`Response to Office Action Dated February 26, 2019
`
`Attorney Docket No.2 REDM-POOOlUS-NP
`Customer No.2 134449
`
`REMARKS
`
`Claims 1—8 are pending in this patent application, with claims 9—33 having been withdrawn
`
`as being directed to a non—elected group. Minor amendments have been made to claim 1 to further
`
`clarify the claimed subject matter. Applicants requests entry of the claim amendment.
`
`Claims
`
`1, 5, and 7 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Moore (US
`
`2015/0371456) and Hillstrom (US 2002/0002469). This rejection is respectfully traversed.
`
`Amended claim 1 recites (emphasis added):
`
`A mobile lawyer system comprising:
`1.
`at least one video camera configured for mounting inside the passenger
`compartment of a vehicle and capture video images of at least one passenger pass
`in the vehicle;
`
`a display screen configured for mounting inside the passenger compartment
`of a vehicle;
`
`a remote server and a database configured to store information about a
`plurality of lawyers licensed in a plurality of jurisdictions;
`a mobile device executing a mobile application and in wireless
`communication with the video camera and display screen, configured, upon
`command from at least one passenger, to communicate with the remote server,
`wherein the remote server is configured to automatically and immediately
`determine a location of the vehicle, automatically and immediately identify a
`jurisdiction associated with the vehicle location, automatically and immediately
`identify at
`least one lawyer
`licensed in the identified jurisdiction, and
`automatically and immediately notify the at least one identified lawyer; and
`the display screen configured to automatically and immediately live—stream
`a video image of the at least one identified lawyer, and the at least one video camera
`is configured to automatically and immediately live—stream video captured by the
`at least one video camera for viewing by the at least one identified 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 at
`least one identified lawyer and the at least one passenger.
`
`Applicants respectfully submit that the combination of Moore and Hillstrom is improper
`
`because the Office Action relies on information gleaned solely from Applicants’ specification.
`
`MPEP § 2142 states that “impermissible hindsight must be avoided and the legal conclusion
`
`must be reached on the basis of the facts gleaned from the prior art” and not from only
`
`Applicants’ disclosure. (emphasis added). “Nonobviousness can be shown when a person of
`
`8
`
`
`
`Application No.2 15/644,524
`Response to Office Action Dated February 26, 2019
`
`Attorney Docket No.2 REDM-P0001US-NP
`Customer No.2 134449
`
`ordinary skill in the art would not have reasonably predicted the claimed invention based on the
`
`prior art, and the resulting invention would not have been expected.” MPEP § 2145. Applicants
`
`believe that the Examiner has used the claims as a road map to pick and choose elements of prior
`
`art references to arrive at the combination. There is no motivation or suggestion within these
`
`references to include or implement all of the limitations in claim 1 because the need for these
`
`limitations is lacking for each of the intended goals and purposes of the prior art.
`
`Further, MPEP states that “[i]t is improper to combine references where the references
`
`teach away from their combination. In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743, 218 USPQ 769, 779 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1983).” MPEP § 2145 (emphasis added). “A prior art reference that ‘teaches away’ from the
`
`claimed invention is a significant factor to be considered in determining obviousness.” Id.
`
`(emphasis added). Moore teaches a system that is initiated by “an incident signal from a vehicle”
`
`that indicates a vehicle breakdown or collision. Paras. [0013] and [0027]. A human operator may
`
`then “initiate voice communication” with the driver of the vehicle or view the scene. Paras. [0021]
`
`and [0016]. Therefore, Moore specifically teaches away from a driver—initiated communication
`
`session. Hillstrom teaches a system that enables a Managing Lawyer to respond to an inquiry
`
`“within a prescribed number of hours of the initial contact.” Para. [0026]. The response by the
`
`Managing Lawyer is “[a] normal
`
`telephonic and/or in—person consultation.” Para.
`
`[0026].
`
`Therefore, Hillstrom teaches away from a system that responds immediately upon user command
`
`because of urgent need. Further Hillstrom teaches a system that requires a Managing Lawyer’s
`
`manual/in—person action to respond to the initial inquiry, as well as subsequent selection of
`
`counsel. Therefore, Hillstrom explicitly teaches away from the limitations of claim 1 that require
`
`automatic selection of at least one lawyer who appears immediately by video. Accordingly, it is
`
`improper to combine Moore and Hillstrom because these references explicitly teach away from
`
`their combination.
`
`The MPEP also states that “the claimed combination cannot change the principle of
`
`operation of the primary reference or render the reference inoperable for its intended purpose.”
`
`MPEP § 2145 (emphasis added). Applicants respectfully submit that the addition of Hillstrom to
`
`Moore substantially changes its principle of operation and renders it inoperable for its intended
`
`purpose. Moore requires real—time communication between the user and a remote operator when
`
`9
`
`
`
`Application No.2 15/644,524
`Response to Office Action Dated February 26, 2019
`
`Attorney Docket No.2 REDM-P0001US-NP
`Customer No.2 134449
`
`the system automatically detects the occurrence of vehicle breakdown or accident. However,
`
`Hillstrom teaches a Managing Lawyer responding to an inquiry “within a prescribed number of
`
`hours of the initial contact.” Para. [0026]. The response by the Managing Lawyer is “[a] normal
`
`telephonic and/or in—person consultation.” Para.
`
`[0026]. After the initial consultation,
`
`the
`
`Managing Lawyer “negotiates and executes a retainer agreement” with the client, and thereafter
`
`selects a Primary Lawyer who can provide legal service to the client. Para. [0026]. Therefore, the
`
`proposed combination of Hillstrom with Moore would fundamentally “change the principle of
`
`operation” of Moore, and render Moore essentially inoperable for its intended purpose, since
`
`Moore’ s system is intended to provide real—time assistance to a driver who has a vehicle breakdown
`
`or accident. To require the driver in Moore to wait for a few hours for assistance entirely defeats
`
`the purpose and function of Moore’s system. Therefore, the combination is improper.
`
`Even if it were proper to combine Moore and Hillstrom, the combination fails to teach or
`
`suggest all of the limitations of amended claim 1. Amended claim 1 recites (emphasis added):
`
`A mobile lawyer system comprising:
`1.
`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
`vehicle;
`
`a display screen configured for mounting inside the passenger compartment
`of a vehicle;
`
`a remote server and a database configured to store and access information
`about a plurality of lawyers licensed in a plurality of jurisdictions;
`a mobile device executing a mobile application and in wireless
`communication with the video camera and display screen, configured, upon
`command from the at least one passenger, to communicate with the remote server,
`wherein the remote server is configured to automatically and immediately
`determine a location of the vehicle, automatically and immediately identify a
`jurisdiction associated with the vehicle location, automatically and immediately
`identify at least one lawyer licensed in the identified jurisdiction, and automatically
`and immediately notify the at least one identified lawyer; and
`the display screen configured to automatically and immediately live—stream
`a video image of the at least one identified lawyer, and the at least one video camera
`is configured to automatically and immediately live—stream video captured by the
`at least one video camera for viewing by the at least one identified 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 at
`least one identified lawyer and the at least one passenger.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Application No.2 15/644,524
`Response to Office Action Dated February 26, 2019
`
`Attorney Docket No.2 REDM-P0001US-NP
`Customer No.2 134449
`
`Applicants respectfully submit that Moore combined with Hillstrom do not teach or suggest
`
`all of the claimed limitations in claim 1. Moore teaches a system that is initiated by “an incident
`
`signal from a vehicle” that indicates a vehicle breakdown or collision. Paras. [0013] and [0027].
`
`Therefore, Moore specifically teaches away from a driver—initiated communication session.
`
`Although Moore’s system conveys a GPS location of the vehicle some time during the
`
`communication session, the location information is used by a customer service agent who may
`
`then manually dispatch assistance to the vehicle’s location if needed. See para. [0021]. Therefore,
`
`Moore’s system does not “automatically and immediately” communicate the location information
`
`upon receiving a command from the user. Hillstrom teaches a system that enables a Managing
`
`Lawyer to respond to an inquiry “within a prescribed number of hours of the initial contact.” Para.
`
`[0026]. The response by the Managing Lawyer is “[a] normal
`
`telephonic and/or in—person
`
`consultation.” Para. [0026]. Although Hillstrom discusses matching “clients and their legal matters
`
`to the lawyers” based on “the jurisdiction where the legal matter occurred,” Hillstrom’s system
`
`does not “automatically identify at least one lawyer licensed in a jurisdiction that corresponds to
`
`the current location of the mobile device.” If forcefully combined, the resultant system would be
`
`one that receives an incident signal from a vehicle indicative of a vehicular breakdown or accident,
`
`notifies a Managing Lawyer, who may respond to the request within a prescribed number of hours
`
`to conduct a telephonic or in—person consultation, and then selects a Primary Lawyer who may the
`
`provide legal service to the driver, after the negotiation and execution of a retainer agreement.
`
`Accordingly, for at least the reasons set forth above, amended claim 1 is patentable over Moore—
`
`Hillstrom. Claims 5 and 7 depending from claim 1 are thus also patentable for at least the same
`
`I'CElSOl’lS.
`
`Claim 2 has also been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Moore, Hillstrom, and Hatori
`
`(US 2015/0015706). This rejection is respectfully traversed. Claim 2 depends from amended claim
`
`1 and recites additional limitations of the 360—degree high definition video camera. Hatori does
`
`not remedy any of the deficiencies in Moore or Hillstrom. Accordingly, claim 2 is also patentable
`
`for at least the same reasons set forth above.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Application No.2 15/644,524
`Response to Office Action Dated February 26, 2019
`
`Attorney Docket No.2 REDM-POOOlUS-NP
`Customer No.2 134449
`
`Claim 8 has also been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Moore, Hillstrom, and Hatori.
`
`This rejection is respectfully traversed. Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and recites additional
`
`limitations of at
`
`least one video camera configured for mounting outside the passenger
`
`compartment. Hatori does not remedy any of the deficiencies in Moore or Hillstrom. Accordingly,
`
`claim 8 is also patentable for at least the same reasons set forth above.
`
`Claim 3 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Moore, Hillstrom, and Hassan
`
`Zureikat (US 2016/0173742). This rejection is respectfully traversed. Claim 3 depends from claim
`
`1 and recites additional limitations of “the at least one video camera comprises a video camera
`
`mounted on a drone.” Zureikat discloses drone—mounted cameras but does not remedy any of the
`
`deficiencies in Moore and Hillstrom. Accordingly, claim 3 is also patentable for at least the same
`
`reasons set forth above.
`
`Claim 4 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Moore, Hillstrom, and Mokashi (US
`
`9288446). This rejection is respectfully traversed. Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and recites
`
`additional limitations of “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 does not
`
`remedy any of the deficiencies in Moore and Hillstrom. Accordingly, claim 4 is also patentable
`
`for at least the same reasons set forth above.
`
`Claim 6 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Moore, Hillstrom, and Yuen (US
`
`2016/0140179). This rejection is respectfully traversed. Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and recites
`
`additional limitations of “the database is configured to store encrypted data.” As discussed above,
`
`Yuen does not remedy any of the deficiencies in Moore or Hillstrom. Accordingly, claim 6 is also
`
`patentable for at least the same reasons set forth above.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Application No.2 15/644,524
`Response to Office Action Dated February 26, 2019
`
`Attorney Docket No.2 REDM-P0001US-NP
`Customer No.2 134449
`
`In view of the above remarks, Applicants respectfully request entry of the claim
`
`amendment, and allow the claims in consideration of the above remarks. The Examiner is invited
`
`to call the undersigned if a telephone call would expedite or aid the prosecution and examination
`
`of this patent application.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`Wei Wei Jeang
`Registration No. 33,305
`
`Dated: May 6: 2019
`
`Grable Martin Fulton PLLC
`
`Telephone: 469.878.8643
`Email: WJeang @ GCHub.com
`
`l3
`
`
![](/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