Patent Grant
7887046
This application is related to U.S. application Ser. No. 11/206,729, filed Aug. 18, 2005, entitled “Low-Profile Document Feeding Machine With Hopper Floor For Column Forming Documents.”
1. Field of the Invention
The invention relates to document handling equipment including document feeding machines. More specifically, the invention relates to small, counter-top, low-profile document feeding machines.
2. Background Art
There is a trend in the processing of checks and like financial instruments towards what is known as “distributed capture.” With the passage of the “Check Processing for the 21st Century Act of 2004” (a/k/a “Check 21”), there is market pressure towards processing checks closer and closer to the point of capture—the teller window or the check-out line. To this end, manufacturers of check-processing machinery are offering a range of check-processing machines which are much smaller, lighter and cheaper than the traditional mass-processing systems which have dominated this market for 40 years.
For example, the MyVisionX product is a low-profile document feeding machine for decentralized document processing, and is available from Unisys Corporation, Blue Bell, Pa. The MyVisionX product is representative of a large number of machines, very similar in size, function, footprint and cost, which are offered by a number of different manufacturers. Among the functional requirements for such machines are: the very smallest possible footprint to minimize the use of counter space, the lowest possible profile (height), and one-handed loading and unloading.
To meet these ends, manufacturers typically optimize the designs of their machines around the size of the “standard” United States personal check, which is 6″ long by 2.75″ high. Problems often arise when users attempt to load much larger documents into such machines. Checks up to 9.5″ long and 4.5″ high are by no means unknown in the United States, and these very small machines have difficulty in handling documents this large.
The low profile of the machine typically means that taller items are unsupported at their upper edges when loaded into a feed hopper, and will fall over or fold horizontally because they are top-heavy. And the small footprint of these machines typically means that the area available in the feed hopper to support the bottom edges of loaded documents is less than half of the length of the longer type of document. As a result, the long documents overbalance and fall out of the hopper.
Traditional mass-processing systems have always addressed these issues by surrounding the documents with hopper walls almost as high as the tallest documents, by making feed hoppers with floor surfaces long enough to support the very longest documents, and by securing the documents with a hand-operated movable flag that is almost as high as the tallest documents. In this way, documents can be fully supported and cannot tip over or overbalance.
These approaches, however, are not directly applicable to this new class of smaller machines because these approaches violate the functional requirements for lowest profile, smallest possible footprint, and one-handed loading and unloading.
For the foregoing reasons, there is a need for a low-profile document feeding machine that addresses the problem of very long and/or tall documents presenting difficulties in feeding because they are top-heavy and will not stand vertically in the conventional feed hopper.
It is, therefore, an object of the invention to provide an improved low-profile document feeding machine that provides improved document feeding.
In one aspect, the invention involves a low-profile document feeding machine with a hopper extension for better supporting longer documents to prevent them from overbalancing and falling out of the hopper. In another aspect, the invention involves a low-profile document feeding machine with a hopper floor configured to column-form documents to provide increased stiffness in the vertical direction to prevent documents from falling or folding over due to top-heaviness.
In a preferred implementation, the document feeding machine has a hopper floor-wall construction that prevents top-heavy documents from tipping, falling or folding when placed in the feed hopper. At the same time, the preferred hopper floor-wall construction does not compromise the ease of loading, low profile and simplicity required of this class of machine. In the preferred approach, the hopper floor is extended to better support longer documents, and the hopper floor stabilizes the documents by utilizing a technique known as “column-forming” where documents above a certain length are urged into a column, thereby providing increased stiffness in the vertical direction. In more detail, column-forming a document involves forming a segment of a column at a portion of the document. This column segment is generally cylindrical in shape, and has a generally vertical axis. Column-forming a stack of longer documents results in increased stiffness in the vertical direction that stabilizes the documents.
According to one aspect of the invention, an extension is added to the hopper floor of the document feeding machine. The extension may be made a permanent part of the machine, or the extension may be made as, for example, a removable extension piece that the user may remove when very long and/or tall items are not being processed.
The inventive concept of extending the hopper floor, at the more detailed level, comprehends a number of additional features that could be present in an implementation of the invention. In one feature, the hopper extension extends the plane of the floor of the hopper to a length just sufficient to prevent very long documents from overbalancing. The inventors have found that an extension sufficient to extend the length of the hopper floor to about 5.5″ is sufficient to render 9.5″ long documents stable and prevent them from tipping backwards out of the hopper. It is appreciated that the appropriate length of the extension may vary depending on the application.
In another feature, the hopper extension may include features that act only on longer documents and tend to deform the documents so as to form a large-radius curve, about a more-or-less vertical axis, in the last portion of the document length. This radius changes the documents from being essentially planar to being in a columnar form, and greatly increases stiffness in the vertical direction. This increased vertical stiffness prevents documents from filling over or folding horizontally due to their top-heaviness, while avoiding interference with the normal planar separation and feeding of documents out of the hopper. The inventors have found that for a particular application it is appropriate for the column-forming features to act only on documents longer than about 7″, and form the large-radius curve in the last 2-3″ of document length.
It is appreciated, that in a preferred embodiment, the column-forming features are arranged to column-form only documents above a certain length. In this way, shorter documents can be loaded into the machine without any interaction at all with the column-forming features.
With reference to
As the documents traverse the track, the processing devices acting on the documents may include a magnetic ink character recognition (MICR) reader for capturing information from the document, an ink-jet endorser to provide printing of audit trail information and logos, and an image capture device for capturing multiple images of the front and rear of the document. Typically, the feeding machine 10 passes gathered information from the processing device to a connected computer which processes the information as required for the particular application.
Hopper extension 20 supports longer documents to prevent them from overbalancing and falling out of the hopper. This overcomes a problem with existing feeding machines where the area available in the feed hopper to support the bottom edges of loaded documents is less than half of the length of the longer type of document, and, as a result, the long documents overbalance and fall out of the hopper. As best shown in
In another feature of the preferred embodiment, low-profile document feeding machine 10 is arranged to column-form documents. Features on hopper floor extension 20 are configured to column-form the documents and to provide increased stiffness in the vertical direction. This prevents documents from falling or folding over due to top-heaviness. This overcomes a problem with existing feeding machines where taller items are unsupported at their upper edges when loaded into a feed hopper, and will fall over or fold horizontally because they are top-heavy.
With reference to
As best shown in
It is appreciated that hopper extension 20 extends the plane of the floor of the hopper to a length just sufficient to prevent very long documents from overbalancing. The inventors have found that an extension sufficient to extend the length of the hopper floor to about 5.5″ is sufficient to render 9.5″ long documents stable and prevent them from tipping backwards out of the hopper. The inventors have also found that for a particular application it is appropriate for the column-forming features to act only on documents longer than about 7″ and form the large-radius curve in the last 2-3″ of document length.
In operation, when a stack of longer documents is loaded into hopper extension 20, a curvature is imposed upon the documents, forming a columnar configuration which increases the vertical stiffness to the point that the stack of documents is vertically stable. The arrangement of elements 32 and 36 is such that the curvature imposed on a full stack is not so excessive so as to prevent proper feeding of the documents, while the curvature imposed when only the last few documents remain in the stack is sufficient to keep the documents from falling or folding over. It should be appreciated by one of ordinary skill in the art that the optimal relationship among the feeder 12, element 32, element 34, and element 36 may vary depending on the application.
While embodiments of the invention have been illustrated and described, it is not intended that these embodiments illustrate and describe all possible forms of the invention. Rather, the words used in the specification are words of description rather than limitation, and it is understood that various changes may be made without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3032339 | Misbin et al. | May 1962 | A |
| 3035834 | Bottrell | May 1962 | A |
| 4185709 | Irvine | Jan 1980 | A |
| 4524965 | Kulpa | Jun 1985 | A |
| 4640505 | Placke et al. | Feb 1987 | A |
| 5000088 | Cargill | Mar 1991 | A |
| 5046713 | Cargill | Sep 1991 | A |
| 5244199 | Wood | Sep 1993 | A |
| 5421570 | Hube et al. | Jun 1995 | A |
| 6015143 | Jimenez et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
| 6109604 | Chu et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
| D434435 | Brooks et al. | Nov 2000 | S |
| 6270070 | Salomon et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
| 6419221 | Spall | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6474637 | Spall et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
| 6557850 | Kallin et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
| 7097172 | Chang | Aug 2006 | B2 |
| 7258337 | Spall | Aug 2007 | B1 |
| 20050035531 | Sasaki et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20070040317 A1 | Feb 2007 | US |
