CTNF 18/174,222 CTNF 88163 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In re claim 17, it is unclear if claim 17 requires all the limitation of claim 1. As of now, it seems like it does not require any limitation of claim 1. The only method that is required now in claim 17 is: “receiving, by at least one computing device, an input indicative of a diagnosis of a condition of a patient within a vehicle positioned within a diagnosis bay of the at least one diagnosis bay.” The Examiner will interpret as such. In re claim 18, claim 17 has “at least one computing device,” but claim 18 has “the computing device.” It is unclear if the computing device is the same as the at least one computing device of claim 17. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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. 08-35 Claim 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/455,013 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘013 anticipates: Claim 1. A drive-thru medical facility comprising: a vehicle pathway having: an entrance; at least one diagnosis bay positioned downstream of the entrance, each diagnosis bay of the at least one diagnosis bay being configured to receive a respective vehicle; an intermediate section positioned downstream of the at least one diagnosis bay, wherein the intermediate section receives each vehicle traveling through a diagnosis bay along the vehicle pathway; a first exit positioned downstream of the intermediate section; and at least one parking space; and a clinic building, wherein the clinic building is positioned to be accessible by a passenger of a vehicle parked within a parking space of the at least one parking space (claim 1). Claim 2. The drive-thru medical facility of claim 1, wherein the at least one diagnosis bay comprises a plurality of diagnosis bays (claim 2). Claim 3. The drive-thru medical facility of claim 1, wherein the at least one parking space extends from the intermediate section (claim 3). Claim 4. The drive-thru medical facility of claim 1, further comprising at least one canopy structure that at least partially overlies the at least one diagnosis bay (claim 4). Claim 5. The drive-thru medical facility of claim 1, wherein the clinic building is at least partially between the entrance and the first exit of the vehicle pathway (claim 5). Claim 6. The drive-thru medical facility of claim 1, wherein the clinic building comprises a medical imaging system (claim 6). Claim 7. The drive-thru medical facility of claim 1, wherein the clinic building comprises a payment interface (claim 7). Claim 8. The drive-thru medical facility of claim 7, wherein the payment interface comprises a check-out kiosk (claim 8). Claim 9. The drive-thru medical facility of claim 1, wherein the clinic building comprises a medical examination room (claim 9). Claim 10. The drive-thru medical facility of claim 1, further comprising a check-in kiosk positioned at the entrance, at the at least one diagnosis bay, or in between the entrance and the at least one diagnosis bay (claim 10). Claim 11. The drive-thru medical facility of claim 1, further comprising a check-out kiosk positioned at the at least one diagnosis bay (claim 11). Claim 12. The drive-thru medical facility of claim 1, further comprising a video examination system positioned at the at least one diagnosis bay (claim 12). Claim 13. The drive-thru medical facility of claim 1, wherein the clinic building is positioned on a first side of the at least one diagnosis bay, wherein the drive-thru medical facility further comprises a second building positioned on a second side of the at least one diagnosis bay that is opposite the first side of the at least one diagnosis bay (claim 13). Claim 14. A system comprising: the drive-thru medical facility according to claim 1; and at least one computing device, wherein the at least one computing device comprises at least one processor and at least one memory in communication with the at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive an input indicative of a diagnosis of a condition of a patient within a vehicle positioned within a diagnosis bay of the at least one diagnosis bay (claim 14). Claim 15. The system of claim 14, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: generate an invoice associated with examination of the patient; and receive payment of the invoice (claim 15). Claim 16. The system of claim 14, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to store, in the at least one memory, data indicative of the diagnosis of the condition of the patient, wherein the stored data is associated with an account of the user (claim 16). Claim 17. A method of using the drive-thru medical facility of claim 1, the method comprising: receiving, by at least one computing device, an input indicative of a diagnosis of a condition of a patient within a vehicle positioned within a diagnosis bay of the at least one diagnosis bay (claim 17). Claim 18. The method of claim 17, further comprising: evaluating one or more physical properties of the patient; and providing, to the computing device, the input indicative of the diagnosis of the condition of the patient (claim 18). Claim 19. The method of claim 18, further comprising: conducting further evaluation of the patient within the clinic building (claim 19). Claim 20. The method of claim 18, further comprising receiving, by the at least one computing device, payment associated with evaluation and diagnosis of the condition of the patient (claim 20) . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-7, 9-10, 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Croghan (US 2021/0158950, hereinafter Croghan ‘950) . In re claim 1, Croghan ‘950 teaches a drive-thru medical facility comprising: a vehicle pathway having: an entrance (fig. 8); at least one diagnosis bay positioned downstream of the entrance (fig. 8), each diagnosis bay of the at least one diagnosis bay being configured to receive a respective vehicle (fig. 8); an intermediate section positioned downstream of the at least one diagnosis bay, wherein the intermediate section receives each vehicle traveling through a diagnosis bay along the vehicle pathway (fig. 8); a first exit positioned downstream of the intermediate section (fig. 8); PNG media_image1.png 1312 998 media_image1.png Greyscale [AltContent: textbox (Entrance)] [AltContent: textbox (Diagnosis bay)] [AltContent: textbox (Intermediate section)] [AltContent: textbox (Exit)] [AltContent: textbox (Parking)] [AltContent: textbox (Clinic Builidng)] and at least one parking space (0047, 0082, 0083; fig. 8, handicap parking); and a clinic building (0074, 0076, 0079-0082), wherein the clinic building is positioned to be accessible by a passenger of a vehicle parked within a parking space of the at least one parking space (0074, 0076, 0079-0083; fig. 8). In re claim 2, Croghan ‘950 teaches wherein the at least one diagnosis bay comprises a plurality of diagnosis bays (fig. 17). In re claim 3, Croghan ‘950 teaches wherein the at least one parking space extends from the intermediate section (note that Applicant’s fig. 10A’s intermediate section 28 and parking space 40 are similarly extended as Croghan ‘950’s figure 8’s intermediate section and parking). In re claim 4, Croghan ‘950 teaches further comprising at least one canopy structure that at least partially overlies the at least one diagnosis bay (fig. 10). In re claim 5, Croghan ‘950 teaches wherein the clinic building is at least partially between the entrance and the first exit of the vehicle pathway (fig. 8). In re claim 6, Croghan ‘950 teaches wherein the clinic building comprises a medical imaging system (0042). In re claim 7, Croghan ‘950 teaches wherein the clinic building comprises a payment interface (0044). In re claim 9, Croghan ‘950 teaches wherein the clinic building comprises a medical examination room (0074, 0076). In re claim 10, Croghan ‘950 teaches further comprising a check-in kiosk positioned at the entrance, at the at least one diagnosis bay, or in between the entrance and the at least one diagnosis bay (fig. 7, check in; 0043). In re claim 13, Croghan ‘950 teaches wherein the clinic building is positioned on a first side of the at least one diagnosis bay, wherein the drive-thru medical facility further comprises a second building positioned on a second side of the at least one diagnosis bay that is opposite the first side of the at least one diagnosis bay (fig. 8). In re claim 14, Croghan ‘950 teaches system comprising: the drive-thru medical facility according to claim 1 (see above for claim 1 rejection); and at least one computing device, wherein the at least one computing device comprises at least one processor and at least one memory in communication with the at least one processor (0009, 0041, note that virtual care and telemedicine with hardware and software would inherently include processor and memory which is in communication with the processor for all digital processing of virtual care and telemedicine), wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive an input indicative of a diagnosis of a condition of a patient within a vehicle positioned within a diagnosis bay of the at least one diagnosis bay (0008; 0047, 0048; fig. 8). In re claim 15, Croghan ‘950 teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: generate an invoice associated with examination of the patient; and receive payment of the invoice (0044). In re claim 16, Croghan ‘950 teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to store, in the at least one memory, data indicative of the diagnosis of the condition of the patient, wherein the stored data is associated with an account of the user (0004, 0009, 0045, 0047, 0048, EMR). In re claim 17, Croghan ‘950 teaches method of using the drive-thru medical facility of claim 1, the method comprising: receiving, by at least one computing device, an input indicative of a diagnosis of a condition of a patient within a vehicle positioned within a diagnosis bay of the at least one diagnosis bay (0008; 0047, 0048; fig. 8). In re claim 18, Croghan ‘950 teaches further comprising: evaluating one or more physical properties of the patient; and providing, to the computing device, the input indicative of the diagnosis of the condition of the patient (0047-0073). In re claim 19, Croghan ‘950 teaches further comprising: conducting further evaluation of the patient within the clinic building (0042). In re claim 20, Croghan ‘950 teaches further comprising receiving, by the at least one computing device, payment associated with evaluation and diagnosis of the condition of the patient (0044) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 12, 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Croghan ‘950 . In re claim 14, Croghan ‘950 teaches system comprising: the drive-thru medical facility according to claim 1 (see above for claim 1 rejection); and at least one computing device, wherein the at least one computing device comprises at least one processor and at least one memory in communication with the at least one processor (0009, 0041, note that virtual care and telemedicine would inherently include processor and memory), wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive an input indicative of a diagnosis of a condition of a patient within a vehicle positioned within a diagnosis bay of the at least one diagnosis bay (0008; 0047, 0048; fig. 8). In re claim 15, Croghan ‘950 teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: generate an invoice associated with examination of the patient; and receive payment of the invoice (0044). In re claim 16, Croghan ‘950 teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to store, in the at least one memory, data indicative of the diagnosis of the condition of the patient, wherein the stored data is associated with an account of the user (0004, 0009, 0045, 0047, 0048, EMR). In re claim 17, Croghan ‘950 teaches method of using the drive-thru medical facility of claim 1, the method comprising: receiving , by at least one computing device , an input indicative of a diagnosis of a condition of a patient within a vehicle positioned within a diagnosis bay of the at least one diagnosis bay (0008; 0047, 0048; fig. 8). In re claim 18, Croghan ‘950 teaches further comprising: evaluating one or more physical properties of the patient; and providing, to the computing device , the input indicative of the diagnosis of the condition of the patient (0047-0073). In re claim 19, Croghan ‘950 teaches further comprising: conducting further evaluation of the patient within the clinic building (0042). In re claim 20, Croghan ‘950 teaches further comprising receiving, by the at least one computing device , payment associated with evaluation and diagnosis of the condition of the patient (0044). As explained above with respect to claims 14-20, virtual care and telemedicine with hardware and software would inherently include processor and memory which is in communication with the processor for all digital processing of virtual care and telemedicine with hardware and software. Even if it is not inherent, it would have been obvious to use processor and memory which is in communication with the processor for all digital processing of virtual care and telemedicine in order to code software onto computer hardware to automate care and store information digitally. In re claim 12, it would have been obvious that when Croghan ‘950 teaches telemedicine (0041, 0043, 0074, 0076) and such teach is a teaching of further comprising a video examination system positioned at the at least one diagnosis bay because telemedicine system is often inherently and/or obvious using video conference tool to conduct telemedicine . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8, 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Croghan ‘950 in view of Tawil et al. (US 2015/0248536, hereinafter Tawil ‘536) . In re claim 8, Croghan ‘950 fails to teach wherein the payment interface comprises a check-out kiosk. Tawil ‘536 teaches wherein the payment interface comprises a check-out kiosk (0180). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Croghan ‘950 to include the features of Tawil ‘536 in order to provide easy virtual experience for the patient by simply guiding user with the screen information for payment and check out process. In re claim 11, Croghan ‘950 fails to teach further comprising a check-out kiosk positioned at the at least one diagnosis bay, but Croghan ‘950 teaches telemedicine conferencing system with monitor/interactive screen positioned at the at least one diagnosis bay (0009, 0039, 0040, 0041, 0043). Tawil ‘536 teaches a check-out kiosk positioned on the screen via telemedicine system (0180). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Croghan ‘950 to include the features of Tawil ‘536 in order to provide easy virtual experience for the patient by simply guiding user with the screen information for payment and check out process. In re claim 12, even if it is not obvious that Croghan ‘950 teach further comprising a video examination system positioned at the at least one diagnosis bay, Croghan ‘950 still teaches telemedicine conferencing system with monitor/interactive screen positioned at the at least one diagnosis bay (0009, 0039, 0040, 0041, 0043). Tawil ‘536 teaches a video examination system positioned on the screen via telemedicine (0083, 0087, 0129, 0131, 0154, 0178, 0179) It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Croghan ‘950 to include the features of Tawil ‘536 in order to provide personal virtual experience with the provider doctor. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BO JOSEPH PENG whose telephone number is (571)270-1792. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday: 8:00 AM-5:00 PM EST. 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, KEITH M RAYMOND can be reached at (571)270-1790. 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. /BO JOSEPH PENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798 Application/Control Number: 18/174,222 Page 2 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 18/174,222 Page 3 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 18/174,222 Page 4 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 18/174,222 Page 5 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 18/174,222 Page 6 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 18/174,222 Page 7 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 18/174,222 Page 8 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 18/174,222 Page 9 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 18/174,222 Page 10 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 18/174,222 Page 12 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 18/174,222 Page 13 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 18/174,222 Page 14 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 18/174,222 Page 15 Art Unit: 3798