`
`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
`
`10/01/2018
`
`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)
`
`

`

`Advisory Action
`Before the Filing of an Appeal Brief
`
`Application No.
`15/644,524
`Examiner
`Phung-Hoang J. Nguyen
`
`Applicant(s)
`REDMON ET AL.
`Art Unit
`AIA (First Inventor to File) Status
`2656
`Yes
`
`--The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`THE REPLY FILED 05 September 2018 FAILS TO PLACE THIS APPLICATION IN CONDITION FOR ALLOWANCE.
`NO NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED
`
`1. X The reply was filed after a final rejection. No Notice of Appeal has been filed. To avoid abandonment of this application, applicant must timely file
`one of the following replies: (1) an amendment, affidavit, or other evidence, which places the application in condition for allowance;
`(2) a Notice of Appeal (with appeal fee) in compliance with 37 CFR 41.31; or (3) a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) in compliance with
`37 CFR 1.114 if this is a utility or plant application. Note that RCEs are not permitted in design applications. The reply must be filed within one of
`the following time periods:
`IX The period for reply expires gmonths from the mailing date of the final rejection.
`a)
`b) I] The period for reply expires on: (1) the mailing date of this Advisory Action; or (2) the date set forth in the final rejection, whichever is later.
`In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of the final rejection.
`0) I] A prior Advisory Action was mailed more than 3 months after the mailing date of the final rejection in response to a first after-final reply filed
`within 2 months of the mailing date of the final rejection. The current period for reply expires
`months from the mailing date of
`the prior Advisory Action or SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of the final rejection, whichever is earlier.
`Examiner Note: If box 1
`is checked, check either box (
`), (b) or (c). ONLY CHECK BOX (b) WHEN THIS ADVISORY ACTION IS THE
`FIRST RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S FIRST AFTER-FINAL REPLY WHICH WAS FILED WITHIN TWO MONTHS OF THE FINAL
`REJECTION. ONLY CHECK BOX (c) IN THE LIMITED SITUATION SET FORTH UNDER BOX (c). See MPEP 706.07(f).
`Extensions of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). The date on which the petition under 37 CFR 1.136(a) and the appropriate
`extension fee have been filed is the date for purposes of determining the period of extension and the corresponding amount of the fee. The
`appropriate extension fee under 37 CFR 1.17(a) is calculated from: (1) the expiration date of the shortened statutory period for reply originally
`set in the final Office action; or (2) as set forth in (b) or (0) above, if checked. Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the
`mailing date of the final rejection, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`NOTICE OF APPEAL
`
`. A brief in compliance with 37 CFR 41.37 must be filed within two months of the date of filing the
`2. I] The Notice of Appeal was filed on
`Notice of Appeal (37 CFR 41 .37(a)), or any extension thereof (37 CFR 41 .37(e)), to avoid dismissal of the appeal. Since a Notice of
`Appeal has been filed, any reply must be filed within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 41 .37( ).
`AMENDMENTS
`
`3. IX The proposed amendments filed after a final rejection, but prior to the date of filing a brief, will n_ot be entered because
`a)
`[XI They raise new issues that would require further consideration and/or search (see NOTE below);
`b) I] They raise the issue of new matter (see NOTE below);
`0) I] They are not deemed to place the application in better form for appeal by materially reducing or simplifying the issues for
`appeal; and/or
`d) D They present additional claims without canceling a corresponding number of finally rejected claims.
`NOTE: see below. (See 37 CFR 1.116 and 41 .33( )).
`4. I] The amendments are not in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121. See attached Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment (PTOL-324).
`5. I] Applicant’s reply has overcome the following rejection(s):
`6. I] Newly proposed or amended claim(s)
`would be allowable if submitted in a separate, timely filed amendment canceling the non-
`allowable claim( ).
`7. D For purposes of appeal, the proposed amendment(s): (a) I] will not be entered, or (b) I] will be entered, and an explanation of how the
`new or amended claims would be rejected is provided below or appended.
`AFFIDAVIT OR OTHER EVIDENCE
`
`8. I] A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`9. [I The affidavit or other evidence filed after final action, but before or on the date of filing a Notice of Appeal will n_ot be entered because
`applicant failed to provide a showing of good and sufficient reasons why the affidavit or other evidence is necessary and was not earlier
`presented. See 37 CFR 1.116( ).
`10. I] The affidavit or other evidence filed after the date of filing the Notice of Appeal, but prior to the date of filing a brief, will n_ot be entered
`because the affidavit or other evidence failed to overcome a_H rejections under appeal and/or appellant fails to provide a showing of good
`and sufficient reasons why it is necessary and was not earlier presented. See 37 CFR 41 .33(d)(1).
`1 1. I] The affidavit or other evidence is entered. An explanation of the status of the claims after entry is below or attached.
`REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION/OTHER
`
`12. I] The request for reconsideration has been considered but does NOT place the application in condition for allowance because:
`
`
`
`13. I] Note the attached Information Disclosure Sfafemenf(s). (PTO/SB/08) Paper No( ).
`14. I] Other:
`.
`STATUS OF CLAIMS
`
`15. The status of the claim(s) is (or will be) as follows:
`Claim(s) allowed:
`Claim(s) objected to:
`Claim(s) rejected: 1-8.
`Claim(s) withdrawn from consideration:
`
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-303 (Rev. 08-2013)
`
`/Phung-Hoang J Nguyen/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656
`
`Advisory Action Before the Filing of an Appeal Brief
`
`Part of Paper No. 20180926
`
`

`

`Continuation Sheet (PTOL-303)
`
`Application No.
`
`The amendment is not persuasive and has not overcome the current prior arts...The amend is ratherto clarify the 112 rejection but it does
`not change the substance of the rejection.
`
`Please note first that Hillstrom‘s system identifies each lawyer‘s background and qualitfication on specific type of law of specific jurisdiction
`(The legal background should include in what states the attorney is licensed, and the type of law that they specialize in, [0098]) where it
`selects particularly qualified lawyers to pursue, prosecute, defend and manage legal claims on behalf of clients, [0011]; where these
`particular qualified lawyers can accommodate/work on issues associated with different states or national laws to server users in disparate
`geographical locations, [0034] and this system provides real-time service, all the time, worldwide, [0024] where system will perform
`“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]”
`
`Applicant argues that Hillstrom does not select lawyer based on real-time Iocation.... Examier respectfully disagrees. Please see the
`reason above... and furthermore, the primary art, Moore teaches a GPS device will automatically identifies the vehicle's location, [0005] or
`device 10 automatically transmits data via the link including an identification of vehicle 12 and the subscriber, the geographic location of
`vehicle 12 based on GPS data, and a signal indicating the nature of the incident, [0020].
`
`Applicant concluded that the Office is improper and reached the conclusion based on the knowledge gleaned from the applicant‘s
`disclosure as applicant discussed per MPEM 2142...(Page. 11)
`
`In the same manner, examinerwishes to also provide:
`
`1] 7.37.03 Unpersuasive Argument: Hindsight Reasoning In response to applicant’s argument that the examiner’s conclusion of
`obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense
`necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the
`level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s
`disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
`
`The evidenve is unequivocally provided by MOORE and HILLSTROM above. Fact does not glean from the applicant‘s disclosure but from
`the combination of Moore and Hillstorm. Thus examiner respectfully sustains the rejection.
`
`

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