Application No.2 15/644,524
`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`Claims 1—8 are pending in this patent application, with claims 9—33 having been withdrawn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
`
`

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