Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
In the amendment filed 07/07/2025, the following has occurred: claims 1-2 have been amended and claim 9 has been added. Now, claims 1-9 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 recites “a first microprocessor” and “a second microprocessor” programmed to carry out different functions. Page 13, lines 7-13 describe processors as including “microprocessors, ASICS, and the like.” However, the specification does not describe different functions being carried out by different microprocessors.
Claims 3-8 are rejected based on their dependencies on claim 1.
Claim 9 is not rejected because it recites the first and second microprocessors as being the same microprocessor.
Claim 1 also recites “receive, over the telecommunications network, information from a physician or healthcare provider to enroll said physician or healthcare provider in said medical answer server.” While the claim previously recites “at least one first remote server,” there is no previous recitation of a “medical answer server.” Therefore, this recitation lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. The examiner notes that this was likely a typographical error and should have recited “said medical answering service” and for examination purposes will treat this recitation accordingly.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,990,247. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of the limitations recited in claims 1-8 of the instant application are included in claims 1-8 of the ‘247 patent. The differences are only found in additional limitations recited in the ‘247 patient.
Distinguishing Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 distinguish over the prior art. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication distinguishing subject matter: The primary reason that claims 1-9 distinguish over the prior art is the combinations of limitations of a medical answering service, said medical answering service comprising at least one first remote server in electronic communication over a telecommunications network with one or more storage devices with a database, and a first microprocessor associated with said at least one first remote server, wherein said first microprocessor is programmed to receiving over the telecommunication network information to enroll a physician in the medical answering service; automatically generating a unique direct inward dialing phone number for each enrolled physician and provide over the network the physician with the unique direct inward dialing number; and a telemedicine system with a remote server that performs the functions based on an incoming patient number, the automatically generated direct inward dialing phone number, and the automatic generation of the virtual telehealth consult separate from the patient call. The closest prior art (Wortman, Omi, US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0048389, Spiessbach, US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0272571) describe assigning and maintaining phone numbers in a call center, receiving an incoming call from a patient, and generating a virtual consultation. However, the prior art does not describe the particular telecommunication network structure carrying out the ordered series of functions, specifically involving the generation and use of the unique direct inward dialing phone numbers and the independent virtual telehealth consult.
Additionally, the combination of additional elements, described above, related to generation and use of direct inward dialing and virtual consult integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As explained at pages 1-2 of the specification, this configuration of components and steps eliminates the need for a dedicated telemedicine system and provides a secure connection between a patient and provider. This provides a technical improvement to technical field of medical telecommunications.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/07/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 103 for the reasons given above. Additionally, the Double Patenting Rejections have been maintained as explained above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to C. Luke Gilligan whose telephone number is (571)272-6770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Morgan can be reached on 571-272-6773. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
C. Luke Gilligan
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3683
/CHRISTOPHER L GILLIGAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683