The receipts
Downloads
Source documents from the proceeding — office actions, responses, and other filings — straight from the public record.
You can get these documents directly from the USPTO via Global Dossier. I just copied the important ones here for convenience.
- Their original filing
- Their original specification Note how thin it is on details
- Original claims No vibration sensor in claim 1
- Original drawings All 3 of them
- Their Publication & my submission
- Their Application Publication Note how thin it is on details (same as above)
- My Third Party Submission It's long and detailed. What do you think?
- First OA
- First Office Action Mentions Fyfe, but overall this was a weak rejection. Completely misses the fact accelerometers and gyros are vibration sensors.
- Applicant Response (First OA)
- Applicant Response to the First Office Action In my opinion: misleading arguments and a misrepresentation of the prior art.
- Amended claims Vibration sensor enters claim 1, but isn't marked up.
- Final OA
- Final Rejection Not really final. The examiner didn't use any of the strong prior art by Fyfe.
- Request for Continued Examination
- Applicant Response to the Final Rejection (RCE) This is the one. In my opinion, this is where the examiner got bamboozled and the process was made a mockery of.
- Amended Claims (RCE) See the text of Claim 13 and compare that to the text in the remarks for this same response.
- Allowance
- Notice of Allowance The examiner's conflicting logic, as I read it.