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 .
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.
Claims 1 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2017/190022 in view of Strohmeyer et al (US Patent # 6,941,794. As to claim 1, WO2017/190022 disclose a mail processing system with increased speed including i) a mail processing system (10) comprising: a mail singulator (30) that singulates mail (21) into a singulated mail piece (22); a feed belt (the singulator 30 in the form of a belt) and wherein the singulator (30) further comprises an optical panel (50) that is configured to be deflected by mail pieces (26) on the feed belt and wherein said controller (?)(60) changes a feed belt speed (see Abstract) as a function of the position of the optical panel to prevent compression of the singulated mail piece (22), see figs. 5-7 and page 5 et seq. Further, WO2017/190022 fails disclose the screening part of the mail handling machine. In a related prior art device, Strohmeyer et al disclose systems and methods for residue collection for mail handling of mailpieces which include a a pair of compression rollers (901/911) configured to compress the singulated mail piece (809); iii) an enclosure (housing 921/chamber 803) configured around the compression rollers (901/911); iv) a vacuum device (the aerosol chamber is held at a negative pressure) coupled with the enclosure and configured to maintain a negative pressure in the enclosure by drawing enclosure air from the enclosure (drawing air with air plenums 903/913); v) an analysis device (detector 1109) configured to analyze the enclosure air and detect a hazard; vi) a sampling plenum (903/913) configured proximal to the pair of compression rollers for drawing enclosure air from the enclosure; wherein the sampling plenum (903/913) is configured within the enclosure (921/803) and on an upstream side of the pair of compression rollers (901/911); vii) an inlet tunnel (near top 907) configured over an inlet to the enclosure for receiving mail pieces (mail 809) therethrough; viii) a clean air inlet coupled with the inlet tunnel (near top 907) and configured to direct a flow of clean air (air surrounding the top 907) into the inlet tunnel; wherein the compression rollers compress the singulated mail piece to expel a said hazard from said singulated mail piece; and wherein the vacuum device draws air from the enclosure and delivers enclosure air to the analysis device for detection of said hazard, see col. 11, lines 15 et seq. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have included a mail screening system, as disclosed by Strohmeyer et al and as described above, to the mail processing system of WO2017/190022 in order to also be able to scan the mail for dangerous substances which could be distributed through the mail systems to promote the agenda of terrorist organizations by collecting residue and supplying it to a detection system. As to claim 12, note the analyzing operation as described by Strohmeyer et al as provided in col. 10, lines 66 et seq. and as described in WO2017/190022 abstract regarding the singulating. As to claim 13, it is noted that after the residue detection, it is not indicated that the machine is stopped in Strohmeyer et al. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that some form of stoppage would be necessary to prevent the residue from spreading and causing harm. As to claims 14-18, note the list of hazards found in col. 1, lines 18 et seq of Strohmeyer et al. As to claim 19, note the fig. 12 depiction of the chamber 803 in the open and maintenance position. As to claim 20, note the fig. 8 depiction of Strohmeyer et al. showing the sampling plenum 903 proximal the pinch roller 901.
Claim(s) 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2017/190022 in view of Strohmeyer et al as applied to claims 1 and 12-20 above, and further in view of Malatesta-US Pub # 2021/0094779. As to claim 8, WO2017/190022 and Strohmeyer et al lack a teaching for provision of the additional mail processing items found in claim 8. In a related prior art device, Maltesta discloses a mail processing system which further comprises: a) a first conveyor (110) and a second conveyor (130), each comprising: i) an inlet (at arrow); and ii) an outlet(114/134); b) a camera (150) configured to capture images of said mailpieces(22/24); c) a controller(60); d) image analysis software (64) configured to determine dimensional aspects (par[0037]) with respect to a first mailpiece and a second mailpiece in series; e) a mail processing station (see fig. 11) configured between the first conveyor and the second conveyor that receives mailpieces from the outlet of the first conveyor, said mail processing station comprising at least one of a scale (184/185) to measure the weight of the mailpieces and an address scanner (182) to determine a mailing address of said mailpieces; wherein the second conveyor is configured to receive mailpieces from the mail processing station; wherein the controller controls the speed of each conveyor to move said first mailpiece relative to said second mailpiece so as to achieve a desired distance or degree of overlap between said first mailpiece and said second mailpiece; wherein in a first pass, the first mailpiece and the second mailpiece are singulated in the mail processing station, and singulated in the second conveyor; whereby the first and second mailpieces exit the outlet of the second conveyor as singulated mailpieces; wherein in a second pass, the first mailpiece and the second mailpiece are shingled in the mail processing station, the first mailpiece and the second mailpiece are singulated in the second conveyor from the shingled mailpieces in the mail processing station, whereby the first and second mailpieces exit the outlet of the second conveyor as singulated mailpiece (see shingling process as described related to figs. 8-12 and par[003] et seq. As to claim 9, note par[003 et seq] of Malatesta. As to claim 10, note par[0037] about reject bin. As to claim 11, note Malatesta patent claim 19 discussion and par[004] et seq. and see fig. 11.
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.
Claims 1 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. As to claim 1, on line 5, “said controller” lacks any antecedent basis. Also, claim 20 appears to be repetitive of claim 1 or is this an additional plenum? Note that claims 8-19 are rejected as they are dependent on claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 12, “singulatede” is misspelled in step d and each singulated mail “pieces” should probably be “piece” due to the “each”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 11 lacks a period and “mailpieceAsdfa” needs to be corrected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NASHMIYA FAYYAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2192. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571)272-2160. 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.
NF
Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/N.S.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/LAURA MARTIN SWEENEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
