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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 7, “a text fixture” should be changed to “the test fixture”.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “text fixture” should be changed to “test fixture”.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, “text fixture” should be changed to “test fixture”.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 6, “a test fixture” should be changed to “the test fixture”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 11-18, and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the Claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of Matter?
Independent Claims 1, 8, and 18 each recite a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. Thus, the claims are to a manufacture, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A: Prong One: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea?
Independent claim 1 recites:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor, are configured to cause the processor to:
establish communication with a test fixture, via a communication channel between the test fixture and a head mounted device (HMD);
obtain inertial measurement unit (IMU) data based on output from an IMU in the HMD generated based on movement of the HMD caused by a text fixture to which the HMD is coupled;
generate IMU calibration data for the HMD based on the IMU data [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites a mathematical concepts, and a mental process because they can be performed by a human using pen and paper];
store the IMU calibration data in the HMD; and
implement at least one technical measure designed to prevent subsequent modification of the IMU calibration data [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites a mental process. The implementing step is recited at a high level of generality, without describing the “measure” or how it is implemented, and merely generally recites the idea of an outcome without reciting any particular details of how the result is accomplished or the mechanism for accomplishing the result. Further, the implementing step merely refers to preventing modification of the data itself, and does not require any interaction with any device].
Independent Claim 8 recites:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one processor, are configured to cause a processor to:
during a calibration operation: establish communication with a test fixture, via a communication channel, to initialize the test fixture;
store inertial measurement unit (IMU) data within a head mounted display (HMD) in response to at least one of rotating or translating the HMD using the test fixture and while the HMD is coupled to the test fixture;
generate IMU calibration data for the HMD based on the IMU data [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites a mathematical concepts, and a mental process because they can be performed by a human using pen and paper]; and
prevent, after the calibration operation is completed, modification of the IMU calibration data [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites a mental process. The preventing step is recited at a high level of generality, without describing how the preventing of modification is performed, and merely generally recites the idea of an outcome without reciting any particular details of how the result is accomplished or the mechanism for accomplishing the result. Further, the preventing step merely refers to preventing modification of the data itself, and does not require any interaction with any device].
Independent Claim 18 recites:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor, are configured to cause the processor to:
establish communication with a test fixture, via a communication channel, to initialize the test fixture;
initialize a test fixture coupled to a head mounted display (HMD);
rotate or translate the HMD while coupled to the test fixture;
in response to rotating or translating of the HMD, record inertial measurement unit (IMU) data within the HMD;
generate IMU calibration data based on the IMU data [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites a mathematical concepts, and a mental process because they can be performed by a human using pen and paper]; and
cause the HMD to prevent modification of the IMU calibration data [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites a mental process. The causing step is recited at a high level of generality, without describing how the preventing of modification is performed, and merely generally recites the idea of an outcome without reciting any particular details of how the result is accomplished or the mechanism for accomplishing the result].
Step 2A: Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Abstract Idea Into a Practical Application?
Regarding Claim 1, the elements that are not underlined above are the additional elements (i.e., a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor”; “establish communication with a test fixture, via a communication channel between the test fixture and a head mounted device (HMD)”; “obtain inertial measurement unit (IMU) data based on output from an IMU in the HMD generated based on movement of the HMD caused by a text fixture to which the HMD is coupled”; and “store the IMU calibration data in the HMD”.).
The examiner submits that each of the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the abstract idea is performed. The non-transitory computer readable medium, the processor, the HMD, the test fixture, and the IMU are broadly recited, generic hardware. The establishing step is merely broadly recited, extra-solution activity. The obtaining step is mere gathering of data for use in the abstract idea. The storing step is mere outputting of a result of the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 8, the elements that are not underlined above are the additional elements (i.e., a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor”; “during a calibration operation: establish communication with a test fixture, via a communication channel, to initialize the test fixture”; and “store inertial measurement unit (IMU) data within a head mounted display (HMD) in response to at least one of rotating or translating the HMD using the test fixture and while the HMD is coupled to the test fixture”).
The examiner submits that each of the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the abstract idea is performed. The non-transitory computer readable medium, the processor, the HMD, the test fixture, and the IMU are broadly recited, generic hardware. The establishing step is merely broadly recited, extra-solution activity. The storing step is mere gathering of data for use in the abstract idea; it is noted that rotating or translating an IMU to generate calibration data is known in the art (see Mullins, U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0225191, which is cited below with respect to the prior art rejections, paragraphs [0056]-[0074]).
Regarding Claim 18, the elements that are not underlined above are the additional elements (i.e., a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor”; “establish communication with a test fixture, via a communication channel, to initialize the test fixture”; “initialize a test fixture coupled to a head mounted display (HMD)”; “rotate or translate the HMD while coupled to the test fixture”; “in response to rotating or translating of the HMD, record inertial measurement unit (IMU) data within the HMD”).
The examiner submits that each of the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the abstract idea is performed. The non-transitory computer readable medium, the processor, the HMD, the test fixture, and the IMU are broadly recited, generic hardware. The establishing and initializing steps are merely broadly recited, extra-solution activity. The rotating or translating step, and the recording step, is mere gathering of data for use in the abstract idea; it is noted that rotating or translating an IMU to generate calibration data is known in the art (see Mullins, U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0225191, which is cited below with respect to the prior art rejections, paragraphs [0056]-[0074]).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Amount to Significantly More Than the Abstract Idea?
The examiner submits that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent Claims 3-7, 11-17, and 20-24 are also not patent eligible. Dependent Claims 3-6, 14, and 21 recite further insignificant extra-solution activity. Dependent Claims 11-12, 15-16, and 22-23 merely recite further details of the mathematical concepts/mental process. Dependent Claims 7, 13, 17, 20, and 24 merely recite generic hardware.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0225191) in view of Horner (DE-102012006552-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Mullins teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor (claims 1 and 15), are configured to cause the processor to: establish communication with a test fixture, via a communication channel between the test fixture and a head mounted device (HMD) (Fig. 4, communication between calibration system 400 and head mounted display 100; paragraph [0033] and [0056]-[0074]); obtain inertial measurement unit (IMU) data based on output from an IMU in the HMD generated based on movement of the HMD caused by a text fixture to which the HMD is coupled (paragraphs [0060], [0062], [0067], [0069], [0070], rate table moves the IMU for calibration); and generate IMU calibration data for the HMD based on the IMU data (calibration system 400, paragraphs [0056]-[0074]); store the IMU calibration data in the HMD (calibration system 400, paragraphs [0056]-[0074]).
Mullins does not specifically teach implement at least one technical measure designed to prevent subsequent modification of the IMU calibration data. However, Horner teaches, in the paragraph spanning pages 4-5, that direction information (equated to the claimed IMU calibration data) for an acceleration sensor that was determined before delivery is stored in a read-only memory, which would prevent modification. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the read-only memory of Horner in the system of Mullins, so as to allow data from an acceleration sensor to be evaluated at any time, so that positions can be determined reliably (see Horner, the paragraph spanning pages 4-5), and because combining prior art elements according to known methods (i.e., using a read-only memory to hold calibration data for an inertial sensor, as taught in Horner, in a HMD, as taught in Mullins) yields predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2, Mullins in view of Horner teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Mullins does not specifically teach wherein the technical measure includes disabling the communication channel. However, Mullins does teach, in Figs. 1 and 4, that HMD 100 is connected to calibration module 400 during calibration; when the HMD 100 is not being calibrated (i.e., after the calibration is completed), the HMD 100 is not connected to calibration module 400 (i.e., the communication channel is disabled, it is noted that the calibration module 400 includes the various tables that move the IMU during the calibration, see paragraphs [0056]-[0074], which would not be connected to the HMD when it is not being calibrated). Further, Horner teaches, in the paragraph spanning pages 4-5, that direction information (equated to the claimed IMU calibration data) for an acceleration sensor that was determined before delivery is stored in a read-only memory; this storing would only be performed after calibration is completed in conjunction with disconnecting from a calibration module such as is taught in Mullins, because before calibration is completed, the calibration data to store in the read-only memory would be incomplete. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention disconnect the HMD of Mullins from the calibration module of Mullins based on completion of the calibration operation and writing of the determined calibration data to a read-only memory, as is taught in Horner, so as to allow data from an acceleration sensor to be evaluated at any time, so that positions can be determined reliably (see Horner, the paragraph spanning pages 4-5), and because combining prior art elements according to known methods yields predictable results.
Regarding Claim 3, Mullins in view of Horner teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Mullins does not specifically teach wherein the technical measure includes marking the IMU calibration data read only. However, Horner teaches, in the paragraph spanning pages 4-5, that direction information (equated to the claimed IMU calibration data) for an acceleration sensor that was determined before delivery is stored in a read-only memory. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the read-only memory of Horner in the system of Mullins, so that positions can be determined reliably (see Horner, the paragraph spanning pages 4-5), and because combining prior art elements according to known methods yields predictable results
Regarding Claim 5, Mullins in view of Horner teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Mullins further teaches wherein obtaining the IMU data includes obtaining the IMU data in response to a signal from the text fixture indicating movement of the HMD by the test fixture (paragraphs [0056]-[0074]).
Regarding Claim 6, Mullins in view of Horner teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Mullins further teaches wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the processor to store the IMU data (augmented reality module 412, paragraphs [0039]-[0040]).
Claim(s) 4, 8-9, 11-15, 18, and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins in view of Horner and Chen (CN-209541769-U).
Regarding Claim 4, Mullins in view of Horner teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Mullins does not specifically teach wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the processor to initialize the text fixture using the communication channel. However, Mullin does teach that the test fixture includes a rate table for calibrating the IMU (see paragraphs [0056]-[0074]). Further, Chen teaches a gyroscope calibration process that includes sending an initialization command to a turntable to set the turntable angle to zero before calibrating a gyroscope using the turntable (see page 4, last full paragraph). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to initialize the rate table of Mullin using the initialization command of Chen, in order to start the calibration process from a known position of the turntable (see Chen, page 4, last full paragraph).
Regarding Claim 8, Mullins teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one processor (claims 1 and 15), are configured to cause a processor to: during a calibration operation: establish communication with a test fixture, via a communication channel (Fig. 4, communication between calibration system 400 and head mounted display 100; paragraph [0033]); store inertial measurement unit (IMU) data within a head mounted display (HMD) in response to at least one of rotating or translating the HMD using the test fixture and while the HMD is coupled to the test fixture (paragraphs [0060], [0062], [0067], [0069], [0070], rate table moves the IMU for calibration); and generate IMU calibration data for the HMD based on the IMU data (calibration system 400, paragraphs [0056]-[0074]).
Mullin does not specifically teach establish communication with a test fixture, via a communication channel, to initialize the test fixture (emphasis added). However, Mullin does teach that the test fixture includes a rate table for calibrating the IMU (see paragraphs [0056]-[0074]). Further, Chen teaches a gyroscope calibration process that includes sending an initialization command to a turntable to set the turntable angle to zero before calibrating a gyroscope using the turntable (see page 4, last full paragraph). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to initialize the rate table of Mullin using the initialization command of Chen, in order to start the calibration process from a known position of the turntable (see Chen, page 4, last full paragraph).
Mullins does not specifically teach prevent, after the calibration operation is completed, modification of the IMU calibration data. However, Horner teaches, in the paragraph spanning pages 4-5, that direction information (equated to the claimed IMU calibration data) for an acceleration sensor that was determined before delivery is stored in a read-only memory, which would prevent modification. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the read-only memory of Horner in the system of Mullins, so as to allow data from an acceleration sensor to be evaluated at any time, so that positions can be determined reliably (see Horner, the paragraph spanning pages 4-5), and because combining prior art elements according to known methods (i.e., using a read-only memory to hold calibration data for an inertial sensor, as taught in Horner, in a HMD, as taught in Mullins) yields predictable results.
Regarding Claim 9, Mullins in view of Horner and Chen teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 8. Mullins does not specifically teach wherein the technical measure includes disabling the communication channel. However, Mullins does teach, in Figs. 1 and 4, that HMD 100 is connected to calibration module 400 during calibration; when the HMD 100 is not being calibrated (i.e., after the calibration is completed), the HMD 100 is not connected to calibration module 400 (i.e., the communication channel is disabled, it is noted that the calibration module 400 includes the various tables that move the IMU during the calibration, see paragraphs [0056]-[0074], which would not be connected to the HMD when it is not being calibrated). Further, Horner teaches, in the paragraph spanning pages 4-5, that direction information (equated to the claimed IMU calibration data) for an acceleration sensor that was determined before delivery is stored in a read-only memory; this storing would only be performed after calibration is completed in conjunction with disconnecting from a calibration module such as is taught in Mullins, because before calibration is completed, the calibration data to store in the read-only memory would be incomplete. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention disconnect the HMD of Mullins from the calibration module of Mullins based on completion of the calibration operation and writing of the determined calibration data to a read-only memory, as is taught in Horner, so as to allow data from an acceleration sensor to be evaluated at any time, so that positions can be determined reliably (see Horner, the paragraph spanning pages 4-5), and because combining prior art elements according to known methods yields predictable results.
Regarding Claim 11, Mullins in view of Horner and Chen teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 8. Mullins further teaches wherein the IMU calibration data includes a gyroscope scale factor and a gyroscope misalignment along a rotation axis (paragraphs [0057] and [0063]).
Regarding Claim 12, Mullins in view of Horner and Chen teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 8. Mullins further teaches wherein the IMU calibration data includes an accelerometer misalignment matrix (paragraphs [0059]-[0060]).
Regarding Claim 13, Mullins in view of Horner and Chen teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 8. Mullins further teaches wherein the HMD includes two or more IMUs (paragraphs [0018] and [0033], the HMD 100 can include IMUs, plural).
Regarding Claim 14, Mullins in view of Horner and Chen teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 8. Mullins further teaches wherein IMU calibration data is stored in a memory of the HMD (paragraphs [0039]-[0040], augmented reality module 412 can reside on and be integrated into the HMD 100).
Regarding Claim 15, Mullins in view of Horner and Chen teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 8. Mullins further teaches wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the processor to: generate an accelerometer misalignment matrix indicating misalignment angles between an s frame and a p frame of the IMU based on the IMU calibration data (paragraphs [0059]-[0060]).
Regarding Claim 18, Mullins teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor (claims 1 and 15), are configured to cause the processor to: establish communication with a test fixture, via a communication channel (Fig. 4, communication between calibration system 400 and head mounted display 100; paragraph [0033]); rotate or translate the HMD while coupled to the test fixture (paragraphs [0060], [0062], [0067], [0069], [0070], rate table moves the IMU for calibration); in response to rotating or translating of the HMD, record inertial measurement unit (IMU) data within the HMD (calibration system 400, paragraphs [0056]-[0074]); generate IMU calibration data based on the IMU data (calibration system 400, paragraphs [0056]-[0074]).
Mullin does not specifically teach establish communication with a test fixture, via a communication channel, to initialize the test fixture (emphasis added); and initialize a test fixture coupled to a head mounted display (HMD). However, Mullin does teach that the test fixture includes a rate table for calibrating the IMU in the HMD (see paragraphs [0056]-[0074]). Further, Chen teaches a gyroscope calibration process that includes sending an initialization command to a turntable to set the turntable angle to zero before calibrating a gyroscope using the turntable (see page 4, last full paragraph). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to initialize the rate table of Mullin using the initialization command of Chen, in order to start the calibration process from a known position of the turntable (see Chen, page 4, last full paragraph).
Mullins does not specifically teach cause the HMD to prevent modification of the IMU calibration data. However, Horner teaches, in the paragraph spanning pages 4-5, that direction information (equated to the claimed IMU calibration data) for an acceleration sensor that was determined before delivery is stored in a read-only memory, which would prevent modification. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the read-only memory of Horner in the system of Mullins, so as to allow data from an acceleration sensor to be evaluated at any time, so that positions can be determined reliably (see Horner, the paragraph spanning pages 4-5), and because combining prior art elements according to known methods i.e., using a read-only memory to hold calibration data for an inertial sensor, as taught in Horner, in a HMD, as taught in Mullins) yields predictable results.
Regarding Claim 20, Mullins in view of Horner and Chen teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 18. Mullins further teaches wherein the HMD includes two or more IMUs (paragraphs [0018] and [0033], the HMD 100 can include IMUs).
Regarding Claim 21, Mullins in view of Horner and Chen teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 18. Mullins further teaches wherein IMU calibration data is stored in a memory of the HMD (paragraphs [0039]-[0040], augmented reality module 412 can reside on and be integrated into the HMD 100).
Regarding Claim 22, Mullins in view of Horner and Chen teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 18. Mullins further teaches wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the processor to: generate an accelerometer misalignment matrix indicating misalignment angles between an s frame and a p frame of the IMU based on the IMU calibration data (paragraphs [0059]-[0060]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins in view of Horner and Lee et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0325875, hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding Claim 7, Mullins in view of Horner teach everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Mullins does not specifically teach wherein the HMD is included in a box. However, Lee teaches, in paragraphs [0007] and Figs. 5A-5D, a packing box for a head mounted display. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the packing box and HMD of Lee in the HMD calibration system of Mullins, in order decrease resource consumption (see Lee, paragraph [0007]).
Claim(s) 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins in view of Horner, Chen, and Horton (U.S. Pat. No. 6647352).
Regarding Claim 10, Mullins in view of Horner and Chen teach everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 8. Mullins further teaches the rotating or translating of the test fixture includes communicating a reposition command that causes the test fixture to move in at least one of three axes (calibration system 400, paragraphs [0056]-[0074]), and causing the HMD to end the communication with the test fixture (Figs. 1 and 4, HMD 100 is connected to calibration module 400 during calibration; when the HMD 100 is not being calibrated, the HMD 100 is not connected to calibration module 400; it is noted that the calibration module 100 includes the various tables that move the HMD 100 during the calibration, see paragraphs [0056]-[0074]).
Mullins does not specifically teach wherein the initializing of the test fixture includes communicating an initialization command that causes a leveling of the test fixture. However, Mullins does teach that the calibration includes a table (paragraphs [0056]-[0074]), and Chen teaches an initialization command for a turntable for inertial sensor calibration (see the rejection of Claim 8, above). Further, Horton teaches, in column 7, line 58 to column 8, line 6, that a system 100 including an accelerometer and gyro are calibrated by placing the system 100 on a leveled table 105. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to perform the table leveling of Horton in response to the initialization command of Mullins and Chen, in order to generate accurate calibration data for the accelerometer and gyro (see Horton, column 7, line 58 to column 8, line 6).
Mullins does not specifically teach that the preventing of the modification of the IMU calibration causes the HMD to end the communication with the test fixture. However, Mullins does teach, in Figs. 1 and 4, that HMD 100 is connected to calibration module 400 during calibration; when the HMD 100 is not being calibrated (i.e., after the calibration is completed), the HMD 100 is not connected to calibration module 400 (i.e., the communication channel is disabled, it is noted that the calibration module 400 includes the various tables that move the IMU during the calibration, see paragraphs [0056]-[0074], which would not be connected to the HMD when it is not being calibrated). Further, Horner teaches, in the paragraph spanning pages 4-5, that direction information (equated to the claimed IMU calibration data) for an acceleration sensor that was determined before delivery is stored in a read-only memory; this storing would only be performed after calibration is completed in conjunction with disconnecting from a calibration module such as is taught in Mullins, because before calibration is completed, the calibration data to store in the read-only memory would be incomplete. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention disconnect the HMD of Mullins from the calibration module of Mullins based on completion of the calibration operation and writing of the determined calibration data to a read-only memory, as is taught in Horner, so as to allow data from an acceleration sensor to be evaluated at any time, so that positions can be determined reliably (see Horner, the paragraph spanning pages 4-5), and because combining prior art elements according to known methods yields predictable results.
Regarding Claim 19, Mullins in view of Horner and Chen teach everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 18. Mullins further teaches the rotating or translating of the test fixture includes moving the test fixture in at least one of three axes (paragraphs [0056]-[0074]), the recording of the IMU data includes receiving IMU data from the HMD (paragraphs [0056]-[0074]), and causing the HMD to end the communication with the test fixture (Figs. 1 and 4, HMD 100 is connected to calibration module 400 during calibration; when the HMD 100 is not being calibrated, the HMD 100 is not connected to calibration module 400; it is noted that the calibration module 100 includes the various tables that move the HMD 100 during the calibration, see paragraphs [0056]-[0074]).
Mullins does not specifically teach wherein the initializing of the test fixture includes causing a leveling of the test fixture. However, Mullins does teach that the calibration includes a table (paragraphs [0056]-[0074]), and Chen teaches an initialization command for a turntable for inertial sensor calibration (see the rejection of Claim 8, above). Further, Horton teaches, in column 7, line 58 to column 8, line 6, that a system 100 including an accelerometer and gyro are calibrated by placing the system 100 on a leveled table 105. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to perform the table leveling of Horton in response to the initialization command of Mullins and Chen, in order to generate accurate calibration data for the accelerometer and gyro (see Horton, column 7, line 58 to column 8, line 6).
Mullins does not specifically teach that the preventing of the modification of the IMU calibration data causes the HMD to end the communication with the test fixture. However, Mullins does teach, in Figs. 1 and 4, that HMD 100 is connected to calibration module 400 during calibration; when the HMD 100 is not being calibrated (i.e., after the calibration is completed), the HMD 100 is not connected to calibration module 400 (i.e., the communication channel is disabled, it is noted that the calibration module 400 includes the various tables that move the IMU during the calibration, see paragraphs [0056]-[0074], which would not be connected to the HMD when it is not being calibrated). Further, Horner teaches, in the paragraph spanning pages 4-5, that direction information (equated to the claimed IMU calibration data) for an acceleration sensor that was determined before delivery is stored in a read-only memory; this storing would only be performed after calibration is completed in conjunction with disconnecting from a calibration module such as is taught in Mullins, because before calibration is completed, the calibration data to store in the read-only memory would be incomplete. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention disconnect the HMD of Mullins from the calibration module of Mullins based on completion of the calibration operation and writing of the determined calibration data to a read-only memory, as is taught in Horner, so as to allow data from an acceleration sensor to be evaluated at any time, so that positions can be determined reliably (see Horner, the paragraph spanning pages 4-5), and because combining prior art elements according to known methods yields predictable results.
Claim(s) 16 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins in view of Horner, Chen, and Carpenter et al (U.S. Pub. No. 11472235, hereinafter “Carpenter”).
Regarding Claim 16, Mullins in view of Horner and Chen teach everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 8. Mullins does not specifically teach wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the processor to: generate a gyroscope misalignment matrix indicating misalignment angles between an s frame and a p frame of the IMU based on the IMU calibration data. However, Mullins does teach in paragraph [0063] that misalignment determination can be performed for the gyroscope. Further, Carpenter teaches, in column 12, line 65-column 13, line 10, an orthogonal matrix G that characterizes the misalignment of an IMU relative to a device; the matrix G is used to determine the angular rates sensed by the IMU’s gyroscopes. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the misalignment matrix of Carpenter in the system of Mullins, in order to account for IMU misalignment in the measurements provided by the gyroscopes (column 12, line 65-column 13, line 10), and because axis misalignment is a parameter that needs calibration for an IMU (see Mullins, paragraphs [0057] and [0063]).
Regarding Claim 23, Mullins in view of Horner and Chen teach everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 18. Mullins does not specifically teach wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the processor to: generate a gyroscope misalignment matrix indicating misalignment angles between an s frame and a p frame of the IMU based on the IMU calibration data. However, Mullins does teach in paragraph [0063] that misalignment determination can be performed for the gyroscope. Further, Carpenter teaches, in column 12, line 65-column 13, line 10, an orthogonal matrix G that characterizes the misalignment of an IMU relative to a device; the matrix G is used to determine the angular rates sensed by the IMU’s gyroscopes. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the misalignment matrix of Carpenter in the system of Mullins, in order to account for IMU misalignment in the measurements provided by the gyroscopes (column 12, line 65-column 13, line 10), and because axis misalignment is a parameter that needs calibration for an IMU (see Mullins, paragraphs [0057] and [0063]).
Claim(s) 17 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins in view of Horner, Chen, and Lee.
Regarding Claim 17, Mullins in view of Horner and Chen teach everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 8. Mullins does not specifically teach wherein the HMD is included in a box. However, Lee teaches, in paragraphs [0007] and Figs. 5A-5D, a packing box for a head mounted display. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the packing box and HMD of Lee in the HMD calibration system of Mullins, in order decrease resource consumption (see Lee, paragraph [0007]).
Regarding Claim 24, Mullins in view of Horner and Chen teach everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 18. Mullins does not specifically teach wherein the HMD is included in a box. However, Lee teaches, in paragraphs [0007] and Figs. 5A-5D, a packing box for a head mounted display. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the packing box and HMD of Lee in the HMD calibration system of Mullins, in order decrease resource consumption (see Lee, paragraph [0007]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA L DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am to 3pm.
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at (571)272-6334. 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.
/CYNTHIA L DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights