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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed 12/16/25 is acknowledged, the references therein relating to the general background of applicant’s invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim language currently states “target delivery time based using the data” which appears to be missing words. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the sending step" in the 2nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
1) Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 11, 14-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. patent 11,153,146 by Belmonte.
2) Regarding claim 1, Belmonte teaches a method for producing and sending mail, the method comprising: receiving a plurality of electronic document files and associated information for each of the plurality of electronic document files, the associated information comprising one or more postal addresses for recipients (column 6, lines 27-38; plurality of files are obtained with destination addresses) and a target delivery time (column 13, lines 5-10; files can include a date constraint); analyzing the one or more postal addresses; dividing each recipient of each of the plurality of electronic document files into one or more batches based, at least in part, on the analyzing step and in an effort to meet the target delivery time for each of the plurality of electronic document files (column 27, line 32-43; files are organized according to destination and auxiliary information including a date constraint; figure 15) and recipients at a lowest cost (column 7, lines 30-42 and column 11, lines 8-16; files are organized to achieve lower rates); selecting, for each batch: a printer from a plurality of printers; an induction point from a plurality of induction points; and a transportation method from the selected printer to the selected induction point (figure 8; printing, transportation and logistical nodes [i.e. “induction points”] are determined); transmitting each of the one or more batches of electronic document files and recipients to a respective selected printer to create a printed document for each recipient of each of the plurality of electronic document files in the batch; transporting the printed documents from each selected printer to a respective selected induction point using each respective selected transportation method; and mailing the transported documents from each respective selected induction point to their respective recipient at the recipient’s postal address (figure 10; bulk requests are received, sorted into groups [figure 15], sent to printers, transported to mailing distribution points and mailed to a recipient).
3) Regarding claim 3, Belmonte teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the induction point comprises a bulk mail center or a sectional center facility (column 1, lines 62 and 63; bulk distribution center [i.e. regional] and sectional centers are disclosed).
4) Regarding claim 4, Belmonte teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of induction points are for a United States Postal Service mailing (column 1, line 58; USPS is disclosed).
5) Regarding claim 5, Belmonte teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of induction points are for third party shippers (column 11, lines 40-43; plurality of 3rd party shippers are disclosed).
6) Regarding claim 11, Belmonte teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising obtaining the plurality of electronic document files from a plurality of different providers. (column 6, line 32; multiple mailers disclosed).
7) Regarding claim 14, Belmonte teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising extracting one or more postal addresses for recipients from the plurality of electronic document files (column 6, lines 27-38; plurality of files are obtained with destination addresses).
8) Regarding claim 15, Belmonte teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the selected printer or the selected transportation method is a third-party provider (column 11, lines 40-43; plurality of 3rd party shippers are disclosed).
9) Regarding claim 16, Belmonte teaches the method of claim 15, wherein one or more of the printer cost, printer capacity, alternative transport cost, alternative transport capacity bid info provided by users, and volume-based shipping discounts are provided by third party bids (column 9, lines 55-65; providers give bulk shipping discounts).
10) Regarding claim 17, Belmonte teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising providing one or more of the data to a third-party (column 6, lines 58-60; print request data is provided to printing companies).
11) Regarding claim 19, Belmonte teaches the method of claim 1, wherein one or more of the induction points are for foreign post (column 13, line 47; country can be selected in an address).
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.
11) Claim(s) 2 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent 11,153,146 by Belmonte as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2009/0313060 by Evevsky.
12) Regarding claim 2, Belmonte does not specifically teach the method of claim 1, further comprising tracking cost and delivery times for each electronic document file for each recipient and using said cost and delivery times in subsequent analyzing steps for subsequent electronic document files and recipients.
Evevsky teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising tracking cost and delivery times for each electronic document file for each recipient and using said cost and delivery times in subsequent analyzing steps for subsequent electronic document files and recipients (paragraph 111; outcomes are tracked as historical data and utilized in subsequent processes).
Belmonte and Evevsky are combinable because they are both from the mailing logistics field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Belmonte with Evevsky to add tracking data. The motivation for doing so would have been to determine more accurate quotes (paragraph 111). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Evevsky with Belmonte to obtain the invention of claim 2.
13) Regarding claim 18, Evevsky (as combined with Belmonte in the rejection of claim 2 above) teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising determining a cost estimate for delivery of a printed mailer of one or more of the plurality of electronic document files to one or more recipients in the target delivery time based using the data (paragraphs 124-126; cost estimate is provided).
14) Claim(s) 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent 11,153,146 by Belmonte as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2010/0313119 by Baldwin et al.
15) Regarding claim 12, Belmonte does not specifically teach the method of claim 1, further comprising converting the plurality of electronic document files to a common format before the sending step.
Baldwin teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising converting the plurality of electronic document files to a common format before the sending step (figure 13; paragraph 103; plurality of source data can be formatted into a dynamic document template, this could be combined with Belmonte prior to transmission of data to a print shop).
Belmonte and Baldwin are combinable because they are both from the document printing field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Belmonte with Baldwin to add formatting source data. The motivation for doing so would have been to create a mail merge tool (paragraph 2). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Baldwin with Belmonte to obtain the invention of claim 12.
16) Regarding claim 13, Baldwin (as combined with Belmonte in the rejection of claim 12 above) teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the common format is virtual dynamic document (VDD) (figure 13; paragraph 103; plurality of source data can be formatted into a dynamic document template).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN O DULANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2874. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at (571)270-5254. 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.
BENJAMIN O. DULANEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/BENJAMIN O DULANEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights