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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. The Applicant's submission filed on 4/15/2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
No claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1, lines 13-14: “calculating the sensor-frame estimated gravity vector comprises forming, for each sensor and pose, a rotation matrix” should be “calculating the sensor frame estimated gravity vector for each pose associated with each sensor comprises forming a rotation matrix for each sensor and pose”;
in claim 1, lines 15-16: “applying the rotation matrix to the gravity vector” should be “applying the rotation matrix for each sensor and pose to the global gravity vector”;
in claim 1, line 20: “sensor-frame” should be “sensor frame”;
in claim 1, line 20: “joint-axis” should be “joint axis”;
in claim 1, line 21: “sensor-frame” should be “sensor frame”;
in claim 1, line 22: “joint-axis” should be “joint axis”; and
in claim 18, line 3: “for each pose” should be inserted after “the combined projections”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9-13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the estimated joint-axis direction for the first sensor” in lines 20-21, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, a subset of, or different from “estimated joint axis directions for” the first sensor of claim 1, lines 1-2. The recitation of lines 20-21 is singular while the recitation in lines 1-2 is plural. The deviation in quantity creates confusion as to the relationship between the two recitations. Clarification is required.
Claim 1 recites “the estimated joint-axis direction for the second sensor” in lines 21-22, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, a subset of, or different from “estimated joint axis directions for” the second sensor of claim 1, lines 1-2. The recitation of lines 21-22 is singular while the recitation in lines 1-2 is plural. The deviation in quantity creates confusion as to the relationship between the two recitations. Clarification is required.
Claim 1 recites “by minimizing a loss function that aggregates, over the poses, differences between (i) a scalar projection of the sensor-frame estimated gravity vector onto the estimated joint-axis direction for the first sensor and (ii) a scalar projection of the sensor-frame estimated gravity vector onto the estimated joint-axis direction for the second sensor” in lines 18-24, but it is not clear if this recitation means:
(1) by minimizing a loss function, the loss function being an aggregation of differences for all of the poses, each difference for a respective pose being a difference between (i) a scalar projection of the sensor frame estimated gravity vector for the respective pose for the first sensor onto the estimated joint axis direction for the first sensor and (ii) a scalar projection of the sensor frame estimated gravity vector for the respective pose for the second sensor onto the estimated joint axis direction for the second sensor; or
(2) by minimizing a loss function, the loss function being an aggregation of differences for all of the poses, each difference for a respective pose being a difference between (i) a scalar projection of the sensor-frame estimated gravity vector for the respective pose for the first and second sensors onto the estimated joint-axis direction for the first sensor and (ii) a scalar projection of the sensor-frame estimated gravity vector for the respective pose for the first and second sensors onto the estimated joint-axis direction for the second sensor;
(3) by minimizing a loss function, the loss function being an aggregation of differences for all of the poses, each difference for a respective pose being a difference between (i) a scalar projection of the sensor-frame estimated gravity vector for the respective pose for the first second onto the estimated joint-axis direction for the first sensor and (ii) a scalar projection of the sensor-frame estimated gravity vector for the respective pose for the first sensor onto the estimated joint-axis direction for the second sensor;
(4) by minimizing a loss function, the loss function being an aggregation of differences for all of the poses, each difference for a respective pose being a difference between (i) a scalar projection of the sensor-frame estimated gravity vector for the respective pose for the second sensor onto the estimated joint-axis direction for the first sensor and (ii) a scalar projection of the sensor-frame estimated gravity vector for the respective pose for the second sensor onto the estimated joint-axis direction for the second sensor; or
(5) some other meaning.
This ambiguity renders claim 1 indefinite.
Claims 2-3, 7, 9-13, and 18-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 7, 9-13, and 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0338621 (Kanchan)(previously cited) teaches a pair of sensors, one of the pair of sensors being mounted to each side of a joint comprising a joint axis (the sensor packages 11 and 14 on arm sleeve 10 in FIG. 1 of Kanchan; the sensor packages 31 and 35 on leg sleeve 30 in FIG. 3 of Kanchan). These sensor packages are used to determine the orientations of the body segments in two or more dimensions (paragraphs 0007, 0075, 0077, 0080-0081, 0083, and 0086 of Kanchan) which are used to determine the relative and absolute angles of the body segments (paragraphs 0076, 0080, and 0085-0086 of Kanchan). These sensor packages include accelerometers (paragraphs 0007, 0009, 0038, 0040, 0055-0056, 0072, 0075, and 0080-0081 of Kanchan).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0281555 (Godin) teaches a method for calibrating an inertial or magnetic sensor with three sensitive axes for determining a rotation matrix suitable for transforming coordinates expressed in a measurement frame of reference of the sensor into coordinates expressed in a predetermined frame of reference stationary with respect to a mobile body carrying the sensor (paragraph 0033 of Godin). The rotation matrix is generated in which the coordinates of each of the rotation vectors found correspond to a column of the rotation matrix for moving from the frame of reference of the sensor to the predetermined frame of reference stationary with respect to the mobile body (paragraph 0186 of Godin). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the computations of Godin for the orientations of the body segments in the computations of Kanchan since Kanchan teaches the determination of the orientations of the body segments in two or more dimensions (paragraphs 0007, 0075, 0077, 0080-0081, 0083, and 0086 of Kanchan) and Godin teaches such determinations and/or it is a simple substitute for one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Godin teaches the calibration over motions of the body over time (abstract paragraphs 0012, 0014, 0020, 0055, 0199-0201 of Godin). U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0015611 (Noble)(previously cited) teaches the use of taking measurements at different poses (the poses of paragraphs 0053-0055, 0059, 0060, and 0062-0063 of Noble). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the poses of Noble in the computations of Godin for the orientations of the body segments in the computations of Kanchan since particular poses provides guidance to the user’s actions during the calibration procedure.
Therefore, the combination teaches or suggests a method for calibrating estimated joint axis directions for each of a first sensor and a second sensor of a pair of sensors (the accelerometers of the sensor packages 11 and 14 in FIG. 1 of Kanchan; the accelerometers of the sensor packages 31 and 35 on leg sleeve 30 in FIG. 3 of Kanchan), one sensor of the pair of sensors being mounted to each side of a joint comprising a joint axis (FIGS. 1 and 3 of Kanchan), each sensor of the pair of sensors calculating a respective pitch angle about a first sensor axis and a respective roll angle about a second sensor axis (the angles and X and Y-axes of paragraph 0045 of Noble), the first sensor axis and the second sensor axis together with a third sensor axis orthogonal to the first sensor axis and the second sensor axis forming a sensor frame, the method comprising:
receiving orientation data for each sensor of the pair of sensors (the readings from the accelerometers of Kanchan), the orientation data being associated with at least two different poses of the joint for each sensor of the pair of sensors and the orientation data comprising the respective pitch angle and the respective roll angle for each sensor for each pose (the poses of paragraphs 0053-0055, 0059, 0060, and 0062-0063 of Noble);
calculating a sensor frame estimated gravity vector for each pose associated with each sensor based on the pitch and roll angles for each pose associated with each sensor and a global gravity vector running along a vertical direction, wherein calculating the sensor-frame estimated gravity vector comprises forming, for each sensor and pose, a rotation matrix from the pitch and roll angles while assuming zero rotation about the third sensor axis, and applying the rotation matrix to the gravity vector so as to express gravity in the sensor frame (the computations of Godin for each sensor); and
determining the estimated joint axis directions for each sensor for the joint axis of the joint, relative to the first sensor axis and the second sensor axis (determining the orientations of the body segments).
The combination does not teach or suggest “minimizing a loss function that aggregates, over the poses, differences between (i) a scalar projection of the sensor-frame estimated gravity vector onto the estimated joint-axis direction for the first sensor and (ii) a scalar projection of the sensor-frame estimated gravity vector onto the estimated joint-axis direction for the second sensor”. Though the prior art teaches a mechanism for minimizing an error/loss function (paragraph 0096 and 0098 of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0150793 (Barth)). The prior art does not teach the specific regime of minimizing the loss function as recited in claim 1.
Claims 2-3, 7, 9-13, and 18-20 are allowable by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0149894 (Park) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0161079 (Choi) teach a rotation matric in a similar and/or analogous application.
In particular, Park teaches the steps of processing acceleration and rate of turn signals from an IMU to generate a pitch angle and a roll angle; processing the pitch angle and the roll angle to generate a rotation matrix from a sensor frame of the IMU to a navigation frame of the subject; and applying the rotation matrix to the acceleration signals and removing gravitational acceleration to generate an external acceleration signal (abstract, paragraphs 0008 and 0032-0035 of Park).
Choi teaches a sensor unit including a 3-axis acceleration sensor 101 (paragraph 0030 of Choi) and a data processing unit 11 that processes an acceleration signal output from the acceleration sensor 101 to measure an acceleration value in relation to vibration in the 3-axis directions or an external acceleration value such as gravity (paragraph 0031 of Choi). A rotational transform matrix is obtained with respect to only the pitch angle and roll angle (paragraph 0039 of Choi). The rotational transform matrix is multiplied by the AC component of the acceleration value output from the acceleration sensor 101 (paragraph 0039 of Choi). Thus, the acceleration components in x, y, and z directions in the body frame of the acceleration sensor 101 are transformed into acceleration values in the space fixed coordinates (paragraph 0039 of Choi). Consequently, the acceleration values output from the data processing unit 11 are compensated for the direction of the sensor unit 10 to be output (paragraph 0039 of Choi).
Response to Arguments
The Applicant's arguments filed on 4/15/2026 have been fully considered.
Claim objections
There are new grounds of claim objections.
35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph
There are new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Prior art rejections
In view of the claim amendments filed on 4/15/2026, the previous prior art rejections are withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW KREMER whose telephone number is (571)270-3394. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am to 6 pm; every other Friday off.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JACQUELINE CHENG can be reached at (571) 272-5596. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW KREMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights