a hash value of the image of the mail piece by applying a hash function to the image of the mail piece (paragraph 38);
determining a match between the hash value and one of a plurality of stored hash values (paragraph 39),
identifying, based on a result of the determining the match, a user associated with mailing of the mail piece (paragraph 39);
applying an identity (ID) tag on the mail piece (paragraph 40);
However, Dearing does not disclose but McBride discloses wherein each of the plurality of stored hash values is generated by applying the hash function to a respective image of a corresponding other mail piece using an application on a user device of a corresponding user (col. 21:54 to col. 22:3);
tracking, based on the identity (ID) tag, the mail piece to determine its delivery status information (col. 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 Dearing, in order to activate postage indicia and provide postage indicia using mobile communication handsets (please see McBride col. 13:14-15).
However, Dearing 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 Dearing, 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, Dearing 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 (paragraph 37-39).
As per claim 5/14, Dearing does not disclose but McBride discloses detecting no stamp in a stamp zone at an 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, Dearing does not disclose but McBride discloses determining, through the application, a user account of the user associated with the mailing of 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).
Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dearing (US 2012/0011068) 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, Dearing 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, Dearing 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 Dearing 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 Dearing (US 2012/0011068) 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, Dearing 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, Dearing 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 Dearing, 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 Dearing (US 2012/0011068) in view of McBride (US 10,713,634) and Babbar, as rejected in claim 1, in further view of Narasimha (US 2013/0287256) and Gillen (US 2015/008878).
As per claim 6/15, Dearing 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: 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, Dearing 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 Dearing 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, Dearing does not disclose but Gillen discloses 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 (paragraph 89).
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 Gillen in the teaching of Dearing, 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, Dearing 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 Dearing, 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 Dearing (US 2012/0011068) 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, Dearing 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 Dearing, 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) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dearing (US 2012/0011068) in view of McBride (US 10,713,634) and Babbar, as rejected in claim 2, in further view of Amato (US 2015/0052076).
As per claim 9/18, Dearing discloses obtaining an image of an additional mail piece (paragraph 37-39); 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 (paragraph 37-39); determining that there is no match between the additional hash value and any of the plurality of stored hash values (paragraph 58-59).
However, Dearing does not disclose but Amato discloses marking the additional mail piece for returning to a sender of the additional mail piece (paragraph 34).
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 Amato in the teaching of Dearing, in order to determine whether the recipient wants mail items from the sender (please see Amato abstract).
However, Dearing 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 Dearing, 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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dearing (US 2012/0011068) in view of McBride (US 10,713,634) and Babbar, as rejected in claim 19, in further view of DeLa Vergne (US 8875985) and Narasimha (US 2013/0287256).
As per claim 20, Dearing 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 (paragraph 37-39).
Dearing 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, Dearing in view of McBride does not disclose but Narasimha 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 Dearing 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.
Dearing 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, Dearing 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 Dearing, 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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 3628