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
`
`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`withdrawn as being directed to a non—elected group.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
`
`

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