`Response to Office Action Dated December 13, 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`Claims 1—8 are pending in this patent application, with claims 9—33 having been withdrawn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. Applicants respectfully request reconsideration of the
`
`claims in view of the remarks below.
`
`Claims
`
`1, 5, and 7 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Moore (US
`
`2015/0371456) in view of Hillstrom (US 2002/0002469) and Kelts (US 2018/0012324) or Thorpe
`
`(US 2018/0018831). This rejection is respectfully traversed. Claim 1 recites (emphasis added):
`
`A mobile lawyer system for use during a traffic stop comprising:
`1.
`a mobile device having at least one video camera configured for mounting
`inside the passenger compartment of a vehicle and capture video images of a driver
`of in the vehicle;
`
`the mobile device further incorporating a display screen viewable by the
`driver of the vehicle;
`
`a remote server and a database configured to store information about a
`plurality of lawyers licensed in at least one jurisdiction;
`the mobile device executing a mobile application configured, upon
`command from the driver of the vehicle, to communicate with the remote server,
`
`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 immediately automatically directly notify the at
`least one
`identified lawyer for assistance; and
`the display screen of the mobile device configured to live—stream a video
`image of the at least one identified lawyer for presentation to the driver of the
`vehicle, 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 at least one
`identified lawyer and for storage in the remote database, where the at least one
`mobile device being configured to automatically enable bi—directional audio and
`video communication between the at least one identified lawyer and the at least one
`passenger.
`
`It has been established previously that Moore teaches a live video communication channel
`
`between a driver of a vehicle and a customer service representative who monitors for vehicular
`
`accidents or incidents so that assistance such as a tow truck may be provided. Hillstrom, on the
`
`other hand, discloses a system having a database that stores “information about a client’s case and
`
`information about attomey’s backgrounds.” Hillstrom’ s system collects the client’s information to
`
`
`
`Application No.2 15/644,524
`Response to Office Action Dated December 13, 2019
`
`Attorney Docket No.2 REDM-P0001US-NP
`Customer No.2 134449
`
`create a data file and provides this file to the Managing Lawyer. Hillstrom’s system makes a match
`
`of the “client to an attorney based on said information” in the database. Hillstrom does not disclose
`
`or suggest performing this match in real—time when the client needs legal services. In fact,
`
`Hillstrom teaches a Managing Lawyer as an intermediary between the client and the lawyers who
`
`submit bids for client referral. Para. [0093]. Hillstrom does not disclose or suggest performing this
`
`attomey—client match based on the current location of a vehicle in which the client is riding. In
`
`fact, Hillstrom does not mention a vehicle location at all because it’s irrelevant. There is absolutely
`
`no motivation or suggestion to combine Moore and Hillstrom for any reason whatsoever.
`
`The Examiner has added, alternatively, Kelts and Thorpe in combination with Moore and
`
`Hillstrom. Kelts discloses a “communication flow” that enables a driver who has been pulled over
`
`by a police officer to provide license and other identification information to the officer so that the
`
`officer can remain inside the police vehicle. Therefore, Kelts’s communication flow involves the
`
`police vehicle and driver’s vehicle and uses “a proximity—based communication channel.”
`
`Although Kelts teaches that the officer may initiate a search within a Criminal Justice Information
`
`System (CJIS) to look up and validate the driver’s license number,
`
`there is absolutely no
`
`motivation or suggestion by Kelts for the police officer to identify and locate a lawyer to represent
`
`the driver. Kelts does not disclose or suggest consulting a database that stores lawyer information
`
`to identify a lawyer that may represent the driver.
`
`Thorpe suffers the same deficiencies. Thorpe also teaches a system that “helps to reduce
`
`the interactions between police officers
`
`and vehicle occupants by facilitating the exchange of
`
`licensing information and traffic ticket information without the need of a police officer exiting
`
`his/her vehicle.” Para. [0007]. Again, Thorpe teaches a communication path between the police
`
`vehicle and driver’ s vehicle to obtain the driver’ s credential information, and the use of a database
`
`to look up drivers’ licensing information, there is absolutely no motivation or suggestion by Thorpe
`
`for the police officer to identify and locate a lawyer to represent the driver. Thorpe does not
`
`disclose or suggest consulting a database that stores lawyer information to identify a lawyer that
`
`may represent the driver.
`
`
`
`Application No.2 15/644,524
`Response to Office Action Dated December 13, 2019
`
`Attorney Docket No.2 REDM-P0001US-NP
`Customer No.2 134449
`
`It is worthwhile to remind the Examiner that it 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). Moore teaches real—time communication between the driver and a
`
`customer service representative. Hillstrom teaches a system that matches a lawyer to a client matter
`
`stored in a database. Kelts/Thorpe teaches a communication channel between a police officer and
`
`the driver, where the police officer may access a remote database. The combination of Moore,
`
`Hillstrom and Kelts/Thorpe would effectively yield a system where a video communication
`
`connection would be made between a driver of a vehicle and a police officer, where the driver
`
`provides name and driver’s license information to the police officer for verification and issuance
`
`of a ticket. Thereafter, the managing lawyer system matches a lawyer in its firm to the driver based
`
`on the driver data stored in its database. The selection of the managing partner of the firm is n_ot
`
`based on the location of the driver. The managing partner would obtain client intake information
`
`from the driver during the video session. Thereafter, after disconnecting the video session with
`
`the driver, the managing partner prepares an engagement letter to send to the driver, and as signs a
`
`lawyer from the law firm to handle the driver’s legal matter. The examiner must consider the prior
`
`art in its entirety; the prior art is goodfor everything it teaches, notjust the invention it describes
`
`or claims. “It is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to pick and choose from any
`
`one reference only so much of it as will support a given position, to the exclusion of other parts
`
`necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art.” In re Wesslan, 353 F.2d 238, 241 (CCPA 1965); see also Bausch & Lamb, Inc. v. Barnes-
`
`Hind/Hydrocnrve, Inc., 796 F.2d 443, 449—49 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (holding that the district court, by
`
`failing to consider a prior art reference in its entirety, ignored portions of the reference that led
`
`away
`
`from obviousness). The
`
`question
`
`under 35 U.S.C.
`
`103 is
`
`not whether
`
`the
`
`differences themselves would have been obvious, but whether
`
`whole would have been obvious. Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroqnip Corp, 713 F.2d 1530, 218 USPQ
`
`the claimed invention g
`
`871 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Schenck v. N0rtr0n Corp., 713 F.2d 782, 218 USPQ 698 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
`
`Without using the pending claims as a recipe,
`
`the combination of Moore, Hilstrom, and
`
`Kelts/Thorpe would not have arrived at the claimed invention.
`
`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” (emphasis
`
`10
`
`
`
`Application No.2 15/644,524
`Response to Office Action Dated December 13, 2019
`
`Attorney Docket No.2 REDM-P0001US-NP
`Customer No.2 134449
`
`added). “‘Any judgement on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on
`
`hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does n_ot include
`
`knowledge gleaned only from Applicants’ disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper’” (MPEP
`
`§ 2145(X)(A), quoting In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971), (emphasis added).
`
`Purdue highlights that while KSR has made it more difficult to make an improper hindsight
`
`argument, in that the TSM test is merely one test that may be used to determine obviousness, the
`
`bedrock principles of avoiding improper hindsight must still be adhered to. Specifically, (1) there
`
`must be a reason to combine elements of separate references in the specific manner as claimed;
`
`and (2) the problem to be solved must be gleaned from the prior art, and not from the Applicant's
`
`specification.
`
`(See, e.g., Purdue at 10—11). Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Depomed, Inc. (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016). Although Hillstrom discusses using videoconferencing for depositions or other
`
`communication purposes, it is irrelevant to the limitations set forth in the pending claims. Hillstrom
`
`desires to solve the problem of identifying and assigning a lawyer to a client matter stored in a
`
`database. Kelts and Thorpe are preoccupied with the problem of a police officer obtaining driver’s
`
`licensing information during a traffic stop. Linking the driver to a lawyer via videoconferencing
`
`does not address
`
`the problem solved by Hillstrom.
`
`Indeed, Hillstrom only mentions
`
`videoconferencing in the context of depositions, court hearings, trials, conferences. Para. [0067].
`
`Linking the driver to a lawyer via videoconferencing does not address the problem of preventing
`
`injury or harm to the police officer disclosed in Kelts/Thorpe.
`
`There is clearly no motivation or
`
`rationale for Moore—Hillstrom—Kelts/Thorpe to
`
`specifically provide video consultation during the initial video connection between the driver and
`
`a lawyer while the driver is in a vehicle. Due to the lack of motivation and rationale in the cited
`
`art and the fact that it is only present on the record in Applicants’ specification, it logically follows
`
`that the reasoning has been improperly imported from Applicants’ own specification and that the
`
`combination of Moore—Hillstrom—Kelts/Thorpe is an exercise of impermissible hindsight.
`
`Accordingly,
`
`it is respectfully submitted that the combination is improper and respectfully
`
`requested that the rejection be withdrawn.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Application No.2 15/644,524
`Response to Office Action Dated December 13, 2019
`
`Attorney Docket No.2 REDM-POOOlUS-NP
`Customer No.2 134449
`
`Even if
`
`it were proper
`
`to combine Moore—Hillstrom—Kelts/Thorpe,
`
`the resultant
`
`combination still does not teach or suggest, for example, “the mobile device executing a mobile
`
`application configured, upon command from the driver of the vehicle, to communicate with the
`
`remote server, 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 immediately automatically
`
`directly notify the at least one identified lawyer for assistance.”
`
`Therefore, claim 1 and claims 5 and 7 depending from claim 1 are patentable over Moore—
`
`Hillstrom—Kelts/Thorpe.
`
`Claim 2 has also been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Moore—Hillstrom—Kelts/Thorpe
`
`and Hatori (US 2015/0015706). This rejection is respectfully traversed. Claim 2 depends claim 1
`
`and recites additional limitations of the 360—degree high definition video camera. Hatori does not
`
`remedy any of the deficiencies in Moore—Hillstrom—Kelts/Thorpe. Accordingly, claim 2 is also
`
`patentable for at least the same reasons set forth above.
`
`Claim 8 has also been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Moore—Hillstrom—Kelts/Thorpe
`
`and Hatori. This rejection is respectfully traversed. Claim 8 depends 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—Hillstrom—Kelts/Thorpe.
`
`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—Kelts/Thorpe 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—Hillstrom—Kelts/Thorpe. Accordingly, claim 3 is also patentable for
`
`at least the same reasons set forth above.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Application No.2 15/644,524
`Response to Office Action Dated December 13, 2019
`
`Attorney Docket No.2 REDM-P0001US-NP
`Customer No.2 134449
`
`Claim 4 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Moore—Hillstrom—Kelts/Thorpe and
`
`Mokashi (US 9288446). This rejection is respectfully traversed. Claim 4 depends 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—Hillstrom—Kelts/Thorpe. 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—Kelts/Thorpe and
`
`Yuen (US 2016/0140179). This rejection is respectfully traversed. Claim 6 depends 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—Hillstrom—Kelts/Thorpe.
`
`Accordingly, claim 6 is also patentable for at least the same reasons set forth above.
`
`In view of the above remarks, Applicants respectfully request early allowance of 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.
`
`Dated: May 27, 2020
`
`Grable Martin Fulton PLLC
`
`Telephone: 469.878.8643
`Email 1: W'Jean7f®GCH11b£ofii
`
`
`Email 2: Docketing @ GCHub.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`Wei Wei Jeang
`Registration No. 33,305
`
`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