`Amendment Accompanying Reguest for Continued Examination
`
`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`Claims 1—8 are pending in this patent application, with claims 9—33 having been withdrawn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. Claim 1 has been amended to further clarify the claimed
`
`subject matter. Applicants respectfully request entry of the amendment.
`
`Claims 1, 5, and 7 remain 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 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
`
`is improper to combine references where the references teach away from their
`
`combination. In re Grasselli,7l3 F.2d 731, 743, 218 USPQ 769, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The
`
`combination of Moore and Hillstrom would effectively yield a system where a video
`
`communication connection would be made between a driver of a vehicle and a managing partner
`
`
`
`Application No.2 15/644,524
`Amendment Accompanying Reguest for Continued Examination
`
`Attorney Docket No.2 REDM-POOOlUS-NP
`Customer No.2 134449
`
`of the law firm. 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 good for everything it teaches, not just 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
`
`Wesslau, 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.
`
`the
`
`differences themselves would have been obvious, but whether the claimed invention as a
`
`whole would have been obvious. Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroqnip Corp, 713 F.2d 1530, 218 USPQ
`
`103 is
`
`not whether
`
`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 and Hilstrom 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
`
`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
`
`
`
`Application No.2 15/644,524
`Amendment Accompanying Reguest for Continued Examination
`
`Attorney Docket No.2 REDM-POOOlUS-NP
`Customer No.2 134449
`
`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.
`
`There is clearly no motivation for Moore—Hillstrom to specifically provide video
`
`consultation during the initial video connection while the client is in a vehicle. There is also no
`
`motivation for Hillstrom to select a Managing or Primary Lawyer based on the real—time location
`
`of a client. Clearly, motivation and rationale are absent from the cited art and is only present in
`
`Applicants’ specification. 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 is an exercise of impermissible hindsight. Accordingly, it is
`
`respectfully submitted that the combination is improper and respectfully requested that the
`
`rejection be withdrawn.
`
`Even if it were proper to combine Moore and Hillstrom, the resultant combination still does
`
`not teach or suggest, for example, “A mobile lawyer systemfor use during a traffic stop,” or “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.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Application No.2 15/644,524
`Amendment Accompanying Reguest for Continued Examination
`
`Attorney Docket No.2 REDM-POOOlUS-NP
`Customer No.2 134449
`
`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 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.
`
`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 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 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 claim 1 and recites
`
`additional limitations of “the database is configured to store encrypted data.” As discussed above,
`
`11
`
`
`
`Application No.2 15/644,524
`Amendment Accompanying Reguest for Continued Examination
`
`Attorney Docket No.2 REDM-POOOlUS-NP
`Customer No.2 134449
`
`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.
`
`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: October 9 2019
`
`Grable Martin Fulton PLLC
`
`Telephone: 469.878.8643
`Email 1: Wlean viii? Giff-3115350171
`
`
`
`
`Email 2: Docketing @ GCHub.com
`
`l2
`
`