`Response to Office Action Dated February 28, 2018
`
`Attorney Docket No.2 REDM-P0001US-NP
`Customer No.2 134449
`
`REMARKS
`
`Claims 1—33 are pending in this patent application, however, claims 9—33 are hereby
`
`withdrawn as being directed to a non—elected group. Claims 1, 5, 7, and 8 have been amended to
`
`clarify and highlight the claimed subject matter. Early examination and allowance of the amended
`
`claims in view of the remarks that follow are respectfully requested.
`
`Claim 1 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Moore (US 2015/0371456) and
`
`Bulrris (US 2005/0128283). 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 ofjurisdictions;
`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 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 automatically notify one of the at least one identified lawyer
`located remotely; and
`the display screen configured to automatically live—stream a video image of
`the remote lawyer, 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
`remote 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 remote lawyer and the at least one passenger.
`
`The added subject matter finds support in paras. [0011], [0013]—[0015] of the specification.
`
`Applicants respectfully submit that Moore combined with Bulrris do not teach or suggest the
`
`claimed limitations. For example, Moore—Bulrris does not teach or suggest “a mobile device
`
`executing a mobile application and in wireless communication with the video camera and display
`
`screen, configured, upon commandfrom at least one passenger, to communicate with the remote
`
`
`
`Application No.2 15/644,524
`Response to Office Action Dated February 28, 2018
`
`Attorney Docket No.2 REDM-P0001US-NP
`Customer No.2 134449
`
`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 automatically notify one
`
`of the at least one identified lawyer located remotely.” Although Moore discloses providing a
`
`video camera in the vehicle and determining the location of the vehicle, Moore system is limited
`
`to providing a connection between the vehicle’s passenger to a customer service agent, who may
`
`then manually dispatch assistance if needed. See para. [0021]. Bulrris teaches a video conference
`
`system for an attorney and her client who is in custody. Although Bulrris’s system contemplates a
`
`private videoconferencing system so that a client may speak with his/her attorney, the attomey—
`
`client relationship has been established prior to the videoconferencing session and the identity of
`
`the attorney is known to the client.
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that the combination of Morris and Bulrris 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” (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 not 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).
`
`In the present case, the Office Action relied on a desire “to provide an involvement of a
`
`remote attorney with full complement set—up for live audio—video stream for consultation between
`
`the remote attorney and vehicle’s passengers to preserve and protect the integrity of the legal
`
`process and also to store their discussion for future use and court proceeding and transparency of
`
`an event in real—time communication” to allegedly support the combination of Moore and Bulrris.
`
`However, there is no motivation in Moore to “preserve and protect the integrity of the legal process
`
`and also to store their discussion for future use and court proceeding and transparency of an event.”
`
`Bulrris doesn’t contemplate the client being anywhere but in prison and thus could not be in the
`
`courthouse, thus providing the motivation for Bulrris’s system. The motivation and rationale is
`
`
`
`Application No.2 15/644,524
`Response to Office Action Dated February 28, 2018
`
`Attorney Docket No.2 REDM-P0001US-NP
`Customer No.2 134449
`
`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—Bulrris 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 Bulrris, the resultant combination still does
`
`not
`
`teach or suggest “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 determine a location of the vehicle, automatically identify a
`
`jurisdiction associated with the vehicle location, automatically identify at least one lawyer
`
`licensed in the identifiedjurisdiction, and automatically notify one of the at least one identified
`
`lawyer located remotely.”
`
`Claim 1 also recites the limitation “a remote server and a database configured to store
`
`information about a plurality of lawyers licensed in a plurality of jurisdictions.” Becker (US
`
`2014/0214702) was cited in combination with Moore and Bulrris to form the basis of rejection for
`
`claim 5, which included the limitation of a database that “is configured to store information about
`
`a plurality of licensed lawyers.” Although Becker discloses storing lawyers’ information in a
`
`database, that information is used to verify authenticity when a lawyer accesses the system to
`
`submit “debtor data for a client debtor, i.e., a client that has retained the services of the authorized
`
`attorney in anticipation of filing a claim for bankruptcy protection.” Para. [0012]. In other words,
`
`Becker discloses a situation where an attorney—client relationship has already been established.
`
`Moore—Bulrris—Becker does not teach or suggest the recited limitation, “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 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 automatically notify one
`
`10
`
`
`
`Application No.2 15/644,524
`Response to Office Action Dated February 28, 2018
`
`Attorney Docket No.2 REDM-POOOlUS-NP
`Customer No.2 134449
`
`ofthe at least one identified lawyer located remotely.” There is no rationale to combine the lawyer
`
`database disclosed in Becker with the emergency assistance system of Moore and prison
`
`videoconference system of Bulrris. Both Bulrris and Becker cover the situation where there is
`
`already an existing engagement between the lawyer and the client. Therefore, there is no need or
`
`rationale to “automatically identify a jurisdiction associated with the vehicle location,
`
`automatically identify at
`
`least one lawyer
`
`licensed in the identified jurisdiction, and
`
`automatically notify one of the at least one identified lawyer located remotely.”
`
`Accordingly, for at least the reasons set forth above, amended claim 1 is patentable over
`
`Moore—Bulrris and Moore—Bulrris—Becker. Claims 2—8 depending from claim 1 are thus also
`
`patentable for at least the same reasons.
`
`Claim 7 has also been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Moore (US 2015/0371456) and
`
`Bulrris (US 2005/0128283). This rejection is respectfully traversed. Claim 7 depends from claim
`
`1 and recites additional limitations. Claim 7 is therefore also patentable over Moore—Bulrris for
`
`substantially the same reasons as recited above.
`
`Claim 2 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Moore (US 2015/0371456), Bulrris
`
`(US 2005/0128283), 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, Bulrris, or Becker. Accordingly,
`
`claim 2 is also patentable for at least the same reasons set forth above.
`
`Claim 8 also has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Moore (US 2015/0371456),
`
`Bulrris (US 2005/0128283), and Hatori (US 2015/0015706). 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 of the vehicle and capture video
`
`images of at least one passenger in the vehicle and surrounding environment.” Hatori does not
`
`remedy any of the deficiencies in Moore, Bulrris, or Becker. Accordingly, claim 8 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 28, 2018
`
`Attorney Docket No.2 REDM-POOOlUS-NP
`Customer No.2 134449
`
`Claim 3 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Moore (US 2015/0371456), Bulrris
`
`(US 2005/0128283), and Hassan Zureikat (US 2016/0173742). This rejection is respectfully
`
`traversed. Claim 3 depends 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, Bulrris, or Becker. 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 (US 2015/0371456), Bulrris
`
`(US 2005/0128283), 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, Bulrris, or Becker.
`
`Accordingly, claim 4 is also patentable for at least the same reasons set forth above.
`
`Claim 5 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Moore (US 2015/0371456), Bulrris
`
`(US 2005/0128283), and Becker (US 2014/0214702). This rejection is respectfully traversed.
`
`Claim 5 depends claim 1 and recites additional limitations of “the database is configured to store
`
`information about a plurality of licensed lawyers, including in which jurisdiction where each
`
`lawyer is licensed, and contact information for each lawyer.” As discussed above, Becker does not
`
`remedy any of the deficiencies in Moore or Bulrris. Accordingly, claim 5 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 (US 2015/0371456), Bulrris
`
`(US 2005/0128283), 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,
`
`Bulrris, or Becker. 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 28, 2018
`
`Attorney Docket No.2 REDM-P0001US-NP
`Customer No.2 134449
`
`In view of the above remarks, Applicants respectfully request an early examination of
`
`claims 1—8 on the merits 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 28, 2018
`
`Grable Martin Fulton PLLC
`
`Telephone: 469.878.8643
`Email: WJeang@GCHub.com
`
`l3
`
`