Bosnia for Dummies, by H.M. The King of Bosnia Mensur Omerbashich PhD
Vatican's geostrategy turning Bosnia permanently into their "moat around the castle" to repel Russia & England away: the real reason behind Bosnia's "misfortune"

24 January, 2011

Den of Thieves III - Once a Thief...

DEN OF THIEVES (III) - ONCE A THIEF...
To: USPTO, Art Unit 2857, 1/24/11:

I am in receipt of your Final paper communication of 12.09.2010 in my other patent application, 12/022,409.  As expected (based on my extremely negative experience with your office in Re my other application, 12/022,394), you continue treating me in a manner that cannot be justified at all. This time you insult my intelligence (such as when you replace my terminology with -- synonyms), correct your own corrections just like with my other application, manipulate facts about my idea in Re this specific application, etc. Worse yet, now you go so far as to entirely make up a connection between my idea and a 2000 patent #6,049,727 by Crothall, K.D., issued to Animas Corp. now a subsidiary of the $100B+ Johnson & Johnson (hereinafter: J&J). That patent's owner manufactures just one type of (pivotal) medical equipment: innovative insulin pumps w/ noninvasive bracelets for testing blood/fluid glucose levels, based on the idea they patented in 2000 and that you now claim to be identical to my idea in theoretical spectral analysis. You then use this wild-guessed connection of yours as grounds for rejecting my application entirely.


While I am honored that the USPTO thinks my idea is the same as the one patented in 2000 which helps millions of diabetes patients worldwide, and that that idea/patent had made such a mega-corporation like J&J wish to acquire a spin-off created solely around that patent, you at the same time make a leap of faith so gigantic that it is readily recognized for what it is: flawed and malicious. To demonstrate it, I am herein reproducing your own words in italics: namely, your own interpretation of the 2000 J&J patent, v. my idea (critical keywords are shown in caps):

"With respect to claim 1, Crothall discloses SPECTRUM COMPUTATIONS IMPROVE when ALL VALUES in a dataset that is CHARACTERIZED by NON-UNIFORM RELIABILITY are FIRSTLY WEIGHTED according to THEIR ERRORS (i.e. BETA WEIGHTED) that were A-PRIORI ASSESSED based on TASK-SPECIFIC OR GENERALLY ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC CRITERIA; and

With respect to claim 2, Crothall discloses PURIFICATION of that dataset VIA REMOVAL of UP TO 50% of its VALUES with RELATIVELY LARGEST ERRORS, from that dataset and PRIOR TO FEEDING the data into GAPS-INSENSITIVE SPECTRAL ALGORITHM (i.e. PLS)."

First note that in your communication you outright reject my terminology that is however exactly the same as that used by yourself in the above to form the grounds for rejection, thus mocking me personally.  Secondly, no above keyword is mentioned in the J&J patent you used to essentially (as you say it yourself) base your decision on.  Thirdly, a thorough inspection into the J&J patent v. my application renders illogical any such alleged connection whatsoever, already at the freshman-statistics level: neither do the compared ideas use a same spectral analysis method, nor is "PLS" a gap-insensitive spectral algorithm! (Hint: only the full least squares spectral analysis with its variance magnitudes makes one such algorithm.)

Given the above demonstration and the stated scientific facts, it is thus clear to anyone with half brain that your Government now infringes as-a-matter-of-factually upon my right to even obtain a patent protection of any idea of mine whatsoever.  I now believe that your reasons for such a discrimination extend beyond what you disclose. (Added reason to strengthen that belief: the publicly available statistics from the USPTO, according to which 2 out of 3 patent applications do get granted -- alas not so for just anyone).  The overall conclusion is that the Government you represent denies me entirely the rights for obtaining protection over my intellectual property, as granted to every person under the Constitution of the United States and applicable domestic & international conventions as well as legal customs.

One possible motif that I can think of when it comes to the Government's commitment to such grave injustice towards me, is the fact that this particular idea of mine, just like the one in my other application 12/022,394, offers a whole slew of lucrative applications, making my ideas all that more lucrative to the Government too, rather than to myself -- a nobody in comparison to one such Oh great a government.  Another reason that readily comes to mind in the same sense is the fact that the Government has been recently caught in wrongdoing Re my other patent application, and that the Government therefore backfires now like a petty thief who is being pushed to the wall by law enforcement and thereby left with no alternative.

Given that, curiously enough, you disclose only Government or Government-related pharmaceutical beneficiaries of my ideas (goes for both of my applications), but not other such beneficiaries, say military, I now come to the belief based on this 2-of-2 mini-statistics that my ideas, just like those by Mr. Tesla or Mr. Meucci or others earlier, were/are subject to numerous illicit applications by the Government in other fields from within Government's and Government-related financial interests as well, such as but not limited to: chemical industry, weaponry/armament R&D, Space program, etc.

With that in mind, I conclude this official response to your mailing of 12.09.2010, and turn to seeking protection of my basic human rights, freedoms, and intellectual property in both patent applications of mine, as those rights, freedoms, and intellectual property have been hijacked from me by the Government you represent -- one utterly inhumane entity that deserves nothing but scorn, despisal and harmful fist of justice.

Be it noted that I, as the sole inventor and applicant in this patent application, hereby dispute the final decision by the USPTO in its entirety, on the grounds of its quasi-scientific reasoning, as well as for other reasons as stated in the above.  In fair dealing, I hereby propose that the USPTO withdraws its herein disputed decision in its entirety, and grant my patent application as filed with its amendments.

Dr. Mensur Omerbashich