DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1. This Office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 11/28/24. As per request, claims 1-20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
2. Applicant’s amendment filed on 11/28/24 is acknowledge. In regard to amendment of independent claims 1, 10, and 13, it appears the term “HR” is remained in the preamble. Base on election by original presentation, the claims are being interpreted as machine HR rather than being named as HR.
Objection
3. Claim 10 is objection to because the limitation “using in part one or more embodiments of the Documentary Generation Application (DGA) of US patent # US 10152462” in the claim. This is improper claim drafting, applicant cannot cite the US patent number in the claim. The reference to the patent number and the document must be removed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
5. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
. Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). The broadest reasonable interpretation according to the support from specification of the claimed invention as a whole encompasses a human being. For example, applicant clearly identified from the encompasses a human being. For example, applicant clearly identified from the original specification that HR is “a super human-being...”, P. 10; “... HR is not a
robot; “it is a human-robot...”, P.14; “the HR is a complete human/animal/machine
in all-in-one body/entity...”, P.27; “an HR may be equipped with similar anatomy
to an HB, an animal and/or the like. An HR may have all of the NB senses,
organs, anatomy...”, P.155.
Also in the paragraphs: P0011, P0025, and P0804 of the PGPUB clearly state HR that “…they are the combination of humans and robots…”, “…an HR is not an HB clone, nor a robot; it is a human-robot with duties and rights, capabilities and limitations, human/animal-like feelings and emotions, which set it apart from robotic manufacturing machines…”, and “…An HR may combine machinery and human-parts..”.
It is clear the definition for HR according to Applicant’s definition contains part human and human parts/organism. Hence, according to MPEP 2105 III (Human Organism are Nonstatutory subject Matter), the claims are directed to ineligible subject matter, see The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AJA), Public Law
112-29.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
7. Claims 1-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
8. Regarding claim 1, the specification is not enable for claimed “…one or more connections of at least one of the computing system ….to at least one of: at least one of the communication channels”, and “one or more source codes, which, when executed by at least one of the computing system… cause the at least one of the computing system…. to perform actions comprising: receiving information from at least one of the connection; processing the received information; and transferring at least part of the processed information to at least one of the connections”
The term HR, according to P0011 “they are the combination of humans and robots”, and P0804 “An HR may combine machinery and human-parts” of the PGPUB. Therefore, the term HR is being interpreted as contains human-parts.
Claim 1 is not enable because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to make and use computing system connect to the communication channels to communicate with human parts without undue experimentation. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to process the received information and transfer the processed information for the human parts of the body without undue experimentation.
The spec. page 57 merely discloses “…the network of computers. Template source code to demonstrate the use of the various IPs/APIs for graphic visualization, management, monitoring, control, command for positioning,
orientation, navigation, actions, and configuration...” . Also, in spec. page 136, last paragraph merely discloses “The nerve system: networking, communication, connectivity, security....nerves are the electrical wires, the sensors, the wireless transmitter, etc.”. Also, there were no details in the spec. of how to process the received information and transfer the processed information for the human parts of the body. The disclosure fails enablement requirement because it does not recite the particular structure (i.e., an algorithm) and specific implementation for the creation of the human-robot. The claims lack operative embodiment. One skilled in the art cannot practice the invention without undue experimentation because the claim language as support by the specification simply describes the desired end functions without any specifics of the how the claimed invention can be made. All of the high level generically recited computerized products/network are simply black boxes for performing the desired end result/function. Therefore, the specification does not teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without “undue experimentation”.
The eight Wands undue experimentation factors are a) breadth of the claims, b) nature of the invention, c) state of the prior art, d) level of one of ordinary skill in the art, e) level of predictability in the art, f) amount of direction provided by the inventor, g) existence of working examples, and h) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure, MPEP 2164 and 2164.01(a).
A) Regarding the factor of breath of the claim, claim 1, is so broad, it is
unclear what method are being covered. In P. 70, 105, and P. 137-138, the specification recites many instances of “maybe’”’, “can”, “should be”, “will be” making it unclear what’s actually necessary for the system.
The specification is not enable for claimed ““…one or more connections of at least one of the computing system ….to at least one of: at least one of the communication channels”. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to make and use the electrical/computerized connection to communication channels to communicate with human parts without undue experimentation. For example, in specification P. 136, last paragraph, disclose “The nerve system: networking, communication, connectivity, security....nerves are the electrical wires, the sensors, the wireless transmitter, etc.”. And P. 137 disclose “The muscle system: wires and relays. They control the bars (bones) within the HR parts..”, “The articulations are the rotating disk; they are controlled by the articulation-motors..”. “The power supply, energy harvesting and sustainability..”. And P. 138 disclose the HR heart, stomach and lungs. However, the specification does not disclose any details or circuitry for the communication channels to communicate with human parts. There is not disclose any electrical circuit connection in the drawing or block diagrams with functional labels for the communication. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to communicate with human parts without undue
experimentation. For example, in specification P.91, recites “Communicate by its
senses or telepathically....The two HRs may also have a handshake by syncing and
communicating with each other”. Also, P.87 of the specification, recites “See,
identify, recognize, distinguish, classify, predict, decide, act, etc.,”. While “maybe” language is used in the same paragraph, there are no actual details stating how to communicate with human parts.
The specification is not enable for claimed “one or more source codes, which, when executed by at least one of the computing system… cause the at least one of the computing system…. to perform actions comprising: receiving information from at least one of the connection; processing the received information; and transferring at least part of the processed information to at least one of the connections”. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to process the received information and transfer the processed information for the human parts of the body without undue experimentation. The claim failed to comply with enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C 112 because certain computer
programming/algorithm details used to perform the claimed “receiving/processing/transferring information to the connection” were not disclosed in the specification, and a person of skill in the art would not understand how to process the received information to the human parts of the body as recited in the claim in order to perform the claimed function.
In sum, the intended result is explained, but not how to achieve the result. Thus, it
would seem that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not know what methods
to arrive at the results are covered by the scope of the claim because they are not
described.
B) Regarding the next factor of the nature of the invention, specification
P.136, last para. appears to state that “The nerve system: networking,
communication, connectivity, security....nerves are the electrical wires, the
sensors, the wireless transmitter, etc. They will enable the detection and the
sensing of other...”, specification P. 137, first para. state that “ The muscle
system...they control the bars (bones) within the HR”, specification P. 138 state
that “The HR heart is analogous to the power supply system...and will ...supply,
regulate and supervise the power...and regulate the blood stream..” However,
once again, the specification recites many instances of “maybe”, “can”, “should
be”, “will be” making it unclear what’s actually necessary for the system. While
“maybe” language is used in the same paragraph, there are no actual details stating
of how to made communication channels to communicate with human parts of the body.
Also, in specification P.91, recites “Communicate by its senses or
telepathically....The two HRs may also have a handshake by syncing and
communicating with each other”. Also, P.87 of the specification, recites “See,
identify, recognize, distinguish, classify, predict, decide, act, etc.,”. While
“maybe” language is used in the same paragraph, there are no actual details stating
how to communicate with human parts of the body.
In sum, the intended result is explained, but not how to achieve the result. Thus, it
would seem that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not know what methods
to arrive at the results are covered by the scope of the claim because they are not
described. Thus, experimentation to make and use the claimed invention would not be considered routine experimentation because it is unclear how to make/use the invention based on the description when there is no instruction on how to make it.
C) Regarding the third factor of the state of the prior art, the prior art is
aware of robot assisting, helping and interacting with human and perform certain
task through learning with specific algorithm routine, and checking if the robot
capable of doing the task through various methods such as using various sources to
redundantly verify if a robot has capable capability of power, hardware or
software.
Specification P.136, last para. appears to state that “The nerve system:
networking, communication, connectivity, security....nerves are the electrical wires, the sensors, the wireless transmitter, etc. They will enable the detection and the sensing of other...”, specification P. 137, first para. state that “ The muscle
system...they control the bars (bones) within the HR”, specification P. 138 state
that “The HR heart is analogous to the power supply system...and will ...supply,
regulate and supervise the power...and regulate the blood stream..” However,
once again, the specification recites many instances of “maybe”, “can”, “should
be”, “will be” making it unclear what’s actually necessary for the system. While
“maybe” language is used in the same paragraph, there are no actual details stating
of how to made communication channels to communicate with human parts of the body.
Also, in specification P.91, recites “Communicate by its senses or
telepathically....The two HRs may also have a handshake by syncing and
communicating with each other”. Also, P.87 of the specification, recites “See,
identify, recognize, distinguish, classify, predict, decide, act, etc.,”. While
“maybe” language is used in the same paragraph, there are no actual details stating
how to communicate with human parts of the body.
In sum, the intended result is explained, but not how to achieve the result. Thus, it
would seem that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not know what methods
to arrive at the results are covered by the scope of the claim because they are not
described. Thus, experimentation to make and use the claimed invention would not be considered routine experimentation because it is unclear how to make/use the invention based on the description when there is no instruction on how to make it.
D) Regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, a person of ordinary skill
in the art in the robot and autonomous field is familiar with robot assisting, helping
and interacting with human and perform certain task through learning with specific
algorithm routine, and checking if the robot capable of doing the task through
various methods such as using various sources to redundantly verify if a robot has
capable capability of power, hardware or software.
Specification P.136, last para. appears to state that “The nerve system:
networking, communication, connectivity, security....nerves are the electrical
wires, the sensors, the wireless transmitter, etc. They will enable the detection and
the sensing of other...”, specification P. 137, first para. state that “ The muscle
system...they control the bars (bones) within the HR”, specification P. 138 state
that “The HR heart is analogous to the power supply system...and will ...supply,
regulate and supervise the power...and regulate the blood stream..” However,
once again, the specification recites many instances of “maybe”, “can’’, “should
be”, “will be” making it unclear what’s actually necessary for the system. While
“maybe” language is used in the same paragraph, there are no actual details stating
of how to made communication channels to communicate with human parts of the body so as to obtain the specific operations desired by the applicant.
Also, in specification P.91, recites “Communicate by its senses or
telepathically....The two HRs may also have a handshake by syncing and
communicating with each other”. Also, P.87 of the specification, recites “See,
identify, recognize, distinguish, classify, predict, decide, act, etc.,”. While
“maybe” language is used in the same paragraph, there are no actual details stating
how to communicate with human parts of the body.
In sum, the intended result is explained, but not how to achieve the result. Thus, it
would seem that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not know what methods
to arrive at the results are covered by the scope of the claim because they are not
described. Thus, experimentation to make and use the claimed invention would not
be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
E) Regarding the level of predictability in the art, for the same reasons as
above, it would not be predictable in the art to perform claim | broadly because
there would be more than routine experimentation required to make it work due to
the lack of disclosure in the specification on the details of how the network of sensors, transceivers and communication channels can be connected to communicate to the human parts of HR to obtains the specific operations desired by the applicant; and how to process and transfer the received information for the human parts of the body of HR.
F) Regarding the amount of direction provide by the inventor, specification
P.136, last para. appears to state that “The nerve system: networking,
communication, connectivity, security....nerves are the electrical wires, the
sensors, the wireless transmitter, etc. They will enable the detection and the
sensing of other...”, specification P. 137, first para. state that “ The muscle
system...they control the bars (bones) within the HR”, specification P. 138 state
that “The HR heart is analogous to the power supply system...and will ...supply,
regulate and supervise the power...and regulate the blood stream..” However,
once again, the specification recites many instances of “maybe”, “can’’, “should
be”, “will be” making it unclear what’s actually necessary for the system. While
“maybe” language is used in the same paragraph, there are no actual details stating
of how to made communication channels to communicate with human parts of the body so as to obtain the specific operations desired by the applicant.
Also, in specification P.91, recites “Communicate by its senses or
telepathically....The two HRs may also have a handshake by syncing and
communicating with each other”. Also, P.87 of the specification, recites “See,
identify, recognize, distinguish, classify, predict, decide, act, etc.,”. While “maybe” language is used in the same paragraph, there are no actual details stating
how to communicate with human parts of the body.
In sum, the intended result is explained, but not how to achieve the result. Thus, it
would seem that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not know what methods
to arrive at the results are covered by the scope of the claim because they are not
described. Thus, experimentation to make and use the claimed invention would not
be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
G) Regarding the existence of working examples, there is no working
example of the invention in the specification and Examiner has not found prior art
in the field with the same material. The specification describes the intended result,
but, as previously mentioned, there is no support for the details on how it works.
H) Regarding the last factor of the quantity of experimentation needed to make and use the invention based on the content of the disclosure, since there are no specifics as to how the network of sensors, transceivers and communication channels can be connected to communicate to the human parts of HR to obtains the specific operations desired by the applicant; and how to process and transfer the received information for the human parts of the body of HR, and because certain computer programming, algorithm details used to perform the claimed “process/transfer information” were not disclosed in the specification, a person of skill in the art would not understand how the communication channels can be communicated to the human parts of the HR body and how to process the received information and transfer the processed information for the human parts of the body.
9. Regarding claim 10, the specification is not enable for claimed “…one or more connections of at least one of the computing system ….to at least one of: at least one of the communication channels”, and “one or more source codes, which, when executed by at least one of the computing system… cause the at least one of the computing system…. to perform actions comprising: receiving information from at least one of the connection; generating one or more codes based in part on the received information”.
The term HR, according to P0011 “they are the combination of humans and robots”, and P0804 “An HR may combine machinery and human-parts” of the PGPUB. Therefore, the term HR is being interpreted as contains human-parts.
Claim 10 is not enable because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to make and use computing system connect to the communication channels to communicate with human parts without undue experimentation. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to process the received information and transfer the processed information for the human parts of the body without undue experimentation.
The spec. page 57 merely discloses “…the network of computers. Template source code to demonstrate the use of the various IPs/APIs for graphic visualization, management, monitoring, control, command for positioning,
orientation, navigation, actions, and configuration...” . Also, in spec. page 136, last paragraph merely discloses “The nerve system: networking, communication, connectivity, security....nerves are the electrical wires, the sensors, the wireless transmitter, etc.”. Also, there were no details in the spec. of how to receive information and generate code for the human parts of the body. The disclosure fails enablement requirement because it does not recite the particular structure (i.e., an algorithm) and specific implementation for the creation of the human-robot. The claims lack operative embodiment. One skilled in the art cannot practice the invention without undue experimentation because the claim language as support by the specification simply describes the desired end functions without any specifics of the how the claimed invention can be made. All of the high level generically recited computerized products/network are simply black boxes for performing the desired end result/function. Therefore, the specification does not teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without “undue experimentation”.
The eight Wands undue experimentation factors are a) breadth of the claims, b) nature of the invention, c) state of the prior art, d) level of one of ordinary skill in the art, e) level of predictability in the art, f) amount of direction provided by the inventor, g) existence of working examples, and h) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure, MPEP 2164 and 2164.01(a).
A) Regarding the factor of breath of the claim, claim 10, is so broad, it is
unclear what method are being covered. In P. 70, 105, and P. 137-138, the specification recites many instances of “maybe’”’, “can”, “should be”, “will be” making it unclear what’s actually necessary for the system.
The specification is not enable for claimed ““…one or more connections of at least one of the computing system ….to at least one of: at least one of the communication channels”. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to made and use the electrical/computerized connection to communication channels to communicate with human body parts without undue experimentation. For example, in specification P. 136, last paragraph, disclose “The nerve system: networking, communication, connectivity, security....nerves are the electrical wires, the sensors, the wireless transmitter, etc.”. And P. 137 disclose “The muscle system: wires and relays. They control the bars (bones) within the HR parts..”, “The articulations are the rotating disk; they are controlled by the articulation-motors..”. “The power supply, energy harvesting and sustainability..”. And P. 138 disclose the HR heart, stomach and lungs. However, the specification does not disclose any details or circuitry for the communication channels to communicate with human parts of the HR body. There is not disclose any electrical circuit connection in the drawing or block diagrams with functional labels for the communication.
One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to communicate with human parts without undue experimentation. For example, in specification P.91, recites “Communicate by its senses or telepathically....The two HRs may also have a handshake by syncing and communicating with each other”. Also, P.87 of the specification, recites “See, identify, recognize, distinguish, classify, predict, decide, act, etc.,”. While “maybe” language is used in the same paragraph, there are no actual details stating how to communicate with human parts of the body.
The specification is not enable for claimed “one or more source codes, which, when executed by at least one of the computing system… cause the at least one of the computing system…. to perform actions comprising: receiving information from at least one of the connection; generating one or more codes based in part on the received information”. The claim failed to comply with enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C 112 because certain computer programming/algorithm details used to perform the claimed “receiving information and generating codes for the human parts of the body were not disclosed in the specification, and a person of skill in the art would not understand how to generate codes for the human parts of the body as recited in the claim in order to perform the claimed function.
In sum, the intended result is explained, but not how to achieve the result. Thus, it
would seem that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not know what methods
to arrive at the results are covered by the scope of the claim because they are not
described. Thus, experimentation to make and use the claimed invention would not
be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
B) Regarding the next factor of the nature of the invention, specification
P.136, last para. appears to state that “The nerve system: networking,
communication, connectivity, security....nerves are the electrical wires, the
sensors, the wireless transmitter, etc. They will enable the detection and the
sensing of other...”, specification P. 137, first para. state that “ The muscle
system...they control the bars (bones) within the HR”, specification P. 138 state
that “The HR heart is analogous to the power supply system...and will ...supply,
regulate and supervise the power...and regulate the blood stream..” However,
once again, the specification recites many instances of “maybe”, “can”, “should
be”, “will be” making it unclear what’s actually necessary for the system. While
“maybe” language is used in the same paragraph, there are no actual details stating
of how to made communication channels to communicate with human parts of the body.
Also, in specification P.91, recites “Communicate by its senses or
telepathically....The two HRs may also have a handshake by syncing and
communicating with each other”. Also, P.87 of the specification, recites “See,
identify, recognize, distinguish, classify, predict, decide, act, etc.,”. While
“maybe” language is used in the same paragraph, there are no actual details stating
how to communicate with human parts of the body.
In sum, the intended result is explained, but not how to achieve the result. Thus, it
would seem that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not know what methods
to arrive at the results are covered by the scope of the claim because they are not
described. Thus, experimentation to make and use the claimed invention would not be considered routine experimentation because it is unclear how to make/use the invention based on the description when there is no instruction on how to make it.
C) Regarding the third factor of the state of the prior art, the prior art is
aware of robot assisting, helping and interacting with human and perform certain
task through learning with specific algorithm routine, and checking if the robot
capable of doing the task through various methods such as using various sources to
redundantly verify if a robot has capable capability of power, hardware or
software.
Specification P.136, last para. appears to state that “The nerve system:
networking, communication, connectivity, security....nerves are the electrical wires, the sensors, the wireless transmitter, etc. They will enable the detection and the sensing of other...”, specification P. 137, first para. state that “ The muscle
system...they control the bars (bones) within the HR”, specification P. 138 state
that “The HR heart is analogous to the power supply system...and will ...supply,
regulate and supervise the power...and regulate the blood stream..” However,
once again, the specification recites many instances of “maybe”, “can”, “should
be”, “will be” making it unclear what’s actually necessary for the system. While
“maybe” language is used in the same paragraph, there are no actual details stating
of how to made communication channels to communicate with human parts of the body.
Also, in specification P.91, recites “Communicate by its senses or
telepathically....The two HRs may also have a handshake by syncing and
communicating with each other”. Also, P.87 of the specification, recites “See,
identify, recognize, distinguish, classify, predict, decide, act, etc.,”. While
“maybe” language is used in the same paragraph, there are no actual details stating
how to communicate with human parts of the body.
In sum, the intended result is explained, but not how to achieve the result. Thus, it
would seem that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not know what methods
to arrive at the results are covered by the scope of the claim because they are not
described. Thus, experimentation to make and use the claimed invention would not be considered routine experimentation because it is unclear how to make/use the invention based on the description when there is no instruction on how to make it.
D) Regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, a person of ordinary skill
in the art in the robot and autonomous field is familiar with robot assisting, helping
and interacting with human and perform certain task through learning with specific
algorithm routine, and checking if the robot capable of doing the task through
various methods such as using various sources to redundantly verify if a robot has capable capability of power, hardware or software.
Specification P.136, last para. appears to state that “The nerve system:
networking, communication, connectivity, security....nerves are the electrical
wires, the sensors, the wireless transmitter, etc. They will enable the detection and
the sensing of other...”, specification P. 137, first para. state that ““ The muscle
system...they control the bars (bones) within the HR”, specification P. 138 state
that “The HR heart is analogous to the power supply system...and will ...supply,
regulate and supervise the power...and regulate the blood stream..” However, once again, the specification recites many instances of “maybe”, “can’’, “should
be”, “will be” making it unclear what’s actually necessary for the system. While
“maybe” language is used in the same paragraph, there are no actual details stating
of how to made communication channels to communicate to human parts of the body, so as to obtain the specific operations desired by the applicant.
Also, in specification P.91, recites “Communicate by its senses or
telepathically....The two HRs may also have a handshake by syncing and
communicating with each other”. Also, P.87 of the specification, recites “See,
identify, recognize, distinguish, classify, predict, decide, act, etc.,”. While
“maybe” language is used in the same paragraph, there are no actual details stating
how to communicate with human parts of the body HR robot.
In sum, the intended result is explained, but not how to achieve the result. Thus, it
would seem that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not know what methods
to arrive at the results are covered by the scope of the claim because they are not
described. Thus, experimentation to make and use the claimed invention would not
be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
E) Regarding the level of predictability in the art, for the same reasons as
above, it would not be predictable in the art to perform claim 10 broadly because
there would be more than routine experimentation required to make it work due to
the lack of disclosure in the specification on the details of how the network of sensors, transceivers and communication channels can be connected to communicate to the human parts of HR to obtains the specific operations desired by the applicant; and how to receive information and generate code based on the received information for the human parts of the body of HR.
F) Regarding the amount of direction provide by the inventor, specification
P.136, last para. appears to state that “The nerve system: networking,
communication, connectivity, security....nerves are the electrical wires, the
sensors, the wireless transmitter, etc. They will enable the detection and the
sensing of other...”, specification P. 137, first para. state that “ The muscle
system...they control the bars (bones) within the HR”, specification P. 138 state
that “The HR heart is analogous to the power supply system...and will ...supply,
regulate and supervise the power...and regulate the blood stream..” However, once again, the specification recites many instances of “maybe”, “can’’, “should
be”, “will be” making it unclear what’s actually necessary for the system. While
“maybe” language is used in the same paragraph, there are no actual details stating
of how to made communication channels to communicate to human parts of the body.
Also, in specification P.91, recites “Communicate by its senses or
telepathically....The two HRs may also have a handshake by syncing and
communicating with each other”. Also, P.87 of the specification, recites “See,
identify, recognize, distinguish, classify, predict, decide, act, etc.,”. While
“maybe” language is used in the same paragraph, there are no actual details stating
how to communicate with human parts of the body of HR.
In sum, the intended result is explained, but not how to achieve the result. Thus, it
would seem that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not know what methods
to arrive at the results are covered by the scope of the claim because they are not
described. Thus, experimentation to make and use the claimed invention would not
be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
G) Regarding the existence of working examples, there is no working
example of the invention in the specification and Examiner has not found prior art
in the field with the same material. The specification describes the intended result,
but, as previously mentioned, there is no support for the details on how it works.
H) Regarding the last factor of the quantity of experimentation needed to
make and use the invention based on the content of the disclosure, since there are
no specifics as to how the network of sensors, transceivers and communication channels can be connected to communicate to the human parts of HR to obtains the specific operations desired by the applicant; and how to receive information and generate code based on the received information for the human parts of the body of HR, and because certain computer programming, algorithm details used to perform the claimed “receiving information, generating code based on the received information” were not disclosed in the specification, a person of skill in the art would not understand how the communication channels can be communicated to the human parts of the body and how to receive information and generate code based on the received information for the human parts of the body, as recited in the claim in order to perform the claimed function.
10. Regarding claim 13, the specification is not enable for claimed “…one or more HR networks, wherein the HR networks comprising one or more members accessible to at least one of the communication channels of at least one of the DHR-members, or at least one of the computing systems of at least one of the DHR-members”; “….configuring at least one of the computing systems of at least one of the DHR-members”, “one or more source codes…to perform actions comprising receiving information from at least one of the communication systems of at least one of the DHR members…..transferring …information to at least one of the communication systems of at least one of the DHR members….”
The term HR, according to P0011 “they are the combination of humans and robots”, and P0804 “An HR may combine machinery and human-parts” of the PGPUB. Therefore, the term HR is being interpreted as contains human-parts.
Claim 13 is not enable because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to make and use computing system connect to the communication channels to communicate with human parts without undue experimentation. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to configure at least one of the human parts of the members without undue experimentation. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to receive information from at least one of the communication systems of at least one of the DHR members and transfer information to at least one of the communication systems of at least one of the DHR members without undue experimentation.
The spec. page 57 merely discloses “…the network of computers. Template source code to demonstrate the use of the various IPs/APIs for graphic visualization, management, monitoring, control, command for positioning,
orientation, navigation, actions, and configuration...” . Also, in spec. page 136, last paragraph merely discloses “The nerve system: networking, communication, connectivity, security....nerves are the electrical wires, the sensors, the wireless transmitter, etc.”. Also, there were no details in the spec. of how to configure at least one of the computing systems of at least one of the DHR members, and how to receive and transfer information for the human parts of the body. The disclosure fails enablement requirement because it does not recite the particular structure (i.e., an algorithm) and specific implementation for the creation of the human-robot. The claims lack operative embodiment. One skilled in the art cannot practice the
invention without undue experimentation because the claim language
as support by the specification simply describes the desired end functions without
any specifics of the how the claimed invention can be made. All of the high level
generically recited computerized products/network are simply black boxes for
performing the desired end result/function. Therefore, the specification does not
teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed
invention without “undue experimentation”.
The eight Wands undue experimentation factors are a) breadth of the claims,
b) nature of the invention, c) state of the prior art, d) level of one of ordinary skill
in the art, e) level of predictability in the art, f) amount of direction provided by the
inventor, g) existence of working examples, and h) the quantity of experimentation
needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. MPEP
2164 and 2164.01 (a).,
A) Regarding the factor of breath of the claim, claim 13, is so broad, it is
unclear what method are being covered. In P. 70, 105, and P. 137-138, the
specification recites many instances of “maybe’”’, “can”, “should be”, “will be”
making it unclear what’s actually necessary for the system.
The specification is not enable for claimed “…one or more HR networks, wherein the HR networks comprising one or more members accessible to at least one of the communication channels of at least one of the DHR-members, or at least one of the computing systems of at least one of the DHR-members”. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to make and use the electrical/computerized connection to network of communication channels to communicate with human part of body without undue experimentation. For example, in specification P. 136, last paragraph, disclose “The nerve system: networking, communication, connectivity, security....nerves are the electrical wires, the sensors, the wireless transmitter, etc.”. And P. 137 disclose “The muscle system: wires and relays. They control the bars (bones) within the HR parts..”, “The articulations are the rotating disk; they are controlled by the articulation-motors..”. “The power supply, energy harvesting and sustainability..”. And P. 138 disclose the HR heart, stomach and lungs. However, the specification does not disclose any details or circuitry for the communication channels to communicate with human parts of the body. There is not disclose any electrical circuit connection in the drawing or block diagrams with functional labels for the communication.
The specification is not enable for claimed “….configuring at least one of the computing systems of at least one of the DHR-members”. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to “configuring the computing systems of DHR members” without undue experimentation. For example, in specification P.12, second paragraph, recites “Adaptable, reconfigurable, ...swap actions, positions with another HR or simply be reconfigured/reprogrammed to perform other tasks...” The claim failed to comply with enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C 112 because certain computer programming/algorithm details used to perform the claimed “configuring at least one of the computing systems of at least one of the DHR-members” were not disclosed in the specification, and a person of skill in the art would not understand how to “configuring the computing systems of DHR” as recited in the claim in order to perform the claimed function.
The specification is not enable for claimed “one or more source codes…to perform actions comprising receiving information from at least one of the communication systems of at least one of the DHR members…..transferring …information to at least one of the communication systems of at least one of the DHR members….”. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to receive and transfer information to body parts of DHR members without undue experimentation. The claim failed to comply with enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C 112 because certain computer programming/algorithm details used to perform the claimed “receiving information from at least one of the communication systems of at least one of the DHR members…..transferring …information to at least one of the communication systems of at least one of the DHR members…” were not disclosed in the specification, and a person of skill in the art would not understand how to receive and transfer information to the human parts of DHR members body.
In sum, the intended result is explained, but not how to achieve the result. Thus, it
would seem that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not know what methods
to arrive at the results are covered by the scope of the claim because they are not
described.
B) Regarding the next factor of the nature of the invention, specification
P.136, last para. appears to state that “The nerve system: networking, communication, connectivity, security....nerves are the electrical wires, the
sensors, the wireless transmitter, etc. They will enable the detection and the
sensing of other...”, specification P. 137, first para. state that “ The muscle
system...they control the bars (bones) within the HR”, specification P. 138 state
that “The HR heart is analogous to the power supply system...and will ...supply,
regulate and supervise the power...and regulate the blood stream..””» However,
once again, the specification recites many instances of “maybe”, “can’’, “should
be”, “will be” making it unclear what’s actually necessary for the system. While
“maybe” language is used in the same paragraph, there are no actual details stating
of how to made communication channels to communicate with human parts of the body of DHR members.
Also, in specification P.12, second paragraph, recites “Adaptable,
reconfigurable, ...swap actions, positions with another HR or simply be reconfigured/reprogrammed to perform other tasks...” The claim failed to comply
with enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C 112 because certain computer
programming/algorithm details used to perform the claimed “design configuration”
were not disclosed in the specification, and a person of skill in the art would not
understand how to “configuring the computing systems of DHR members” as recited in the claim in order to perform the claimed function.
In sum, the intended result is explained, but not how to achieve the result. Thus, it
would seem that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not know what methods
to arrive at the results are covered by the scope of the claim because they are not
described. Thus, experimentation to make and use the claimed invention would not
be considered routine experimentation because it is unclear how to make/use the
invention based on the description when there is no instruction on how to make it.
C) Regarding the third factor of the state of the prior art, the prior art is
aware of robot assisting, helping and interacting with human and perform certain
task through learning with specific algorithm routine, and checking if the robot
capable of doing the task through various methods such as using various sources to
redundantly verify if a robot has capable capability of power, hardware or
software.
Specification P.136, last para. appears to state that “The nerve system:
networking, communication, connectivity, security....nerves are the electrical
wires, the sensors, the wireless transmitter, etc. They will enable the detection and
the sensing of other...”, specification P. 137, first para. state that “ The muscle
system...they control the bars (bones) within the HR”, specification P. 138 state
that “The HR heart is analogous to the power supply system...and will ...supply,
regulate and supervise the power...and regulate the blood stream..” However,
once again, the specification recites many instances of “maybe”, “can’’, “should
be”, “will be” making it unclear what’s actually necessary for the system. While
“maybe” language is used in the same paragraph, there are no actual details stating
of how to made communication channels to communicate with human parts of DHR members.
Also, in specification P.12, second paragraph, recites “Adaptable,
reconfigurable, ...swap actions, positions with another HR or simply be
reconfigured/reprogrammed to perform other tasks...” The claim failed to comply
with enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C 112 because certain computer
programming/algorithm details used to perform the claimed “configuring”
were not disclosed in the specification, and a person of skill in the art would not
understand how to “configuring the computing systems of DHR members” as recited in the claim in order to perform the claimed function.
In sum, the intended result is explained, but not how to achieve the result. Thus, it
would seem that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not know what methods
to arrive at the results are covered by the scope of the claim because they are not
described. Thus, experimentation to make and use the claimed invention would not
be considered routine experimentation since it is against the current state of the art.
D) Regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, a person of ordinary skill in the art in the robot and autonomous field is familiar with robot assisting, helping and interacting with human and perform certain task through learning with specific algorithm routine, and checking if the robot capable of doing the task through various methods such as using various sources to redundantly verify if a robot has capable capability of power, hardware or software.
Specification P.136, last para. appears to state that “The nerve system:
networking, communication, connectivity, security....nerves are the electrical
wires, the sensors, the wireless transmitter, etc. They will enable the detection and
the sensing of other...”, specification P. 137, first para. state that “ The muscle
system...they control the bars (bones) within the HR”, specification P. 138 state
that “The HR heart is analogous to the power supply system...and will ...supply,
regulate and supervise the p