DEN OF THIEVES (IV) - TECHNICALITIES SO PROCLAIMED
USPTO, Art Unit 2857, 2/17/11:
USPTO, Art Unit 2857, 2/17/11:
I am in receipt of the Interview Summary communication of 02.10.2011 (appended) in my patent application 12/022,409. I thank the Government for such a significant shortening of delivery time that went from half a year in a very important matter communicated (refer to previous communication of last summer), down to under a week in a matter entirely insignificant (see below).
Note that, from the moment the Government has revealed, in form of a self-indictment, that it is a party with financial interest in the matter of patent application 12/022,394, the Government's own procedural regulations ceased being relevant to the patentability of that or any other patent applications of mine such as the 12/022,409. Therefore, the herein made arguments also apply to all of my communication in all of my patent applications such as the 12/022,394. When cited in the below, the Government's own procedural regulations are used for illustration purposes only and merely to depict additionally the Government's own inconsistency -- now a standard mistreatment of my rights and freedoms in my patent applications (hereinafter: these matters).
While not subjecting myself to any particular procedural regulation of the Government's any more, be it noted (as an example of mistreatment as mentioned above) that this email correspondence of mine is in accordance with the Government's own regulation MPEP713.04 that you cite: "All business with the Patent and Trademark Office should be transacted in writing. (...) The action of the Patent and Trademark Office will be based exclusively on the written record in the Office. (...)". In the absence of a "must" or a "has to" or a "shall" instead of a "should" in the first sentence cited above, as well as in the absence of adjective "paper" when referring to "the written record" in the second sentence above, it is clear that the cited regulation applies to all sorts of communication and not just the paper-written correspondence. It is also clear that the adjective "written" in the above refers to either electronic or paper communication equally, and that electronic and paper correspondence carry the same legal weight as well. (This also based on other, more general legislation that shall normally prevail, due to the Government now being a party with self-declared financial interest in these matters).
In the same fashion, the herewith-appended Interview Summary's finding, stating that the interview "does not response point out specific details believed to render the claims patentable over the reference", is baseless due to the above-mentioned Government's own regulation you cite and which states that, in order for an interview to be completely and properly recorded: "(E) The identification of arguments need not be lengthy or elaborate. A verbatim or highly detailed description of the arguments is not required. The identification of the arguments is sufficient if the general nature or thrust of the principal arguments can be understood in the context of the application file. Of course, the applicant may desire to emphasize and fully describe those arguments which he or she feels were or might be persuasive to the examiner;". Note that I did not "desire to emphasize and fully describe", because (1) it so pleases me; and (2) I do not have to base my actions on the Government's own scribblings any more, and (3) the examiner is likely biased as he is an employee of the party that has a financial interest in these matters.
Therefore, I consider all of my email correspondence in all of my patent applications properly recorded and admissible as they are. Accordingly, I now expect the Government, as the future accused party, to address all the main issues in these matters without further delay as, from my point of view, there are no more technicalities to prevent addressing the main issues as outlined in my requests to the USPTO and US Secretary of Health. Note however that this final communication of mine does not mean I am willing to extend the deadlines as given by those notices.
Dr. Mensur Omerbashich