`
`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
`
`