The present application is related to co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/616,513 filed Dec. 27, 2006, entitled “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ON-LINE PRINTING FRAUD PROTECTION,” the disclosure of which is hereby incorporated herein by reference. The present application is also related to co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/197,044, entitled “GENERIC VALUE BEARING ITEM LABELS,” filed Jul. 16, 2002, published as 2003/0037008 on Feb. 20, 2003; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/975,532, entitled “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING COMPUTER-BASED POSTAGE STAMPS,” filed Oct. 10, 2001, published as 2002/0073039 on Jun. 13, 2002 and issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,191,158 on Mar. 13, 2007, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/239,424, entitled “A SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING COMPUTER BASED POSTAGE STAMPS,” filed Oct. 10, 2000; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/690,066, entitled “CRYPTOGRAPHIC MODULE FOR SECURE PROCESSING OF VALUE-BEARING ITEMS,” filed Oct. 16, 2000, and issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,216,110 on May 8, 2007; which applications being owned by a common entity with the present application are hereby incorporated by reference herein.
This disclosure relates to on-line fraud protection in general and more specifically to systems and methods for fraudulent detection and prevention in on-line value transfer situations. Even more specifically, this disclosure addresses fraud protection when users receive value indicia via Internet facilitated transfer of items of value.
Electronic commerce has become commonplace and as the value of such commerce has increased so has the sophistication of criminal activities. Electronic on-line printing of tickets, stamps and other indicia of value allows these items to be printed in the comfort of one's home or office. This relative privacy presents a tempting target for those with a larcenous bent.
In one scenario, a fraudulent user (fraudster) simply uses a stolen or otherwise invalid credit card to order the downloaded material that is printed on paper located at the fraudster's premises. In some situations, one needs to be a member or otherwise have a log-in identity in order to print the desired material. To overcome this requirement, fraudulent user's create a log-on, download what they want, and then stop using the log-on. The next time they desire to print the tickets, postage indicia, etc., they create a new log-on identity using a different credit facility, which often proves to be stolen or otherwise improper.
In other scenarios, the fraudulent user logs onto the system and obtains something of value, for example, a downloaded postage indicia for printing, either immediately or at a subsequent time, onto stock material at the customer's location. In some situations, the transaction turns out to be fraudulent in that the user's credit is not acceptable, the credit facility that was used turns out to be not acceptable, or for any of a number of other reasons the transaction is determined to be improper. One problem with these types of fraudulent situations is that each transaction is independent of previous transactions in that nothing is being shipped to a permanent address and thus each transaction is transient. Attempts to identify the computer (or other electronic address information) are often futile since fraudsters have a facility for masking their electronic identity. In addition, certain intermediary systems, such as ISP providers, often modify (or allow a user to modify) their real addresses and even their machine identities (MAC identifications).
Another method for preventing recurring fraud from the same user is to block the account (log-on) from that user. However, the fraudster then opens a new account using a new phony id. Often, when promotions are being offered it is customary to limit such promotions to “one per customer”. In these situations users are tempted to “fake” their identity in order to obtain more than one promotion.
The present invention is directed to systems and methods which identify fraudulent situations during the transaction phase. In one embodiment, such detection is accomplished by monitoring for situations either outside the range of normal for the general population or outside the range of normal for this particular user. The normal range could be rule driven and, for example, could include size of a given purchase, frequency of purchases, identity of use equipment being utilized for the current transaction, etc. The rule could be relaxed or tightened, at least in part, based on the length of time that the user has been a customer and the user's past payment history. In one embodiment, device ids are used to detect fraudulent users. These device (or software) ids could, for example, be a “fingerprint” of the user's equipment, of a “cookie” previously downloaded to the user that identifies the user to the fulfillment system. In situations where fraud is detected downloading the value to the user is interrupted.
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:
Turning now to
When a user desires to print postage indicia, the user must, in one embodiment, obtain the stock material either from a supplier local to the user (a store, or perhaps an on-line supplier other than the on-line supplier of the postage indicia). In some situations, such as the situation of the embodiment, the user obtains the stock material from the same online supplier that supplies the postage. Thus, as will be detailed hereinafter, when a user logs onto the system at location 120, the user identifies him/herself and orders the necessary supplies which are then checked through inventory 15 with payments being processed through processing facility 14. Fulfillment 16 then sends the supplies physically to the user at PC 11. Note that this transaction, i.e., the obtaining of stock material, always precedes the actual downloading of postage in situations where the material is obtained from the vendor since the postage indicia is to be printed (retained) on the obtained stock material by the customer at the customer's location. Also note that the cost of the material is significant less (more than ten times less) than the cost of postage. Thus, there is not very much reason for the fraudster to use invalidly obtained credit facilities for purchasing stock material. In other situations, the indicia can be printed on plain paper such as would occur when the indicia is printed as part of an address label or directly on to an envelope. In these situations the stock material is not purchased. Also, in some situations the indicia is printed at the vendor's location and shipped to the customer.
In situations where the print stock is bought from a vendor other than the vendor supplying the postage indicia data, then the id of the stock material, together with the id of the purchaser is sent to the postage vendor for storage thereat. The user id, both from sales from the postage vendor, or other on-line vendor can be, if desired, augmented by the fingerprint of the buyer. In this situation, the fingerprint can be one or more of the identity of the software being used by the material purchaser, or by the identity of the hardware (such as CPU, hard drive, etc.) of the computer being used by the purchaser or even by the printer associated with the purchaser's computer.
As will be seen from
Subsequently, after the user obtains physical possession of the stock material at the location of printer 18, the user, using a PC, such as PC 11, or any other appropriate communication device, and network 12, accesses server 13 for the purpose of obtaining postage media data on-line from the vendor at location 120. As has become customary, the user then identifies him/herself to server 13. The user also identifies the stock material, either by verbally saying the serial number(s) of the stock that will be used or by allowing the serial numbers to be read into the system from, for example, printer 18. Any method of communicating the id number (or other form factors) of the printable stock that the customer intends to use can be employed, including, for example, typing the information, scanning, PDF and the like.
During the validation process the system, using rules engine 13-3, will determine if the current transaction is “suspicious” i.e., contains undesirable parameter values. Essentially, the rules cover the amount of postage purchased, the frequency of the purchase and the longevity of the customer as a registered user. Also the parameters contain the fact as to whether or not a user is a regular customer and, for example, how many times has that user changed his/her credit card number. The frequency of credit card number changes is also a “suspicious” activity in that if a user changes the credit facility too often that can be an indication of fraudulent intent. This same thing applies to printing. If a particular user is attempting to (or has) printed unusual amounts of indicia or if the user is printing rather fast compared to the normal average, such that, for example, if a user is attempting to print $10,000 dollars worth of indicia in a day, one can suppose that fraud is occurring. Also, if the postage denominations are unusual, that could be an indication of improper usage.
Note also that while the charges may be made to a valid card and to the proper card holder, that user might, at a later date deny the charges and thus the amount will be charged back to the provider. When this happens it is important that subsequent purchases be inhibited or at least challenged.
In addition, the system keeps track of, for example in memory 13-2, actual parameter values and dates of downloads, postage purchases and/or postage indicia prints from each user (or from those users where there is reason to believe a problem might exist). Then when the volume suddenly changes, or the pattern of activity changes, a flag can be set to be on guard for possible fraudulent activity with respect to a credit facility or with respect to a particular user account.
Registration of the same credit facility to multiple users can be a trigger, as can be changes in account address, printer, computer, etc. Any number of parameters, such as those outlined above, can be stored and the values associated with each such parameter can be used and the range limit set for a group of users or for specific users. These range limits can be varied on a user by user or group by group basis, if desired. The range changes can be based on previous users or groups.
If the rules engine does not flag an indicia order having undesirable parameters, then after payment processing 14 determines that the transaction appears valid, the system matches, if desired, the user id to the serial number(s) and/or any other measured form factors to determine if a proper match exists. If the match is proper and/or if the stock count is proper, as determined from records maintained, for example in memory 13-2, and if the user is not known as a fraudster for other reasons, then postage data from postage vault 17 is sent for storage at PC 11 for subsequent printing under control of PC 11 at printer 18 on stock material 100.
In situations where the rules engine flags a suspicious activity, i.e., an activity or transaction that is outside of the acceptable limits for this particular user, the transaction is either blocked or additional checking, perhaps by a phone call or other personal interaction, is undertaken.
In some situations, the id of the user will identify the user as a trusted user and then material or other form factor matching may be waived, if desired. A trusted user in this context can be defined as desired, but usually would be a user who has been regularly downloading postage indicia without incident for a period of time. This information could be maintained, for example, in a table located in memory 13-2.
Also under some conditions as will be discussed, multiple sheets of material 100 could have the same serial number and thus the number of pages utilized by the user is maintained so as to prevent fraudulent activity.
Process 203 obtains the customer order for the desired stock. Process 204 checks the inventory to be certain that that order can be fulfilled. Process 205 processes the payment by accepting a credit card or other credit facility. Then, if all appears to be in order, process 206 ships the customer order to the physical location specified by the user.
Process 207 then stores the order information in association with the customer id so that subsequently it can be determined whether the serial number of stock material being utilized for postage printing, as well as the quantity (if desired) of that stock match the user. Note that had the user gone to a source other than the online source at location 120 as discussed above, then the third party who supplied the stock material to the user would have sent the serial number and other identification information to the system for recording as controlled by processes 207 and 208.
If the customer is not on the problem list, then process 305 takes the print order from the customer using the customer's id. Note that id need not be a numerical value, but could be any manner of uniquely identifying the customer. Process 306 determines if the customer has previously obtained sufficient postage value to allow for the printing of the desired amount of postage indicia. If not, process 307 interactively works with the customer to replenish the postage value available for use by the customer. When this is complete, or if enough postage value already exists, then process 308 obtains from the customer, either manually, verbally with audio to digital translation or otherwise, the id information pertaining to the stock material that the customer wishes to use to print the postage.
Process 309 determines (optionally) if this user is a trusted user. If so, then the fraud detection (or a portion of the rules within the fraud detection) can be bypassed, if desired. Assuming the id is not one of a trusted user, then process 310 determines if a fingerprint has been taken of this user's equipment. If not, then process 316 determines if a fingerprint should be taken and if so process 317 controls the fingerprinting and storage, perhaps in memory 13-2 (
If a previous fingerprint had been taken then process 312 determines if the “fingerprint” of the user's equipment matches the previous fingerprint. If not, then the mismatch can be used, if desired, as an indication that the current transaction is suspect. In such a case, process 318 will hold the transactions for further process, terminate the transaction, turn the transaction over for fraud processing or perhaps just change the rules levels.
When a fingerprint matches a previous fingerprint, process 313 enables the rules engine, such as rules engine 13-3 (
For example, line 402 of chart 40, shows that this user (as determined from the user's presented id or fingerprint id) shows how much postage per day this user has been using on average. The chart also could show the average postage per day for all users (or for a portion of users with a similar profile to this user). The rule then could be to only allow, for example, $75 worth of postage each day. The amount limit can be pre-calculated or it can be calculated dynamically based, for example, on factors established by the vendor from time to time and dependent on behaviors of the customer. Line 403 deals with the number of accesses to the system each day by this same user and while the user's number is lower than the average, a limit of 3 times a day is placed on the account, at least until a pattern has emerged.
Line 404 indicates that this user has been known to the system one week or less and until the user has been known to the system for at least 10 weeks the user will be treated with care and the highest level of scrutiny will occur. Note that the different rules and different values for each rule can be used based upon many factors for each user.
Some conditions, such as shown in lines 406, 407, 408, and 409, could be flag conditions such that if any of these transactions were to occur a trouble condition would be triggered. For example, in line 406 this user purchased 1000 sheets of stock material onto which postage indicia is to be printed. The average user in this category of user only buys 100 sheets. This then triggers a flag condition such that when the user logs-in to buy postage indicia his/her account can be immediately flagged for further processing, or more stringent rules can be applied.
Another example of a flag condition is shown in line 408. This user (same id or fingerprint) has switched credit facilities five times within a certain period (or since the user first identified him/herself) where the average number of changes is two times.
Returning now to
Fingerprint checking can be used for many control functions. By way of example, in situation where “specials” are run, such as free (or reduced) postage for a month, providing the customer sign up for a year, some customers may simply use the free postage, cancel their subscription and then, at a later time, sign up again. By maintaining a record of the fingerprint, say of the customer's printer (or software, CPU, etc.) any subsequent “free trial periods” can be blocked under control of processes 313, 314 and 315 based on a fingerprint match to the previous “trial” period.
If process 315 allows fulfillment to continue, then process 320,
Process 322 then, if necessary for this user, determines if the stock count is right. This count is necessary in some situations for example, because multiple sheets of material may have the same serial number. If the user has been determined to have used five sheets of material but still has five sheets remaining, the user would be allowed to purchase postage indicia up to five sheets. However, had the customer had five sheets available and this postage indicia would require a sixth sheet, then the sixth sheet worth of postage would be rejected via process 322. The order then would be held for further processing, and/or fraud identification under control of process 326. If process 322 determines that the stock count is right, then process 323 processes the order. This is done, for example, by process 324 which generating postage indicia data from postage vault 17 and transmits this data to PC 11. Process 325 then removes the stock id from the available stock, if applicable, and adjusts the stock count. Process 327 then under control of the customer and PC 11 generates postage indicia from the data transmitted from the system.
Note that chart 40,
In some situations the system could be set up to block partial fingerprints, such as a MAC address. However, in some situations it is not practical to simply block the machine because it could be a shared “library” or “kiosk” machine. In those situations, additional detective work will be required to detect possible fraud conditions. In situations such as that, the system could mark the known shared machine as a trusted (or suspicious) location. In all cases, something else may trigger the fraud detection even though the postage is being printed at a trusted location.
Another twist is that the system might be designed to look at the sales channel from which the user is coming. Corporate channels could have less scrutiny than unaffiliated or otherwise unknown individuals. Triggers could be geared to payment type, such that if a user is using certain payment types that are more fraud driven than other types then the rule limits or parameters can be adjusted accordingly.
In some situations the IP address can be used to determine the geographical location of the user's machine. This, of course, can be spoofed, but in fact in many situations it is possible to determine, for example, that a transaction is coming in from outside the United States. The system can block based on the domain, depending on which country the user is coming from.
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.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3833795 | Shoshani et al. | Sep 1974 | A |
4447890 | Duwel et al. | May 1984 | A |
4725718 | Sansone et al. | Feb 1988 | A |
4743747 | Fougere et al. | May 1988 | A |
4757537 | Edelmann et al. | Jul 1988 | A |
4775246 | Edelmann et al. | Oct 1988 | A |
4780828 | Whisker | Oct 1988 | A |
4802218 | Wright et al. | Jan 1989 | A |
4812994 | Taylor et al. | Mar 1989 | A |
4831555 | Sansone et al. | May 1989 | A |
4837702 | Obrea | Jun 1989 | A |
4853865 | Sansone et al. | Aug 1989 | A |
4872706 | Brewen et al. | Oct 1989 | A |
4900903 | Wright et al. | Feb 1990 | A |
4900904 | Wright et al. | Feb 1990 | A |
4908770 | Breault et al. | Mar 1990 | A |
4933849 | Connell et al. | Jun 1990 | A |
4935961 | Gargiulo et al. | Jun 1990 | A |
4939674 | Price et al. | Jul 1990 | A |
4949381 | Pastor | Aug 1990 | A |
4980542 | Jackson et al. | Dec 1990 | A |
5048085 | Abraham et al. | Sep 1991 | A |
5055657 | Miller et al. | Oct 1991 | A |
5058008 | Schumacher | Oct 1991 | A |
5075865 | Kawamura et al. | Dec 1991 | A |
5111030 | Brasington et al. | May 1992 | A |
5122987 | Kihara | Jun 1992 | A |
5142577 | Pastor | Aug 1992 | A |
5181245 | Jones | Jan 1993 | A |
5265221 | Miller | Nov 1993 | A |
5319562 | Whitehouse | Jun 1994 | A |
5325519 | Long et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
5328439 | Goldberg | Jul 1994 | A |
5341505 | Whitehouse | Aug 1994 | A |
5367148 | Storch et al. | Nov 1994 | A |
5377268 | Hunter | Dec 1994 | A |
5384886 | Rourke | Jan 1995 | A |
5390251 | Pastor et al. | Feb 1995 | A |
5408416 | Gilham | Apr 1995 | A |
5442162 | Armel | Aug 1995 | A |
5448641 | Pintsov et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
5452654 | Connell et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
5454038 | Cordery et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
5471925 | Heinrich et al. | Dec 1995 | A |
5491495 | Ward et al. | Feb 1996 | A |
5559934 | Ogura et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5561795 | Sarkar | Oct 1996 | A |
5570465 | Tsakanikas | Oct 1996 | A |
5573277 | Petkovsek | Nov 1996 | A |
5598477 | Berson | Jan 1997 | A |
5600562 | Guenther | Feb 1997 | A |
5602743 | Freytag | Feb 1997 | A |
5621797 | Rosen | Apr 1997 | A |
5621864 | Benade et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5626286 | Petkovsek | May 1997 | A |
5655023 | Cordery et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5659616 | Sudia | Aug 1997 | A |
5666421 | Pastor et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5668897 | Stolfo | Sep 1997 | A |
5671146 | Windel et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5680629 | Slayden et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5684951 | Goldman et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
5717596 | Bernard et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5717597 | Kara | Feb 1998 | A |
5729460 | Plett et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5729734 | Parker et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5737729 | Denman | Apr 1998 | A |
5742683 | Lee et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5768132 | Cordery et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5778348 | Manduley et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5781438 | Lee et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5781634 | Cordery et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5793867 | Cordery et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5796841 | Cordery et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5801944 | Kara | Sep 1998 | A |
5812990 | Ryan, Jr. et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5812991 | Kara | Sep 1998 | A |
5819240 | Kara | Oct 1998 | A |
5822739 | Kara | Oct 1998 | A |
5825893 | Kara | Oct 1998 | A |
5848401 | Goldberg et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5867578 | Brickell et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5917924 | Herbert | Jun 1999 | A |
5918234 | Shah et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5923406 | Brasington et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5930796 | Pierce et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5940383 | Willkie | Aug 1999 | A |
5949680 | Kettelkamp | Sep 1999 | A |
5953142 | Chiaroni et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5956404 | Schneier et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5957053 | Hayama | Sep 1999 | A |
5978013 | Jones et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5978484 | Apperson et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5983227 | Nazem et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5987441 | Lee et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5988897 | Pierce et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5995985 | Cai | Nov 1999 | A |
6005945 | Whitehouse | Dec 1999 | A |
6009415 | Shurling et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6009417 | Brookner et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6010156 | Block | Jan 2000 | A |
6012890 | Celorio Garrido | Jan 2000 | A |
6026385 | Harvey et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6029137 | Cordery et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6030000 | Diamond | Feb 2000 | A |
6031020 | Mehta et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6041411 | Wyatt | Mar 2000 | A |
6049671 | Slivka et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6058384 | Pierce et al. | May 2000 | A |
6061671 | Baker et al. | May 2000 | A |
6064991 | Reisinger et al. | May 2000 | A |
6064993 | Ryan, Jr. | May 2000 | A |
6065117 | White | May 2000 | A |
6070150 | Remington et al. | May 2000 | A |
6081810 | Rosenzweig et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6098058 | Gravell et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6105063 | Hayes, Jr. | Aug 2000 | A |
6108643 | Sansone | Aug 2000 | A |
6134582 | Kennedy | Oct 2000 | A |
6151591 | Pierce et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6155604 | Greene et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6161139 | Win et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6164528 | Hills et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6192165 | Irons | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6208980 | Kara | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6209920 | Fabel | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6223166 | Kay | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6226752 | Gupta et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6233565 | Lewis et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6233568 | Kara | May 2001 | B1 |
6244763 | Miller | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6249777 | Kara et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6275824 | O'Flaherty et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6286098 | Wenig et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6296404 | Pierce et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6311214 | Rhoads | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6324523 | Killeen, Jr. et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6334108 | Deaton et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6338049 | Walker et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6341274 | Leon | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6353926 | Parthesarathy et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6367013 | Bisbee et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6381589 | Leon | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6385504 | Pintsov et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6385654 | Tanaka | May 2002 | B1 |
6385731 | Ananda | May 2002 | B2 |
6405929 | Ehrhart et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6408286 | Heiden | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6415983 | Ulvr et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6424954 | Leon | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6427021 | Fischer et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6461063 | Miller et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6466921 | Cordery et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6473500 | Risafi et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6473743 | Ryan, Jr. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6505179 | Kara | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6505980 | Allday | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6525835 | Gulati | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6526393 | Fredman | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6546377 | Gravell et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6555579 | Kritchevsky | Apr 2003 | B2 |
6567794 | Cordery et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6587880 | Saigo et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6592027 | Kovlakas | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6594374 | Beckstrom et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6609117 | Sutherland et al. | Aug 2003 | B2 |
6615194 | Deutsch et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6636983 | Levi | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6674542 | Shimamura | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6687684 | Whitehouse et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6701304 | Leon | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6722563 | Johnson et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6735575 | Kara | May 2004 | B1 |
6823319 | Lynch et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6842742 | Brookner | Jan 2005 | B1 |
6868406 | Ogg et al. | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6883140 | Acker et al. | Apr 2005 | B1 |
6939063 | Bussell | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6999938 | Libman | Feb 2006 | B1 |
7085725 | Leon | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7124101 | Mikurak | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7149726 | Lingle et al. | Dec 2006 | B1 |
7162460 | Cleckler et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7191158 | Ogg | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7194957 | Leon | Mar 2007 | B1 |
7243842 | Leon et al. | Jul 2007 | B1 |
7260194 | Meyers et al. | Aug 2007 | B1 |
7272728 | Pierson | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7577618 | Raju et al. | Aug 2009 | B2 |
7933845 | Leon et al. | Apr 2011 | B1 |
8126821 | Uslontsev et al. | Feb 2012 | B2 |
8360313 | Leon et al. | Jan 2013 | B1 |
8546921 | Ramadoss et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
20010034716 | Goodwin | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20010037320 | Allport et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010042052 | Leon | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010055388 | Kaliski | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20020023057 | Goodwin et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020033598 | Beasley | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020040353 | Brown et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020046193 | Bator et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020046195 | Martin et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020055900 | Kansal | May 2002 | A1 |
20020062283 | Takahashi | May 2002 | A1 |
20020073039 | Ogg et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020083007 | Sutherland et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020083020 | Leon | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020095383 | Mengin et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020107754 | Stone | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020166882 | Roberts et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020178354 | Ogg et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020194119 | Wright et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030037008 | Raju | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030050891 | Cohen | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030055779 | Wolf | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030055780 | Hansen et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030078893 | Shah et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030101143 | Montgomery et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030101148 | Montgomery et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030130914 | Cinotti et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030130954 | Carr et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030140017 | Patton et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030217017 | Willoughby et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20040074977 | Rainey et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040088271 | Cleckler | May 2004 | A1 |
20040133509 | McCoy et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040215523 | Wulff et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040220869 | Perera | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040225536 | Schoen et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20050065897 | Ryan et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050075997 | Rainey et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050080693 | Foss et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050080747 | Anderson et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050108165 | Jones et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050114712 | Devine et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050125367 | Ogg et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050144145 | Ogg et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050165674 | Edwards et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050171822 | Cagan | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050187886 | Stickler et al. | Aug 2005 | A9 |
20050195214 | Reid et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050234835 | Stonoha et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050256811 | Pagel et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050278204 | Weinberg et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050278235 | Dietrich | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050278266 | Ogg et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060015457 | Hau et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060032903 | Wu | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060045244 | New | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060050136 | MacKay et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060053054 | Baggett et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060136237 | Spiegel et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060136325 | Barry et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060143136 | Low et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060173772 | Hayes et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060173777 | Torres et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060178946 | Agarwal | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060190353 | Williams | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060212387 | Jensen | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060218091 | Choy | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060233334 | Bingaman et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060235721 | Kavanagh et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060242059 | Hansen | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060248007 | Hofer et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060248016 | Ginter et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060249570 | Seifert et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060253326 | Patterson et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060253341 | Goldstein et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060265325 | Fajardo | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060271443 | Cahalane et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060273155 | Thackston | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060282327 | Neal et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060282359 | Nobili et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060282372 | Endres et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060293908 | Becker et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070011100 | Libin et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070100672 | McBrida et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070255664 | Blumberg et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20080025490 | Meyers et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20090219573 | Ogg et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20120200893 | Ogg et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
0360225 | Mar 1990 | EP |
0576113 | Dec 1993 | EP |
0604146 | Jun 1994 | EP |
0604148 | Jun 1994 | EP |
0647925 | Apr 1995 | EP |
0840258 | May 1998 | EP |
0854448 | Jul 1998 | EP |
0892367 | Jan 1999 | EP |
0927958 | Jul 1999 | EP |
0927963 | Jul 1999 | EP |
0948158 | Oct 1999 | EP |
2235413 | Mar 1991 | GB |
2318486 | Apr 1998 | GB |
408230257 | Sep 1996 | JP |
WO-9427258 | Nov 1994 | WO |
WO-9813790 | Apr 1998 | WO |
WO-9857302 | Dec 1998 | WO |
WO-9857460 | Dec 1998 | WO |
WO-9918514 | Apr 1999 | WO |
WO-0019382 | Apr 2000 | WO |
WO-0049580 | Aug 2000 | WO |
WO-0070503 | Nov 2000 | WO |
WO-2015000227 | Jan 2015 | WO |
Entry |
---|
U.S. Appl. No. 11/616,529, Akbar Thobhani. |
U.S. Appl. No. 60/239,424, Anthony Phoenix. |
STIC Search Report EIC 3600, Various web site pages from the site www.stamps.com collected together in the file “stamps.com—waybl” from U.S. Appl. No. 11/616,513, search dated Sep. 24, 2009. |
U.S. approves stamp software; Catherine Porter, Toronto Star, Toronto, Ont.: Jul. 18, 2002, p. D.05. |
Bill would allow some scalping of tickets, Marsha Shuler; Advocate, Baton Rouge, La: May 3, 2006, p. 17. |
Scanning, I D & bar coding, Canadian Industrial Equipment News. Oct. 1999, vol. 60; Iss. 10, p. 21. |
Stamp paper scam, Mahesh Chandra, Business line, Chennai: Nov. 12, 2003, p. 1. |
Various web site pages from the site www.stamps.com collected together in the file “stamps.com—wayback”. |
“Multicolor Easily Printable Bar Code”, IBM Tech. Disci. Bull., vol. 14, No. 3, p. 783, Aug. 1971, 3 pages. |
Fickel, Louise, “Know Your Customer,” Leaders for the Next Millennium, CIO Magazine, Aug. 15, 1999, 10 pages. |
Sagner, James S., “Protecting Organizations from Electronic-Transaction Fraud,” Healthcare Financial Management, Feb. 1995, 2 pages. |
United States Postal Service, “Information Based Indicia Program Postal Security Device Specification,” Jun. 13, 1996, 41 pages. |
International Search Report, International Application No. PCT/US00/28539, dated Feb. 23, 2001, 8 pages. |
Pastor, Jose; “Cryptopost™—A Cryptographic Application to Mail Processing,” Journal of Cryptologyi vol. 3; No. 2; 1991, 11 pages. |
Ratcliffe, Mitch, “Ever feel you're being watched? You will.”; Digital Media; May 16, 1994; v 3, n12, 3 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. |
Tygar, J.D., et al., “Dyad: A System for Using Physically Secure Coprocessors,” School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburg, PA, May 4, 1991, 41 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/585,025, to Lingle, filed Jun. 1, 2000, “Online Value Bearing Item Printing,” 125 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/688,451, to Ogg et al., filed Oct. 16, 2000, “Auditing Method and System for an On-Line Value-Bearing Item Printing System,” 105 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/688,452, to Ogg et al., filed Oct. 16, 2000, “Role Assignments in a Cryptographic Module for Secure Processing of Value-Bearing Items,” 105 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/688,456, to Ogg et al., filed Oct. 16, 2000, “Cryptographic Module for Secure Processing of Value-Bearing Items,” 108 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/690,083, to Ogg et al., filed Oct. 16, 2000, “Cryptographic Module for Secure Processing of Value-Bearing Items,” 109 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/690,243, to Engelberg et al., filed Oct. 17, 2000, “Method and Apparatus for On-LineValue-Bearing Item System,” 66 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/690,798, to Ogg, filed Oct. 17, 2000, “Secure and Recoverable Database for On-Line Value-Bearing Item System,” 71 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/692,746, to Bussell, filed Oct. 18, 2000, “Method and Apparatus for Digitally Sjgning an Advertisement Area Next to a Value-Bearing Item,” 61 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/692,747, to Ogg et al., filed Oct. 18, 2000, “Machine Dependent Login for On-line Value-Bearing Item System,” 62 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/692,829, to Lingle et al., filed Oct. 18, 2000, “Postal System Intranet and Commerce Processing for On-Line Value-Bearing System,” 179 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/788,069, to Weisberg et al., filed Feb. 16, 2001, “On-Line Value-Bearing Indicium Printing Using DSA,” 43 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/083,236, to Ogg et al., filed Feb. 26, 2002, “Secured Centralized Public Key Infrastructure,” 101 pages. |
The United States Postal Service (USPS); Information-Based Indicia Program (IBIP): Performance Criteria for Information-Based Indicia and Security Architecture for Closed IBI Postage Metering Systems (PCIBI-C); Jan. 12, 1999; 49 pages. |
The United States Postal Service (USPS); Information-Based Indicia Program (IBIP); Performance Criteria for Information-Based Indicia and Security Architecture for Open IBI Postage Evidencing Systems (PCIBI-O); Jun. 25, 1999; 76 pages. |
The United States Postal Service (USPS) Engineering Center, Information-Based Indicia Program (IBIP) Indicium Specification, Jun. 13, 1996, 22 pages. |
Office Action dated Apr. 16, 2007 for U.S. Appl. No. 10/731,992 to Ogg, et al, entitled “Computer Postage and Mail Tracking Labels,” 17 pages. |
Office Action dated Nov. 1, 2007 for U.S. Appl. No. 10/731,992, to Ogg, et al., entitled “Computer Postage and Mail Tracking Labels,” 20 pages. |
Office Action dated May 28, 2008 for U.S. Appl. No. 10/731,992, to Ogg, et al., entitled “Computer Postage and Mail Tracking Labels,” 16 pages. |
Notice of Allowance dated Sep. 5, 2006 for U.S. Appl. No. 10/688,548, to Cleckler et al., entitled “Media Type Identification,” 6 pages. |
Notice of Allowance dated Jan. 5, 2007 for U.S. Appl. No. 10/994,768, to Leon et al., entitled “Computer-Based Value-Bearing Item Customization Security,” 7 pages. |
Notice of Allowance dated Jul. 15, 2008 for U.S. Appl. No. 11/635,871, to McBride et al., entitled “Formatting Value-Bearing Item Indicia,” 7 pages. |
Office Action dated Dec. 14, 2004 for U.S. Appl. No. 09/975,532, to Ogg, et al., entitled “System and Method for Providing Computer-Based Postage Stamps,” 15 pages. |
Notice of Allowance dated May 16, 2005 for U.S. Appl. No. 09/975,532, to Ogg, et al., entitled “System and Method for Providing Computer-Based Postage Stamps,” 9 pages. |
Notice of Withdrawal from Issue dated Nov. 30, 2005 for U.S. Appl. No. 09/975,532, to Ogg, et al., entitled “System and Method for Providing Computer-Based Postage Stamps,” 1 page. |
Office Action dated Apr. 12, 2006 for U.S. Appl. No. 09/975,532, to Ogg, et al., entitled “System and Method for Providing Computer-Based Postage Stamps,” 11 pages. |
Notice of Allowance dated Sep. 6, 2006 for U.S. Appl. No. 09/975,532, to Ogg, et al., entitled “System and Method for Providing Computer-Based Postage Stamps,” 8 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/690,066, to Ogg et al., filed Oct. 16, 2000, “Cryptographic Module for Secure Processing of Value-Bearing Items,” 121 pages. |