`Response to Office Action Dated June 14, 2018
`
`Attorney Docket No.2 REDM-P0001US-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`Claims 1—8 are pending in this patent application, with claims 9—33 having been withdrawn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. Minor amendments have been made to claims 1 and 7 to
`
`further clarify the claimed subject matter. Applicants requests entry of the claim amendment.
`
`Claim 1 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §lll2 for lack of enablement. Applicants
`
`respectfully traverse this rejection. Applicants have made slight amendments to claim 1 to further
`
`clarify the invention:
`
`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 the at least one identified lawyer;
`
`These limitations have ample support
`
`in the following excerpted description from the
`
`specification:
`
`0 All of the captured live—stream video data (including audio) are transmitted via a
`global computer network (Internet) and/or cellular mobile telephone network 14 to
`a remote server 16 and stored in a database 18, preferably encrypted to ensure
`privacy. Para. [0011].
`0 The database 18 further stores the identities, credentials, states where licensed,
`
`contact information (e.g., address, email address, and mobile telephone number),
`and other information of lawyers licensed in various jurisdictions who have been
`vetted and contracted to be on call during certain days, time periods, and other work
`parameters to provide mobile lawyer services. Para. [0011].
`
`the server 16, an alert
`to live—stream video is received at
`0 Once the request
`notification is sent to one or more lawyers licensed in the same jurisdiction as the
`current location of the user. The alert notification may be in the form of a call, text
`message, email, and another form of message transmitted to and presented on a
`computing device 26, such as a mobile phone, tablet computer, and laptop computer
`that is equipped with a video camera. Para. [0013].
`
`to handle the consultation session can
`lawyer who responds first
`0 The first
`immediately view the livestreamed video information on a computing device. One
`or more different criteria may also be used to select the responding lawyer. Para.
`[0013].
`
`0 The Mobile Lawyer App 22 has GPS and mapping capabilities, or alternatively has
`access to these functions of the mobile phone, so that it may be able to pinpoint the
`location of the user and relay this information to the server 16 so that this
`information may be used in selecting lawyers who may respond to the alert
`
`
`
`Application No.2 15/644,524
`Response to Office Action Dated June 14, 2018
`
`Attorney Docket No.2 REDM-P0001US-NP
`Customer No.2 134449
`
`location may be determined by
`notification. When GPS is not available,
`triangulation of cellular towers that are in communication with the user’s mobile
`device. Para. [0014].
`
`0 A determination is made as to the location of the user/vehicle, such as the city and
`state, as shown in block 38. In response to the location of the user, and possibly
`other criteria (e. g., ranking or rating of lawyers), one or more lawyers are selected
`and alerts are transmitted to their respective computing devices, as shown in blocks
`40 and 42. One or more responses are received from the lawyers, and one is
`selected, as shown in blocks 44 and 46. The captured video data is immediately
`transmitted to the lawyer’s associated computing device, as shown in block 48.
`Para. [0015].
`
`Accordingly, this rejection should be withdrawn. In the event the Examiner decides to
`
`continue to maintain this rejection, Applicants respectfully request the Examiner to formulate the
`
`rejection with more specificity and more clearly identify which part(s) of this limitation is not
`
`enabled by the specification.
`
`Claims
`
`1, 5, and 7 have been 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 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 of jurisdictions;
`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 the at least one identified lawyer; and
`
`the display screen configured to automatically live—stream a video image of
`the at least one identified 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 at least one identified lawyer and for storage in the remote database,
`where the at least one mobile device being configured to enable bi—directional audio
`
`9
`
`
`
`Application No.2 15/644,524
`Response to Office Action Dated June 14, 2018
`
`Attorney Docket No.2 REDM-P0001US-NP
`Customer No.2 134449
`
`and video communication between the at least one identified lawyer and the at least
`one passenger.
`
`Although Moore discloses providing a video camera in the vehicle and determining the
`
`location of the vehicle, Moore’s system is limited to providing a connection between the vehicle’ s
`
`passenger to an operator, who may then manually dispatch assistance if needed. See para. [0021].
`
`Applicants disagree that Moore combined with Hillstrom disclose all of the elements of claim 1.
`
`Hillstrom teaches maintaining a database of lawyers that can be assigned to clients by the manual
`
`efforts of a “Managing Lawyer.” Hillstrom discloses that “lawyer—users may apply on—line as
`
`Managing or Primary Lawyers. Prospective client—users may create and submit a file on—line
`
`answering questions that will enable the system of the present invention to forward the file to an
`
`appropriate Managing Lawyer licensed in an appropriate jurisdiction.” Para. [0018]. Thereafter,
`
`the Managing Lawyer contacts the prospective client and conducts a telephonic and/or in—person
`
`consultation to gather data about the case, and sends the prospective client a retainer agreement.
`
`Para. [0026]. In the “retainer agreement,” there is “the Client’s consent to associate a Primary
`
`Lawyer approved by the Client; ...and the Client’s consent to sharing of legal fees among the
`
`Practice and Primary Lawyer.” Para. [0026]. “Lawyers interested in associating with the Practice,
`
`or receiving referrals from it, are invited to apply on—line and to submit information required by
`
`the Practice and necessary to process the application.” Para. [0027]. More specifically, Hillstrom
`
`teaches an Electronic Process Control System (EPCS) that enables:
`
`a) Creation and storage of data files. . .; para. [0036]
`
`b) Organization of data files. . .; para. [0037]
`
`c) Archiving data files. ..; para. [0053]
`
`(1) Recording and transmission of live video and audio data of proceedings, including
`
`depositions, court hearings, trials, conferences and the like to Managing Lawyers and Clients;. ..
`
`para. [0067].
`
`However, Hillstrom’s EPCS clearly does not select the Managing Lawyer or Primary Lawyer
`
`based on a real—time location of the client. Nowhere does Hillstrom, alone or in combination with
`
`Moore, disclose or suggest enabling a “a mobile device executing a mobile application and in
`
`wireless communication with the video camera and display screen, configured, upon command
`
`10
`
`
`
`Application No.2 15/644,524
`Response to Office Action Dated June 14, 2018
`
`Attorney Docket No.2 REDM-POOOlUS-NP
`Customer No.2 134449
`
`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 the at least one identified
`
`lawyer.” Hillstrom’s EPCS does not select lawyers to assist clients, to the contrary, Hillstrom
`
`teaches that the Managing Lawyers manually performs the Primary Lawyer selection task. Further,
`
`even though the Managing Lawyer in Hillstrom may select a Primary Lawyer based on
`
`jurisdiction, Hillstrom is entirely silent about selecting a Primary Lawyer based on the real—time
`
`location of the client when consultation is needed, i.e., “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.”
`
`Further, Applicants respectfully submit that the combination of Moore and Hillstrom is
`
`improper because the Final 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 Final 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
`
`Hillstrom. However, Moore merely discloses communication between a user—passenger and a
`
`dispatch operator. There is no motivation for 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.” Hillstrom requires the Managing Lawyer to manually assign a Primary Lawyer to a
`
`11
`
`
`
`Application No.2 15/644,524
`Response to Office Action Dated June 14, 2018
`
`Attorney Docket No.2 REDM-POOOlUS-NP
`Customer No.2 134449
`
`client. There is no motivation for Hillstrom to specifically provide video consultation 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 “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 the at least one identified lawyer.”
`
`Therefore, claim 1 and claims 5 and 7 depending from claim 1 are patentable over Moore—
`
`Hillstrom,
`
`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
`
`l2
`
`
`
`Application No.2 15/644,524
`Response to Office Action Dated June 14, 2018
`
`Attorney Docket No.2 REDM-POOOlUS-NP
`Customer No.2 134449
`
`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,
`
`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.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Application No.2 15/644,524
`Response to Office Action Dated June 14, 2018
`
`Attorney Docket No.2 REDM-P0001US-NP
`Customer No.2 134449
`
`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: September 42 2018
`
`Grable Martin Fulton PLLC
`
`Telephone: 469.878.8643
`Email: WJeang@GCHub.com
`
`l4
`
`
![](/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