`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMIVHSSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313-1450
`wwwusptogov
`
`
`
`
`
`15/644,524
`
`07/07/2017
`
`Clayton K. Redmon
`
`REDM—POOOlUS
`
`2303
`
`Grable Martin Fulton PLLC
`2709 Dublin Road
`Plano, TX 75094
`
`NGUYEN, PHUNG HOANG JOSEPH
`
`ART UNIT
`
`2656
`
`PAPER NUIVIBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`02/28/2018
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`docketing @ gchub.com
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Applicant(s)
`Application No.
` 15/644,524 REDMON ET AL.
`
`
`AIA (First Inventorto File)
`Art Unit
`Examiner
`Office Action Summary
`
`
`Phung-Hoang J. Nguyen $2213 2656
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF
`THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR1. 136(a).
`after SIX () MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`
`-
`-
`
`Status
`
`1)IXI Responsive to communication(s) filed on 7/7/17.
`[I A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2b)lX| This action is non-final.
`a)I:| This action is FINAL.
`3)IXI An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`2/20/18; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)|:I Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under EX parte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5)|XI Claim(s) flis/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`6)|:l Claim(s) _ is/are allowed.
`7)I:l CIaim(s)_1-8 is/are rejected.
`
`8)I:I Claim(s)
`is/are objected to.
`
`9)|XI Claim(s 9-33 are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`(I
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`
`
`:/I’\va.usoto. ov/ atents/init events"
`h/index.‘s orsend an inquiry to PF"I-Ifeedback{<‘buspto.qov.
`
`htt
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)I:I The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)|:I The drawing(s) filed on _ is/are: a)I:I accepted or b)I:I objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)I:I Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`b)I:I Some” c)I:I None of the:
`a)I:I All
`1.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.|:I Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`
`
`3) D Interview Summary (PT0_413)
`1) E Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`.
`.
`—
`4) I:I Other'
`2) D InformatIon DIscIosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20180220
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/644,524
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
`
`under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Restriction/Election
`
`Feb. 20, 2018, examiner placed a call to the inventor/attorney Wei Wei Jeang for
`
`a verbal election/restriction of two groups:
`
`Group I (claims 1-8): drawn towards live video conference between passengers
`
`in a motor vehicle and an attorney located remotely.
`
`Group II (Claims 9-33): drawn towards using a mobile device to initiate a live
`
`video stream with an attorney.
`
`The inventor/attorney Wei Wei Jeang has elected group I for examination.
`
`Examiner thanks the attorney for the prompt action.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`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 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.
`
`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:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/644,524
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`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.
`
`Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Moore et al (US 2015/0371456) in view of Bulrris et al (US 2005/0128283).
`
`Claim 1, Moore teaches a mobile lawyer system comprising:
`
`at least one video camera configured for mounting inside the passenger
`
`compartment of a vehicle and capture video images of passengers in the vehicle (in-car
`
`device 10 with microphone 16, speaker 18 and at least one camera 20 are
`
`included in or connected to device 10, Figs. 1 and 2 and [0014-0017]);
`
`a display screen configured for mounting inside the passenger compartment of a
`
`vehicle (display 22 of device 10, Figs. 1 and 2 and [0017]);
`
`a remote server and database (data captured by camera are transceiving
`
`to/from remote server 14, [0013, 0016]); and
`
`While Moore teaches “a mobile device executing a mobile application and in
`
`wireless communication with the video camera and display screen, configured, upon
`
`command from a user, to communicate with the remote server (the portable device
`
`can be a customers personal electronic device such as a mobile smartphone
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/644,524
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`having its own camera and display screen; the device 10 includes an application
`
`configured to communicate with server 14; figs 1 and 2; and [0017, 0021, 0022]),
`
`Moore does not discuss "notify an attorney located remotely; and the display
`
`screen configured to live-stream a video image of the remote attorney, and the at least
`
`one video camera is configured to live-stream video captured by the at least one video
`
`camera for viewing by the remote attorney and for storage in the database.
`
`Bulrris teaches “notifying an attorney located remotely (an audio-video link
`
`to protect an attorney-client’s privilege, [0050-0053]”;
`
`the display screen configured to live-stream a video image of the remote attorney
`
`and the at least one video camera is configured to live-stream video captured by the at
`
`least one video camera for viewing by the remote attorney (From the courtroom
`
`attorney-client sidebar station 48, the A/V signals travel through the control
`
`interface device 42, through the switching device 22, through the courthouse
`
`interface device 24, and through the jail interface device 26. From the jail interface
`
`device 26, the A/V signals travel through the jail control interface device 60 and
`
`are retrieved and played on the inmate attorney-client sidebar station 62, Fig. 2A
`
`and [0099]), and for storage in the database (the recording device 58 (database)
`
`records both audio and video signals received over the communications link, Fig.
`
`2A, [0093]).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/644,524
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`Therefore ,
`
`it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective
`
`filing date to incorporate the teaching of Bulrris into the teaching modify the Moore
`
`invention to provide an involvement of a remote attorney with full complement set-up for
`
`live audio-video stream for consultation between the remote attorney and vehicle’s
`
`passengers to preserve and protect the integrity of the legal process and also to store
`
`their discussion for future use and court proceeding and transparency of an event in a
`
`real-time communication.
`
`Claim 7. The mobile lawyer system of claim 1, wherein the remote attorney is
`
`able to receive and view the live-streamed video data of the user on a computing
`
`device, which is also configured to capture video images of the remote attorney and
`
`transmit them to the remote server (See claim 1, also Bulrris: Fig. 2A, the attorney
`
`station 48 and inmate station 62 are transceiving audio-visual information
`
`between them and stored at the a digital recording device 58, [0085, 0093-0099]).
`
`This would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date
`
`to incorporate the teaching of Bulrris into the teaching modify the Moore invention to
`
`provide a storage for all the discussion between the remote attorney and vehicle’s
`
`passengers for future use and court proceeding.
`
`Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Moore in view of Bulrris and further in view of Hatori et al (US 2015/0015706).
`
`Claim 2, Moore, in view of Bulrris, discloses the mobile lawyer system of claim 1.
`
`Moore does not further disclose wherein the at least one video camera comprises a
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/644,524
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`360-degree high-definitien video camera configured to capture video images in a
`
`plurality of directions.
`
`Hatori teaches the claimed feature as he discusses “The vehicle interior
`
`camera 70 may be constituted by a 360-degree camera (omnidirectional camera)
`
`in which instance the interior image 71 corresponds to an image taken with
`
`respect to an angular range of from 0 to 180 degrees, and the interior image 72
`
`corresponds to an image taken with respect to an angular range of from 180 to
`
`360 degrees, [0049].
`
`It would have been obvious to ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to
`
`incorporate the teaching of Hatori into the teaching of Moore with a 360-degree camera
`
`in order to provide a more comprehensive and thorough view of the occupants of a
`
`vehicle during video conferencing.
`
`Examiner further notices that Hatori does not spell out the camera being the high
`
`definition one.
`
`It is however an obvious decision for the user to utilize his or her
`
`purchase capability and it would be wise for the developer to leave the choice to the
`
`user as it deems appropriate spending.
`
`(Pertinent art of CN 205071154 does teach 360-degree high definition camera).
`
`Claim 8, Moore in view of Bulrris, teaches claim 1, Moore does not further teach
`
`at least one video camera configured for mounting outside the passenger compartment
`
`of the vehicle and capture video images of passengers in the vehicle and surrounding
`
`environment.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/644,524
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`Hatori teaches “three vehicle exterior cameras 40a, 40b and 40c. The exterior
`
`image capturing unit may be constituted either by a single vehicle exterior camera or by
`
`a plurality of vehicle exterior cameras. In the embodiment shown in FIG. 2, the vehicle
`
`exterior camera 40a is disposed on a rear end portion of the vehicle roof. The vehicle
`
`exterior camera 40b is disposed on a dashboard, and the vehicle exterior camera 40c is
`
`disposed on a front bumper. Each of the three vehicle exterior cameras 40a, 40b, 40c is
`
`able to image the exterior of the compartment 130 and also to generate a series of
`
`exterior images, [0034].
`
`It would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date
`
`to incorporate the teaching of Hatori into Moore for the purpose of providing some
`
`exterior camera for capturing the outside surrounding for greater view of conferencing
`
`communication and also for the court proceeding.
`
`Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore
`
`in view of Bulrris and further in view of Hassan Zureikat (US 2016/0173742).
`
`Claim 3, Moore, in view of Bulrris, discloses the mobile lawyer system of claim 1.
`
`Moore does not further disclose wherein the at least one video camera comprises a
`
`video camera mounted on a drone. Hassan discloses wherein the at least one video
`
`camera comprises a video camera mounted on a drone (a drone equipped with a
`
`camera; abstract; paragraph [0012]).
`
`It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date
`
`to modify the Moore invention to provide at least one video camera comprising a video
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/644,524
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`camera mounted on a drone, as taught by Hassan Zureikat, in order to provide
`
`expanded functionality by gaining the ability to record video of the immediate area
`
`surrounding a vehicle during video conferencing, especially in remote areas.
`
`Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore
`
`in view of Bulrris and further in view of Mokashi (US 9,288,446).
`
`Claim 4, Moore, in view of Bulrris, discloses the mobile lawyer system of claim 1.
`
`Moore does not further disclose wherein the at least video camera comprises a plurality
`
`of video cameras mounted on the vehicle configured to capture video images in a
`
`plurality of directions. Mokashi discloses wherein the at least video camera comprises a
`
`plurality of video cameras mounted on the vehicle configured to capture video images in
`
`a plurality of directions (a plurality of additional video cameras fixedly mounted to
`
`mutually differing prescribed locations around an outer periphery of the vehicle in
`
`prescribed orientations providing respective video images of areas around the outer
`
`periphery of the vehicle; claim 1).
`
`It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date
`
`to modify the Moore invention to provide at least video camera comprising a plurality of
`
`video cameras mounted on the vehicle configured to capture video images in a plurality
`
`of directions, as taught by Mokashi, in order to provide a plurality of
`
`different perspectives during video conferencing, so as to offer a more thorough and
`
`comprehensive view of the vehicle.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/644,524
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore
`
`in view of Bulrris and further in view of Becker (US 2014/0214702).
`
`Claim 5, Moore, in view of Bulrris, discloses the mobile lawyer system of claim 1.
`
`Moore does not further disclose wherein the database is configured to store information
`
`about a plurality of licensed lawyers. Becker discloses wherein the database is
`
`configured to store information about a plurality of licensed lawyers (a master attorney
`
`database that resides on a central server; figure 2A; paragraph [0012]).
`
`It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date
`
`to modify the Moore invention to provide a database configured to store information
`
`about a plurality of licensed lawyers, as taught by Becker, in order to provide a means
`
`for expediting the process of obtaining information pertaining to the legal representation
`
`of clients during video conferencing.
`
`Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore
`
`in view of Bulrris and further in view of Yuen (US 2016/0140179).
`
`Claim 6, Moore, in view of Bulrris, discloses the mobile lawyer system of claim 1.
`
`Moore does not further disclose wherein the database is configured to store encrypted
`
`data. Huawei discloses wherein the database is configured to store encrypted data
`
`(a symmetrically encrypted database; abstract; figure 1 ; paragraph [0032]).
`
`It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date
`
`to modify the Moore invention to provide a database configured to store encrypted data,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/644,524
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`as taught by Yuen, in order to provide protection of information subject to the attorney-
`
`client privilege from unauthorized disclosure.
`
`Inquiry
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to Phung-Hoang J. Nguyen whose telephone number is
`
`(571)270-1949. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM EST - 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, Curt Kuntz can be reached on 571-272—7499. The fax phone number for the
`
`organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 -273-8300.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/644,524
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
`
`Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for
`
`published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
`
`Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
`
`For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should
`
`you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
`
`Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a
`
`USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information
`
`system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571 -272—1 000.
`
`/Phung-Hoang J Nguyen/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656
`
`

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

We are unable to display this document.

PTO Denying Access

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket