`
`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
`
`06/ 14/201 8
`
`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.
`
`Examiner
`Art Unit
`AIA (First Inventor to File)
`Office Action Summary
`
`Phung-Hoang J. Nguyen $22” 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)IZI Responsive to communication(s) filed on 5/29/18.
`El A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2b)|:l This action is non-final.
`2a)|Z| This action is FINAL.
`3)I:I An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)|:| 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 Exparte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)IZI CIaim(s)1;8is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`is/are allowed.
`6)I:I Claim(s)
`7)|:| CIaim(s)_1-8is/are rejected.
`8)|:I Claim(s)_ is/are objected to.
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`9)I:I Claim((s)
`* 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
`hit z/thvvnusnto. ovI’ atentS/init events/
`
`
`
`iindex.‘s or send an inquiry to PPI-iieedback{®usgtc.00v.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)I:l The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)I:l 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:| Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)I:l All
`
`b)|:l Some” c)I:l None of the:
`
`1.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.|:l Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.|:| 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 (PTO-413)
`1) E Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`.
`.
`4) I:I Other'
`2) I] InformatIon DIsclosure 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 20180611
`
`
`
`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
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 1 12
`
`The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
`
`(a) IN GEN ERAL.—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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first
`
`paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains
`
`subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable
`
`one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to
`
`make and/or use the invention.
`
`The amended claim 1, inter alia, recites “wherein the remote server is configured
`
`to automatically determine a location of the vehicle, automatically identify a jurisdiction
`
`associated with the vehicle location, automatically identify at least one lawyer licensed
`
`in the identified jurisdiction, and automatically notify one of the at least one identified
`
`lawyer.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/644,524
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`A review of the current Specs does not appear showing that remote server
`
`performs such functions.
`
`Claims 2—8 either recite or inherit the deficiency. Thus the rejection is based on a
`
`best mode analysis (with great concern of claim deficiency).
`
`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:
`
`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, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over Moore et al (US 2015/0371456) in view of Hillstrom (U82002/0002469).
`
`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 at least one passenger in the
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/644,524
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`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,
`
`[0023]) ;
`
`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 a database (data captured by camera are transceiving
`
`to/from remote server 14, [0013, 0016]),
`
`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
`
`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 explicitly discuss “configured to store information about a
`
`plurality of lawyers licensed in a plurality of iurisdictions;
`
`wherein the remote server is configured to automatically determine a location of
`
`the vehicle, automatically identify a iurisdiction associated with the vehicle location,
`
`automatically identify at least one lawyer licensed in the identified iurisdiction, and
`
`automatically notify one of the at least one identified lawyer”.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/644,524
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`Hillstrom teaches a system where the database is configured to store information
`
`about a plurality of lawyers licensed in a plurality of iurisdictions (The system of the
`
`present invention will have in its database information about the attorneys,
`
`managing attorneys and practicing attorneys. Information should include
`
`personal information, name, address, how to be contacted. Other information
`
`concerning their legal background also should be inputted. The legal background
`
`should include in what states the attorney is licensed, and the type of law that
`
`they specialize in, [0098]).
`
`And furthermore, Hillstrom teaches “wherein the remote server is configured to
`
`automatically determine a location of the vehicle, automatically identify a iurisdiction
`
`associated with the vehicle location, automatically identify at least one lawyer licensed
`
`in the identified iurisdiction, and automatically notify one of the at least one identified
`
`Mlocated remotely”. (Please note that this limitation has 112 1st paragraph
`
`deficiency as shown above and thus is rejected as best understood; Hillstrom’s system
`
`is “to select particularly qualified lawyers to pursue, prosecute, defend and manage
`
`legal claims on behalf of clients, [0011]... Prospective client-users may create and
`
`submit a file on-line answering questions that will enable the system of the present
`
`invention to forward the file to an appropriate Managing Lawyer licensed in an
`
`appropriate jurisdiction, [0018]
`
`Prospective clients are enabled to request to be
`
`contacted by a Managing Lawyer licensed in an appropriate state or states for
`
`consultation concerning the particular prospective client and claims, [0022] and where
`
`these particular qualified lawyers can accommodate/work on issues associated with
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/644,524
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`different states or national laws to server users in disparate geographical locations,
`
`[0034}
`
`While Moore's system is capable of notifying the remote server 14 for
`
`communication with the customer service agent using terminal 24 for communication (If
`
`in-vehicle device 10 detects that vehicle 12 has broken down and is inoperable, device
`
`10 sends a signal to server 14 indicating the nature of the mechanical problem and the
`
`location of vehicle 12 as determined by GPS data, [0021 -0023] and not just live voice
`
`but also live video between the passenger and the customer representative, [0024]).
`
`Moore does not explicitly spell out
`
`notify an attorney located remotely; and the
`
`display screen configured to automatically live-stream a video image of the remote
`
`lawyer, and the at least one video camera is configured to automatically live-stream
`
`video captured by the at least one video camera for viewing by the remote lawyer and
`
`
`for storage in the remote database, where the at least one mobile device being
`
`configured to enable bi-directional audio and video communication between the remote
`
`lawyer and the at least one passenger”
`
`Hillstrom teaches the “recording and transmission of live video and audio data of
`
`proceeding, recording and transmission of live video and audio data of proceedings,
`
`including depositions, court hearings, trials, conferences and the like to Managing
`
`Lawyers and Clients, [0067]”
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/644,524
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`Therefore ,
`
`it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective
`
`filing date to incorporate the teaching of Hillstrom 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 5, The mobile lawyer system of claim 1, wherein the database is
`
`configured to store information about a plurality of licensed lawyers, including in
`
`
`which iurisdiction where each lawyer is licensed, and contact information for each
`
`lawyer (see claim 1 or Hillstrom, [0098]).
`
`Claim 7. The mobile lawyer system of claim 1, wherein the remote lawyer is able
`
`to receive and view the live-streamed video data of the at least one passenger on a
`
`computing device, which is also configured to capture video images of the remote
`
`lawyer and transmit them to the remote server (Please see claim 1).
`
`Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Moore in view of Hillstrom and further in view of Hatori et al (US 2015/0015706).
`
`Claim 2, Moore, in view of Hillstrom, discloses the mobile lawyer system of claim
`
`1. Moore does not further disclose wherein the at least one video camera comprises a
`
`360-degree h+gh—definitien video camera configured to capture video images in a
`
`plurality of directions.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/644,524
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`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.
`
`Claim 8, Moore in view of Hillstrom, 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 at least one passenger in the
`
`vehicle and surrounding environment.
`
`Hatori teaches “three vehicle exterior cameras 40a, 40b and 400. 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
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/644,524
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`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 Hillstrom and further in view of Hassan Zureikat (US 2016/0173742).
`
`Claim 3, Moore, in view of Hillstrom, 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
`
`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.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/644,524
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore
`
`in view of Hillstrom and further in view of Mokashi (US 9,288,446).
`
`Claim 4, Moore, in view of Hillstrom, 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.
`
`Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore
`
`in view of Hillstrom and further in view of Yuen (US 2016/0140179).
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/644,524
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`Claim 6, Moore, in view of Hillstrom, discloses the mobile lawyer system of claim
`
`1. Moore does not further disclose wherein the database is configured to store
`
`encrypted data. Yuen 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,
`
`as taught by Yuen, in order to provide protection of information subject to the attorney-
`
`client privilege from unauthorized disclosure.
`
`7.96 - Citation of the Relevant Prior Arts
`
`The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
`
`applicant's disclosure:
`
`Pertinent art of CN 205071154 does teach 360-degree high definition camera
`
`regarding claim 2.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant's arguments with respect to the current claims have been considered
`
`but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/644,524
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`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
`
`CFR1.136(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
`
`extension fee 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 date of this final action.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to Phung-Hoang J. Nguyen whose telephone number is
`
`(571 )270-1 949. 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.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/644,524
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 2656
`
`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.
`
`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—1000.
`
`/Phung-Hoang J Nguyen/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656
`
`
![](/site_media/img/document_icon.png)
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ ChargeStill Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
![](/site_media/img/error_icon.png)
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.
![](/site_media/img/error_icon.png)
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
![](/site_media/img/error_icon.png)
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.
![](/site_media/img/document_icon.png)
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.
![](/site_media/img/document_icon.png)
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
![](/site_media/img/error_icon.png)
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