The present invention is directed generally to providing payment for postal and shipping services, and more particularly to handling payment errors with respect to postal and shipping services.
Many postal and shipping services (referred to collectively herein as delivery services) require prepayment for such services, as may be shown through some form of value indicia placed on a letter or parcel. For example, postal services such as the United States Postal Service (USPS) require a stamp, meter stamp, or postage indicia to be affixed to letters and parcels upon their entry into the mail stream in order to show that a requisite amount of value has been paid for their handling and delivery.
Often, either through error or malfeasance, a user of a delivery service may purchase and thus apply an incorrect amount of postage to an item for which delivery services are desired. Such errors in postage typically result in a payment shortage. Allowing such payment shortages to pass unchecked can result in significant losses in revenues for a delivery service such as the USPS. Accordingly, delivery services often have some procedure in place, typically manual, for identifying and handling payment shortages.
The USPS, for example, has implemented a manual procedure for identifying and handling payment shortages. Although the processing of mail and parcels by the USPS is highly automated, payment shortages are primarily identified through manual intervention. For example, as a letter or parcel passes through the mail stream, a postal employee may notice that a container appears unusually large or excessively heavy for the amount of postage applied. This postal item will be physically removed from the mail stream and placed in a bin for providing to a payment shortage processing department for manual processing. The payment shortage processing department will typically weight, and possibly measure, the postal item to determine the correct amount of postage for the delivery services.
If it is determined that the amount of postage applied constitutes an underpayment, the payment shortage processing department may handle the mail in one of two ways. If the amount of underpayment is not excessive (e.g., less than one-half the proper amount) and the postal item is not part of a mailing from a same sender in which a large number (e.g., ten or more) of postal items have an improper postage amount affixed thereto, the postal item may be marked “postage due” and the requested delivery services performed. In such a situation, it falls upon the recipient to either pay the amount of the underpayment or to refuse delivery of the postal item, in which case the postal item will be returned to the sender where possible. If the amount of underpayment is excessive (e.g., more than one-half the proper amount), the postal item is part of a mailing from the same sender in which a large number (e.g., ten or more) of postal items have an improper postage amount affixed thereto, or there is another reason for refusing to deliver the postal item (e.g., the postal item involves international delivery), the postal item may be returned to the sender or delivery by the delivery service may otherwise be refused.
It can be appreciated from the foregoing that underpayment for delivery services can result in appreciable increased costs for a delivery service provider. For example, manual identification and processing of postal items results in significant per item costs over the typical automated processing provided by such delivery services as the USPS. Moreover, providing for the collection and accounting of postage due payments adds a significant burden to the delivery service's processes. Returning items to a sender incurs appreciable costs by the delivery service provider (perhaps as much as delivering the item to the intended recipient). Moreover, the foregoing processing results in delays in delivery of the item, thereby causing dissatisfaction with senders and receivers alike. However, such processing of payment shortages for delivery services is considered necessary by delivery services in order to discourage chronic or systematic underpayment, which would have significant revenue losses associated therewith.
The present invention is directed to systems and methods which provide processing of payment errors (e.g., underpayments and/or overpayments) with respect to delivery services in accordance with user preferences. According to embodiments of the invention, a delivery service user (e.g., senders and/or recipients of letters or parcels) provides information with respect to how payment errors with respect to delivery services provided to the user are to be handled to facilitate electronic and/or automated processing of such payment errors. For example, a user may authorize payment shortages to be deducted from a postage meter balance associated with the user, may authorize payment of such shortages on the user's behalf for later billing to the user (e.g., monthly post-billing), may request notification of such payment shortage for an ad hoc determination by the user as to how the shortage is to be handled, may elect to have postal items returned to the user in the case of payment shortage. One or more of the foregoing user preferences with respect to handling payment errors may be based upon one or more criteria, such as payment shortages under a particular amount (e.g., payment is authorized for any payment shortage under $1.00), payment overages over a particular amount (e.g., crediting an account is authorized for any payment overage over $1.00), payment shortages totaling less than a particular number per period (e.g., payment is authorized for up to 10 payment shortages per month), payment shortages for particular delivery services (e.g., payment is authorized for first class mail delivery), payment shortages for particular recipients (e.g., payment is authorized for delivery to any address on a list of addresses provided by the user), etcetera.
According to an embodiment of the invention, a user for which processing of payment errors is provided is a user of an information based indicia (IBI) postage indicia system. For example, the user may have a postage account with Stamps.com, the assignee of the present application, for generating and printing postage indicia using a computer based system. Such IBI may be utilized for identifying the user, a postage account associated with the user, a meter number associated with the user, an amount of postage paid, a particular delivery service requested, the type of item to be delivered, any discounts or special pricing applicable to the requested delivery service, address information with respect to the user, address information with respect to the intended recipient, and/or the like. In operation according to an embodiment of the invention, an item bearing the foregoing IBI may be identified as having an error in the payment amount for the particular delivery service requested. The IBI may be scanned, or otherwise read to obtain various desired information. For example, user identification information (e.g., user name, user address, unique meter number, etcetera) and/or user account information (e.g., unique user account number, service provider providing the user metering services, etcetera) may be obtained for electronic processing of the payment error. Scanning of the IBI may take place upon initial acceptance of an item into the mail stream (e.g., acceptance by a postal clerk), during processing of the item for delivery (e.g., during sorting), or at any other time deemed appropriate according to an embodiment of the invention.
Embodiments of the invention operate to determine a user's preferences with respect to handling the payment error. For example, user identification information and/or user account information obtained from an IBI may be associated with a particular service provider, such as Stamps.com, providing payment error handling services for the user. An application programming interface (API), or any other appropriate interface (e.g., web application interface), may be used by the delivery service provider to interact with a payment error handling services provider and/or metering services provider in order to determine the user's preferences in handling the payment error, and perhaps to receive payment for the requested services in order to prevent delay or return of the item.
For example, where the user's preferences indicate payment for an underpayment should be provided, the metering services provider may cause an appropriate amount to be deducted from a metering account associated with the user. Similarly, where the user's preference indicate payment for an underpayment should be provided, the payment error handling services provider may advance an appropriate amount on behalf of the user, for later billing to the user. The foregoing may provided electronically such that the delivery service provider is provided indication of payment in real-time and thus delay in delivery of the item, as well as processing of the item by the delivery service provider, is minimized. Such payment may include generation of an indicia, such as a supplemental postage indicia, at the delivery service provider's location for application to the item to facilitate further processing of the item.
Where the user's preference is not to pay an underpayment, the metering services provider may notify the user of the underpayment to allow an ad hoc decision as to how to handle the underpayment, which may result in more rapid payment for an appreciable number of items. Additionally or alternatively, where the user's preference is not to pay an underpayment, the metering services provider may notify the delivery service provider to return the item to the user, may request that the delivery service provider deliver the item postage due where possible, etcetera.
Handling of payment errors need not involve a metering services provider according to embodiments of the invention. For example, although a metering services provider may be a preferred provider for such payment error handling services where underpayments are to be funded using a user's metering account, payment services may be provided according to embodiments of the invention by other service providers, particularly where payment advances and post-billing is used. Moreover, payment error handling service providers may additionally or alternatively interface with one or more metering services providers in order to facilitate debiting a users metering account, where desired. Similarly, a metering services provider may provide payment error handling services with respect to users of another metering services provider, if desired.
The foregoing payment services may be provided to users with a surcharge. For example, in order to avoid delays in delivery of items, possibly including return of the item to the sender and repackaging of the item for a subsequent delivery attempt, users may agree to a fee per item or per service period in order to take advantage of the benefits of embodiments of the present invention.
Various levels of payment error handling services may be provided with respect to users. For example, users agreeing to the aforementioned surcharge may be provided a full complement of payment error handling services, including payment of underpayment amounts in order to avoid delays in delivering items. Whereas, other users may be provided only more basic services, such as providing notification that a payment error has been detected, notification that an item is being returned for a payment error, and/or the like.
Embodiments of the invention provide advantages in addition to the aforementioned minimizing delays in delivering and time for processing items having a payment error associated therewith. For example, detailed information, such as statistics with respect to users' payment errors, the numbers and types of payment errors, user's preferences in handling payment errors, etcetera, may be provided to delivery service providers and/or users according to embodiments of the invention. Using such information, a delivery service provider may deny further services to a user who chronically under pays for delivery services, for example.
It should be appreciated that payment error handling services provided according to embodiments of the invention may not only address underpayment, but may additionally or alternatively address overpayment. For example, although overpayment errors today typically result in the user forfeiting the overpayment amount, efficiencies of operation according to embodiments of the invention with respect to handling underpayment errors may facilitate a quid pro quo wherein amounts of overpayment errors, or some portion thereof, are refunded to a user (e.g., through credit to a meter account, through offsetting a post-payment amount, etcetera).
Payment error handling services may be provided not only with respect to a sender of an item, but such services may additionally or alternatively be provided with respect to a recipient of an item. For example, a recipient may establish preferences with respect to situations in which the recipient would like to authorize payment for an underpayment for delivery of an item to the recipient. Such payment might be debited from the recipient's meter account balance, be billed to the recipient, etcetera. In such an embodiment, the recipient may facilitate delivery of items without delay due to payment errors even where a sender of the item has not elected to participate in a payment error handling service.
The foregoing has outlined rather broadly the features and technical advantages of the present invention in order that the detailed description of the invention that follows may be better understood. Additional features and advantages of the invention will be described hereinafter which form the subject of the claims of the invention. It should be appreciated by those skilled in the art that the conception and specific embodiment disclosed may be readily utilized as a basis for modifying or designing other structures for carrying out the same purposes of the present invention. It should also be realized by those skilled in the art that such equivalent constructions do not depart from the spirit and scope of the invention as set forth in the appended claims. The novel features which are believed to be characteristic of the invention, both as to its organization and method of operation, together with further objects and advantages will be better understood from the following description when considered in connection with the accompanying figures. It is to be expressly understood, however, that each of the figures is provided for the purpose of illustration and description only and is not intended as a definition of the limits of the present invention.
For a more complete understanding of the present invention, reference is now made to the following descriptions taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawing, in which:
Directing attention to
In the illustrated embodiment, an item bearing the indicia is introduced into mail stream 140. Mail stream 140, shown as comprised of items 141-145, may include items introduced into the mail stream by a variety of different senders and may be bound for any number of different intended recipients. The foregoing items may be of various types, items of different sizes, items of different weights, items for which various services are to be provided, etcetera. Accordingly, various amounts for delivery services may be associated with ones of items 141-145. For example, parcel 144 may incur a delivery service charge which is higher than that associated with flat 142 which is higher than that associated with letter 141. Such delivery service charges may be affected by any or all of the weight of the item, the size of the item, the particular delivery service requested, the location of the sender, the location of the recipient, the contents of the item, the number of items introduced into the mail stream by the sender, etcetera. Accordingly, a user may easily provide an erroneous amount with respect to a delivery service indicia for any particular item. Therefore, the delivery service provider of the illustrated embodiment implements a process for identifying and handling payment errors.
Directing attention to
A determination that a payment error has been made may be made in a number of ways according to embodiments of the present invention. For example, mail stream 140 may pass through automated mail handling equipment of delivery service provider system 120 in which scale 123 and scanner 122 are disposed. Scanner 122 may comprise an optical scanner adapted to obtain an image of human readable information and convert that information to a form for processing by a processor-based system (e.g., optical character recognition functionality) and/or adapted to more directly read data (e.g., barcode reader, magnetic ink code reader, radio frequency identification reader, etcetera). Thus, scanner 122 may read a value represented by an indicia affixed to flat 142, a type of delivery service requested, information with respect to a location of the sender and/or intended recipient of flat 142, information with respect to the contents of flat 142, etcetera. Correspondingly, scale 123 may determine a weight of flat 142. Information with respect to an item's size may additionally or alternatively be collected. For example, scanner 122 may provide optical processing in order to determine a length, width, and/or height of flat 142. Any or all of the foregoing information may be provided to a processor-based system, such as payment error processor 121, for analysis to determine if a payment error has been made.
Payment error processor 121 of embodiments may comprise a computer system (e.g., an Intel PENTIUM based computer platform) operating under control of an instruction set setting forth operation as described herein. Payment error processor 121 of preferred embodiments analyzes information with respect to an item to determine if a payment error has been made. For example, information with respect to a type of delivery service requested, the weight of item 142, and the size of item 142 may be used to calculate an appropriate amount of payment. This calculated appropriate amount of payment may be compared to the value represented by the indicia affixed to flat 142 to determine if a payment error has occurred.
Although the foregoing embodiment has been described with reference to automated mail handling equipment, it should be appreciated that the concepts of the present invention may be applied to more traditional underpayment detection techniques. For example, flat 142 may be manually separated from mail stream 140 by an employee of the delivery service provider as putatively having a payment error. Flat 142 may later be placed on scale 123 and an indicia thereon scanned using scanner 122 by underpayment processing personnel. Relevant information with respect to flat 142, as discussed above, may be provided to payment error processor 121 for a determination as to whether a payment error has been made.
At block 202 of the illustrated embodiment, a payment error amount is determined. For example, payment error processor 121 may subtract the value represented by the indicia affixed to flat 142 from the calculated appropriate amount of payment to determine a payment error amount.
Although not shown in the illustrated embodiment, a determination may be made with respect to whether the payment error amount is sufficiently large (e.g., meets one or more predetermined threshold value) to warrant further payment error handling processing. For example, if an underpayment is less than a first threshold amount (e.g., $0.01) it may be decided that further payment error handling is undesirable. Similarly, if an overpayment is less than a second threshold amount (e.g., $0.25) it may be decided that further payment error handling is undesirable. According to embodiments of the invention, the foregoing threshold values may be the same, the first threshold may be greater than the second threshold, different threshold amounts may be used with respect to different users, types of services, types of items, etcetera. Moreover, thresholds used for such determinations may not be a predetermined amount, but rather a percentage of an amount (e.g., percentage of the indicia value, percentage of the proper value, or percentage of the payment error). Preferred embodiments of the invention, however, proceed to process all underpayments using the efficiencies of electronic processing as described herein to make such processing practicable.
Information with respect to the payment error is provided to a payment error handling service provider at block 203 of the illustrated embodiment. For example, payment error processor 121 provides information to identify a user or user account and the payment error amount to payment error services processor 111 of metering services provider/payment error handling service provider system 110 via network 150 according to an embodiment of the invention.
Payment error services processor 111 of embodiments may comprise a computer system (e.g., an Intel PENTIUM based computer platform) operating under control of an instruction set setting forth operation as described herein. Payment error services processor 111 of preferred embodiments processes payment error information with respect to an item to determine how the payment error is to be handled and to provide information to payment error processor 121 to facilitate handling of the payment error and associated item by the delivery service provider.
At block 204 a determination is made as to whether a user associated with the item having a payment error has payment error handling services and/or what level of payment error handling services are to be provided. For example, a user of an Internet postage service, such as that available from Stamps.com, may elect to be provided payment error handling services. Accordingly, information provided by payment error processor 121 may be used to identify a user and/or an account and to determine if that user or account has payment error handling services associated therewith. According to embodiments of the invention, database 112 may store information with respect to particular users, accounts, meter numbers, etcetera for which payment error handling services are/are not to be provided. Moreover, the information in database 112 may include a level of payment error handling services to be/not to be provided with respect to such users, accounts, meter numbers, etcetera.
If it is determined at block 204 that payment error handling services are not to be provided, processing according to the illustrated embodiment proceeds to block 211 wherein information is provided to the delivery service provider that payment error handling services are not being provided. For example, payment error services processor 111 may provide data to payment error processor 121 that no payment error handling with respect to the particular item is being provided by the payment error handling services provider and that the delivery service provider should handle the item according to an alternate process (e.g., deliver postage due or return to sender).
Embodiments of the present invention operate to provide a minimum level of payment error handling services even where a user has not elected to receive such services. For example, in addition to providing information to delivery service provider at block 211, embodiments of the invention provide notification to a user of the payment error (block 210) if it is determined at block 204 that payment error handling services are not to be provided.
If, however, it is determined at block 204 that payment error handling services are to be provided, processing according to the illustrated embodiment proceeds to block 205 wherein payment error handling parameters for the appropriate user, account, meter number, etcetera are obtained. For example, database 112 may store information with respect to how payment errors associated with particular users, accounts, meter numbers, etcetera are to be handled. A user may interact with processor-based system 131 to establish desired payment error handling parameters for use by payment error services processor 111, such as through interaction with indicia generation processor 113 and/or payment error services processor 111 to cause appropriate information to be stored in database 112.
Such information may include whether payment for an underpayment is authorized, whether credit for an overpayment is authorized, a maximum amount of payment for an underpayment which is authorized, a maximum number of payments per period for underpayment that are authorized, a total amount of payments per period for underpayment that is authorized, the types of delivery services for which payment for underpayment is authorized, the intended recipients for which payment for underpayment is authorized, the types of items for which payment for underpayment is authorized, etcetera. The information stored in database 112 may additionally or alternatively include whether payment for underpayment or credit for overpayment is to be debited/credited to a particular prepaid account or is to be advanced for post-billing to the user and whether the user is to decide ad hoc (for some or all payment error handling services) how a payment error is to be handled. Such parameters may be utilized by a user to, for example, control a delivery services budget, to avoid depleting an account unexpectedly, or to facilitate completion of particular delivery services without delay while allowing less important delivery services to be handled in a more traditional manner.
At block 206 a determination is made as to whether the user is to make an ad hoc decision with respect to handling the payment error. For example, information with respect to the amount of the payment error, the type of delivery service requested, the intended recipient, the contents of the item, etcetera may be utilized with respect to the foregoing parameters stored in database 112 to determine that the user wishes to make an ad hoc decision for handing the payment error.
If it is determined at block 206 that the user is to make an ad hoc decision for handling the payment error, processing according to the illustrated embodiment proceeds to block 207 wherein a decision is solicited from the user. For example, one or more messages, such as an electronic mail communication, a short message service (SMS) message, an instant message (IM), an interactive voice response (IVR) message, and/or the like, may be directed to the user in an effort to solicit a decision. Preferably, a user is given some limited amount of time (e.g., 24 hours) for a decision before a default payment error handling process is implemented. Accordingly, embodiments of the invention operate to utilize real-time messaging where available. Various information with respect to the item for which a payment error has been made, such as the amount of the payment error, the type of delivery service requested, the intended recipient, the contents of the item, etcetera, may be provided to the user in order to facilitate the ad hoc decision.
A user may, for example, decide that a meter account associated with the user is to be debited for an underpayment, that the payment error handling services provider should advance an underpayment amount and post-bill the user, that no payment of an underpayment is to be made and thus the delivery service provider is to handle the payment error by another process, that an overpayment amount is to be credited to a meter account associated with the user, etcetera. Information indicating the user's ad hoc decision with respect to handing the payment error is preferably provided to payment error services processor 111, such as via an electronic mail communication, a SMS message, an IM, an IVR response, and/or the like. For example, a user may interact with processor-based system 131 to provide information with respect to a payment error handling decision to payment error services processor 111 via network 150.
If, however, it is determined at block 206 that the user is not to make an ad hoc decision for handling the payment error, or after solicitation of an ad hoc decision from the user at block 207, processing according to the illustrated embodiment proceeds to block 208 wherein it is determined as to whether a payment/credit for the payment error is to be made. For example, as mentioned above a user may decide ad hoc that an underpayment is to be paid, whether by debiting an account associated with the user or by advancing payment, by the payment error handling services provider. Similarly, the user's payment error handling preferences, as stored in database 112, may indicate for the circumstances associated with this particular item that an underpayment is to paid by the payment error handling services provider. Accordingly, if it is determined that a payment/credit for the payment error is to be made at block 208, processing according to the illustrated embodiment proceeds to block 209 wherein the payment/credit is made.
If, however, it is determined at block 208 that a payment/credit for the payment error is not to be made at block 208, processing according to the illustrated embodiment proceeds to block 210 wherein the user is notified of the payment error. For example, as mentioned above a user may decide ad hoc that an underpayment is to be handled by means other than payment facilitated through the payment error handling services provider. Similarly, the user's payment error handling preferences, as stored in database 112, may indicate for the circumstances associated with this particular item that an underpayment is to be handled by means other than payment facilitated through the payment error handling services provider. Accordingly, a payment/credit may not be made in response to there being a payment error.
Notification of the payment error and/or how the payment error is being handled is provided to a user at block 210 of the illustrated embodiment. For example, an electronic mail communication, a SMS message, an IM, an IVR message, and/or the like may be provided to the user to provide information with respect to the payment error and how that payment error is being handled by the payment error handling services provider and/or delivery service provider.
At block 211 of the illustrated embodiment, information for facilitating the delivery service provider handling the payment error in accordance with the user's preferences is provided to the delivery service provider. For example, payment error services processor 111 may provide information representing a value transfer in the amount of an underpayment to payment error processor 121 via network 150 on behalf of the user in order to facilitate delivery of flat 142 without further delay. Alternatively, payment error services processor 111 may provide information instructing payment error processor 121 to process flat 142 according to a default payment error handling process via network 150 where the user prefers not to have the payment error handling services provider make payment on behalf of the user.
According to embodiments of the invention, payment error services processor interacts with indicia generation processor 113 to cause a supplemental value indicia, in an amount of an underpayment for delivery services, to be generated and transmitted to payment error processor 121. Payment error processor 121 may cause the supplemental value indicia to be applied to flat 142, such as by printing the indicia at printer 124. Accordingly, further processing of flat 142 by the delivery service provider may be without additional delay due to the previous payment error.
Additionally or alternatively, payment error processor 121 may provide information to other systems of the delivery service provider in order to avoid subsequent processing of item 142 due to the previously identified payment error.
Although not shown in the exemplary process of
Although the embodiment illustrated in
Payment error handling services may be provided not only with respect to a sender of an item, but such services may additionally or alternatively be provided with respect to a recipient of an item. For example, steps of the process of
A service surcharge may be assessed by a payment error handling services provider providing payment error handling services according to embodiments of the invention. For example, in addition to the amount of an underpayment, the payment error handling services provider may collect an additional amount (e.g., a predetermined amount, an amount based upon the type of delivery service, an amount based upon the charges for the delivery service, an amount based upon a level of payment error handling services provided, etcetera) from users for the payment error handling service. According to embodiments of the invention, such surcharges may be deducted from a meter account along with an underpayment amount. Similarly, such surcharges may be deducted from a credit to be made to a meter account in association with an overpayment. Of course, various techniques for collecting such surcharges may be implemented, such as prepayment, post-payment, billing separate from debiting/crediting amounts to a metering account, etcetera.
It should be appreciated that, although embodiments have been described herein with reference to handling payment errors, embodiments of the present invention may be utilized to provide for handling payment for services which are not associated with a payment error. For example, the systems and methods described herein may be utilized to facilitate a postage metering process which deducts or otherwise commits postage value only with respect to postal items actually processed by the postal authority. Accordingly, refunds for misprinted postage indicia may be avoided. Likewise, postage indicia which is generated, but never used, does not result in forfeiture of postage value according to embodiments of the invention.
In operation according to an embodiment of the invention, a non-funded or partially funded postage indicium (referred to herein as a “unfunded postage indicium”) is generated by a user. This unfunded funded postage indicium preferably appears to be a typical postage indicium (such as the aforementioned IBI), but the full value of postage value for payment of delivery services has not been committed (e.g., a meter descending register has not been decremented in the full amount of postage to be used for delivery of an item) at generation of the unfunded postage indicium. The unfunded postage indicium preferably includes information identifying a user, a meter, an account, etcetera for identifying an appropriate user or account from which payment for postage is to be obtained, as described above. Thereafter, when the item associated with the unfunded postage indicium is handled, the unfunded postage indicium may be scanned or otherwise read, such as by scanner 122, a payment processor, such as that of payment error processor 121 described above, may operate to provide for payment, or full payment, for the postage.
The foregoing embodiment, providing for payment of postage when an associated item is handled, ensures that only postage for items which are actually handled for delivery is paid by a user. Accordingly, if a unfunded postage indicium fails to print properly or otherwise remains unused, the user need not take any steps for obtaining a refund. Moreover, users may pay only for postage actually needed, at the time of use, rather than pre-paying for an amount of postage which is expected to be used in the future, as is the case with typical postage metering paradigms.
Although the present invention and its advantages have been described in detail, it should be understood that various changes, substitutions and alterations can be made herein without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention as defined by the appended claims. Moreover, the scope of the present application is not intended to be limited to the particular embodiments of the process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, means, methods and steps described in the specification. As one of ordinary skill in the art will readily appreciate from the disclosure of the present invention, processes, machines, manufacture, compositions of matter, means, methods, or steps, presently existing or later to be developed that perform substantially the same function or achieve substantially the same result as the corresponding embodiments described herein may be utilized according to the present invention. Accordingly, the appended claims are intended to include within their scope such processes, machines, manufacture, compositions of matter, means, methods, or steps.
The present application is a continuation of co-pending, commonly assigned, patent application Ser. No. 11/616,546 entitled “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR HANDLING PAYMENT ERRORS WITH RESPECT TO DELIVERY SERVICES,” filed Dec. 27, 2006 and is related to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/353,690 entitled “System and Method for Validating Postage,” filed Feb. 14, 2006 and now U.S. Pat. No. 7,711,650 issued May 4, 2010, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/491,949 entitled “System and Method for Printing Multiple Postage Indicia,” filed Jan. 26, 2000 and now U.S. Pat. No. 7,343,357 issued Mar. 11, 2008, and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/862,058 entitled “Virtual Security Device,” filed Jun. 4, 2004, the disclosures of which are hereby incorporated herein by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
2964232 | Levyn | Dec 1960 | A |
3221980 | Mercur | Dec 1965 | A |
3584696 | Eblowitz | Jun 1971 | A |
3594727 | Braun | Jul 1971 | A |
3691726 | Stephens et al. | Sep 1972 | A |
3978457 | Check, Jr. et al. | Aug 1976 | A |
4119194 | Freeman et al. | Oct 1978 | A |
4253158 | McFiggans | Feb 1981 | A |
4271481 | Check, Jr. et al. | Jun 1981 | A |
4306299 | Check, Jr. et al. | Dec 1981 | A |
4307293 | Lazzarotti et al. | Dec 1981 | A |
4310720 | Check, Jr. | Jan 1982 | A |
4376299 | Rivest | Mar 1983 | A |
4511793 | Racanelli | Apr 1985 | A |
4629871 | Scribner et al. | Dec 1986 | A |
4641347 | Clark et al. | Feb 1987 | A |
4649266 | Eckert | Mar 1987 | A |
4661001 | Takai et al. | Apr 1987 | A |
4725718 | Sansone et al. | Feb 1988 | A |
4743747 | Fougere et al. | May 1988 | A |
4744554 | Kulpa et al. | May 1988 | A |
4757537 | Edelmann et al. | Jul 1988 | A |
4760532 | Sansone et al. | Jul 1988 | A |
4763271 | Field | Aug 1988 | A |
4775246 | Edelmann et al. | Oct 1988 | A |
4796181 | Wiedemer | Jan 1989 | A |
4799156 | Shavit et al. | Jan 1989 | A |
4800506 | Axelrod et al. | Jan 1989 | A |
4802218 | Wright et al. | Jan 1989 | A |
4809185 | Talmadge | Feb 1989 | A |
4812994 | Taylor et al. | Mar 1989 | A |
4821195 | Baer et al. | Apr 1989 | A |
4831554 | Storace et al. | May 1989 | A |
4831555 | Sansone et al. | May 1989 | A |
4837701 | Sansone et al. | Jun 1989 | A |
4853865 | Sansone et al. | Aug 1989 | A |
4858138 | Talmadge | Aug 1989 | A |
4862386 | Axelrod et al. | Aug 1989 | A |
4864618 | Wright et al. | Sep 1989 | A |
4868757 | Gil | Sep 1989 | A |
4873645 | Hunter et al. | Oct 1989 | A |
4893249 | Silverberg | Jan 1990 | A |
4900903 | Wright et al. | Feb 1990 | A |
4900904 | Wright et al. | Feb 1990 | A |
4900941 | Barton et al. | Feb 1990 | A |
4901241 | Schneck | Feb 1990 | A |
4908770 | Breault et al. | Mar 1990 | A |
4910686 | Chang et al. | Mar 1990 | A |
4933849 | Connell et al. | Jun 1990 | A |
4934846 | Gilham | Jun 1990 | A |
4941091 | Breault et al. | Jul 1990 | A |
4947333 | Sansone et al. | Aug 1990 | A |
4949381 | Pastor | Aug 1990 | A |
4992940 | Dworkin | Feb 1991 | A |
4998204 | Sansone et al. | Mar 1991 | A |
5025141 | Bolan | Jun 1991 | A |
5047928 | Wiedemer | Sep 1991 | A |
5058008 | Schumacher | Oct 1991 | A |
5065000 | Pusic | Nov 1991 | A |
5067088 | Schneiderhan | Nov 1991 | A |
5075862 | Doeberl et al. | Dec 1991 | A |
5077792 | Herring | Dec 1991 | A |
5085470 | Peach et al. | Feb 1992 | A |
5091771 | Bolan et al. | Feb 1992 | A |
5111030 | Brasington et al. | May 1992 | A |
5119306 | Metelits et al. | Jun 1992 | A |
5136647 | Haber et al. | Aug 1992 | A |
5150407 | Chan | Sep 1992 | A |
5200903 | Gilham et al. | Apr 1993 | A |
5202834 | Gilham et al. | Apr 1993 | A |
5233657 | Gunther et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
5237506 | Horbal et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
5239168 | Durst, Jr. et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
5289540 | Jones | Feb 1994 | A |
5319562 | Whitehouse | Jun 1994 | A |
5323323 | Gilham et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
5323465 | Avame | Jun 1994 | A |
5341505 | Whitehouse | Aug 1994 | A |
5388049 | Sansone et al. | Feb 1995 | A |
5410642 | Hakamatsuka et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
5423573 | de Passille | Jun 1995 | A |
5425586 | Berson | Jun 1995 | A |
5437441 | Tuhro et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5454038 | Cordery et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
5471925 | Heinrich et al. | Dec 1995 | A |
5476420 | Manning | Dec 1995 | A |
5490077 | Freytag | Feb 1996 | A |
5510992 | Kara | Apr 1996 | A |
5524995 | Brookner et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5573277 | Petkovsek | Nov 1996 | A |
5583779 | Naclerio et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5600562 | Guenther | Feb 1997 | A |
5602742 | Solondz et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
5602743 | Fraytag | Feb 1997 | A |
5606507 | Kara | Feb 1997 | A |
5606613 | Lee et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
5612541 | Hoffmann et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5612889 | Pintsov et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5615123 | Davidson et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5617519 | Herbert | Apr 1997 | A |
5619571 | Sandstrom et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5623546 | Hardy et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
D380007 | Kara | Jun 1997 | S |
5649118 | Carlisle et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
5650934 | Manduley | Jul 1997 | A |
5655023 | Cordery et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5666284 | Kara | Sep 1997 | A |
5682318 | Kara | Oct 1997 | A |
5696829 | Cordery et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5706502 | Foley et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
5708422 | Blonder et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
5715314 | Payne et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5717596 | Bernard et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5717597 | Kara | Feb 1998 | A |
5729460 | Plett et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5742683 | Lee et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5758327 | Gardner et al. | May 1998 | A |
5758328 | Giovannoli | May 1998 | A |
D395333 | Kara | Jun 1998 | S |
5768132 | Cordery et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5774886 | Kara | Jun 1998 | A |
5778076 | Kara et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5781438 | Lee et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5796834 | Whitney et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5801364 | Kara et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5801944 | Kara | Sep 1998 | A |
5812991 | Kara | Sep 1998 | A |
5819240 | Kara | Oct 1998 | A |
5822739 | Kara | Oct 1998 | A |
5825893 | Kara | Oct 1998 | A |
5842178 | Giovannoli | Nov 1998 | A |
5860068 | Cook | Jan 1999 | A |
5884277 | Khosla | Mar 1999 | A |
5902439 | Pike et al. | May 1999 | A |
5923406 | Brasington et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5923885 | Johnson et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5929415 | Berson | Jul 1999 | A |
5936885 | Morita et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5946671 | Herring et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5960418 | Kelly et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5983209 | Kara | Nov 1999 | A |
5987441 | Lee et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6005945 | Whitehouse | Dec 1999 | A |
6010069 | Debois | Jan 2000 | A |
6010156 | Block | Jan 2000 | A |
6026385 | Harvey et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6050486 | French et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6061670 | Brand | May 2000 | A |
6199055 | Kara et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6208980 | Kara | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6233565 | Lewis et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6249777 | Kara et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6256616 | Brookner | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6327042 | Krasuski et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6349292 | Sutherland et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6385504 | Pintsov et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6385731 | Ananda | May 2002 | B2 |
6424954 | Leon | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6430543 | Lee et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6532452 | Pintsov et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6609117 | Sutherland et al. | Aug 2003 | B2 |
6834273 | Sansone et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6853990 | Thiel | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6945458 | Shah | Sep 2005 | B1 |
7149726 | Lingle et al. | Dec 2006 | B1 |
7182259 | Lubow et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7225170 | Ryan, Jr. | May 2007 | B1 |
7226494 | Schwartz et al. | Jun 2007 | B1 |
7266531 | Pintsov et al. | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7337152 | Gawler | Feb 2008 | B1 |
7343357 | Kara | Mar 2008 | B1 |
7458612 | Bennett | Dec 2008 | B1 |
7509291 | McBride et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7548612 | Weissman et al. | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7711650 | Kara | May 2010 | B1 |
7778924 | Ananda | Aug 2010 | B1 |
7784090 | Lord et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7831518 | Montgomery et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7831524 | Whitehouse | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7831824 | Abdulhayoglu | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7840492 | Leung et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7954709 | Leon et al. | Jun 2011 | B1 |
7963437 | McBride et al. | Jun 2011 | B1 |
8100324 | Leon | Jan 2012 | B1 |
8155976 | Rendich et al. | Apr 2012 | B1 |
8204835 | Ogg | Jun 2012 | B1 |
8240579 | Bennett | Aug 2012 | B1 |
8612361 | Bussell et al. | Dec 2013 | B1 |
8626673 | Bennett | Jan 2014 | B1 |
8775331 | Tsuie et al. | Jul 2014 | B1 |
9208620 | Bortnak et al. | Dec 2015 | B1 |
20010007086 | Rogers et al. | Jul 2001 | A1 |
20010020234 | Shah et al. | Sep 2001 | A1 |
20010022060 | Robertson et al. | Sep 2001 | A1 |
20020032668 | Kohler et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020032784 | Darago et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020052841 | Guthrie et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020073050 | Gusler et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020082935 | Moore et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020099652 | Herzen et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020143431 | Sansone | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020149196 | Fabel | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020198798 | Ludwig | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030029914 | Hortman et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030037008 | Raju et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030080182 | Gunther | May 2003 | A1 |
20030101143 | Montgomery et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030101148 | Montgomery et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030115162 | Konick | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030138345 | Schwabe | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030167241 | Gilham | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030182155 | Nitzan et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030187666 | Leon | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030204477 | McNett | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030233276 | Pearlman et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030236709 | Hendra et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040002926 | Coffy et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040048503 | Mills et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040064422 | Leon | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040083189 | Leon | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040089482 | Ramsden et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040093312 | Cordery | May 2004 | A1 |
20040122776 | Sansone | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040122779 | Stickler et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040128264 | Leung et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040185827 | Parks | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040185882 | Gecht et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040186811 | Gullo | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040215581 | Lord et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040215583 | Elliott | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040254808 | Bennett et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050065892 | Ryan et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050065896 | Kummer et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050065897 | Ryan et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050065898 | Elliot | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050080751 | Burningham | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050116047 | Lu et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050119786 | Kadaba | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050137949 | Rittman | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050171869 | Minnocci | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050192899 | Reardon | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050192911 | Mattem | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050192913 | Lubart | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050209913 | Wied | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050237203 | Burman et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050278266 | Ogg et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060000648 | Galtier | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060020505 | Whitehouse | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060122947 | Poulin | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060173796 | Kara | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060220298 | Fairweather et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060238334 | Mangan et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060259390 | Rosenberger | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060283943 | Ostrowski et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070005376 | Ryan, Jr. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070033110 | Philipp | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070073587 | Walker et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070078795 | Chatte | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070080228 | Knowles et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070174215 | Morel | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070253350 | Tung et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070255664 | Blumberg et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20080046384 | Braun et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20090164392 | Raju et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20100298662 | Yu et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100312627 | Khechef et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110015935 | Montgomery et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110022544 | Kim et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110029429 | Whitehouse | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110071944 | Heiden et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110145107 | Greco | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110225180 | Liao et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20120008766 | Robertson et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120159603 | Queck | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120233252 | Vats et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20120240204 | Bhatnagar et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2912696 | Oct 1979 | DE |
3903718 | Aug 1989 | DE |
4409386 | Sep 1995 | DE |
0137737 | Apr 1985 | EP |
153816 | Sep 1985 | EP |
0282359 | Sep 1988 | EP |
0507562 | Oct 1992 | EP |
0571259 | Nov 1993 | EP |
0596706 | May 1994 | EP |
0658861 | Jun 1995 | EP |
0927958 | Jul 1999 | EP |
0927963 | Jul 1999 | EP |
2580844 | Oct 1986 | FR |
2246929 | Feb 1992 | GB |
2251210 | Jul 1992 | GB |
2271452 | Apr 1994 | GB |
63147673 | Jun 1988 | JP |
04284558 | Oct 1992 | JP |
05-132049 | May 1993 | JP |
11-249205 | Sep 1999 | JP |
2000-105845 | Apr 2000 | JP |
WO-8801818 | Mar 1988 | WO |
WO-9427258 | Nov 1994 | WO |
WO-199519016 | Jul 1995 | WO |
WO-9714117 | Apr 1997 | WO |
WO-9740472 | Oct 1997 | WO |
WO-9814907 | Apr 1998 | WO |
WO-9814909 | Apr 1998 | WO |
WO-9857302 | Dec 1998 | WO |
WO-9857460 | Dec 1998 | WO |
WO-9948054 | Sep 1999 | WO |
WO-02063517 | Aug 2002 | WO |
WO 03039051 | May 2003 | WO |
WO-03083784 | Oct 2003 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Avery, Susan, “With new postage meters buyers can stamp out costs,” Purchasing, 132, 11, Jul. 17, 2003, p. 98-99. |
Anonymous, “Automated Indicia Detection System From Parascript Protects Postage Revenue for Postal Operators, Cracks Down on Fraud:—Parascript StampVerify Simplifies Complex Task of Automatically Locating and Verifying Different Types of Indicia on Envelope Images—,” PR Newswire, New York, Sep. 18, 2007. |
Davis Brad L.; “Printing System for Preventing Injustice by Delivering Print Data from Postal Charge Meter to Printer,” Jan. 2001, 1 page. |
Unpublished U.S. Appl. No. 12/103,496 to Bortnak et al, filed Apr. 15, 2008 and entitled “Systems and Methods for Activation of Postage Indicia at Point of Sale,” 40 pages. |
Unpublished U.S. Appl. No. 11/509,309 to Leon, filed Aug. 24, 2006 and entitled “Invisible Fluorescent Ink Mark,” 15 pages. |
Unpublished U.S. Appl. No. 12/030,739 to McBride et al., filed Feb. 13, 2008 and entitled “Systems and Methods for Distributed Activation of Postage,” 35 pages. |
Tygar, J.D.et al., “Cryptography: It's Not Just for Electronic Mail Anymore,” School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburg, PA, Mar. 1, 1993, 23 pages. |
“Miniature, Coin-Shaped Chip is Read or Written with a Touch,” News Release, Dallas Semiconductor, Jul. 1991, 9 pages. |
International Search Report for PCT/US96/16366, dated Jun. 13, 1997, 9 pages. |
Terrell, K, “Licking Stamps: A PC and a Printer Will End Trips to the Post Office,” U.S. News & World Report, Sep. 28, 1998, vol. 125, No. 12, 4 pages. |
Computergram International, “U.S. Postal Service to Introduce PC Postage Plans Today,” Aug. 9, 1999, No. 3720, 1 page. |
Stamps: Beyond Elvis, May 15, 1994, New York Times Archives, 2 pages. |
Minnick, R. “Postage Imprinting Apparatus and Methods for Use With a Computer Printer,” Apr. 27, 1995, 71 pages. |
Office Action dated Mar. 13, 2007 for JP 515,253/97; with English language translation (4 pages). |
English translation of German Office Action issued for DE 195 49 613.2 and German Office Action dated Nov. 20, 2007, 6 pages. |
English translation of German Office Action issued for DE 195 49 613.2 and German Office Action dated Mar. 29, 2001, 10 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/316,240, filed Dec. 9, 2008, Leon. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/553,824, filed Sep. 3, 2009, Bortnak et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/103,496, filed Apr. 15, 2008, Bortnak et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/030,739, filed Feb. 13, 2008, McBride et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/616,569, filed Dec. 27, 2006, Tsuie et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/729,148, filed Mar. 27, 2007, Stamps.com. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/616,546, filed Dec. 27, 2006, Bussell et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/509,309, filed Aug. 24, 2006, J.P. Leon. |
Ford, Colleen, “Frequent Flyer Programs,” Australian Accountant, 63,1, Feb. 1993, pp. 52-58. |
Alexander, Keith L., “U.S. Stamps Pay Tribute to Starry-Eyed Jurors”, Final Edition, Calgary Herald, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Sep. 14, 2007, 2 pgs. |
Office Action issued for U.S. Appl. No. 11/353,690 dated Aug. 3, 2009, 19 pgs. |
“Domestic Mail Manual Section 604”, Aug. 31, 2005. |
“Mobile Postage stamps via text message announced”, http://telecoms.cytalk.com/2011/03/mobile-postage-stamps-via-text-messages-announced/, CY.TALK Telecoms News Blog, Mar. 14, 2011 in Telecoms, Texting, pp. 1-9. |
Mobile Postage Stamps Via Text Messages Announced, Phone Reviews, Mobile Phones, News, Mar. 11, 2011, pp. 1-3. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/491,949, filed Jan. 26, 2000, Salim G. Kara. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/862,058, filed Jun. 4, 2004, Pagel et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/353,690, filed Feb. 14, 2006, Kara. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20140067664 A1 | Mar 2014 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 11616546 | Dec 2006 | US |
Child | 14073478 | US |