DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-16 and 18-22 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ response to the last Office Action, dated Feb. 11, 2026 has been entered and made of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument has been fully considered, and Examiner respectfully submits that the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
As to claim 1, Applicant argues (Remarks, p. 8)
Claim 1 provides that a representation is displayed of “an alignment position for a second computing device relative to [a] body portion”. Thus, claim 1 describes displaying an alignment position for a single device defined by the user’s own anatomy. In contrast, Erivantcev 1 instructs a user to position a first device (i.e., sensor module) relative to a second device (i.e., the field of view of a stereo camera). The Examiner’s interpretation conflates a device-centric alignment (Erivantcev 1) with an anatomy-centric alignment (Claim 1).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant subjectively asserts that “an alignment position for a second computing device relative to [a] body portion” should be interpreted as shown in, e.g., FIG. 1B of the present application only, while one of the ordinary skill in the art may objectively reasonably understand it differently, as provided by Examiner.
Specifically, Examiner understands that the so-called “anatomy-centric alignment (Claim 1” is best depicted in FIG. 1B. That is, Applicant appears to read “an alignment position for a second computing device must be a rendered visual representation and displayed relative to [a] body position”, i.e., relative to “L-shape by the thumb and forefinger” ([0054], “alignment position 152”). However, Examiner reasonably interprets that “an alignment position for a second computing device may not be the rendered visual representation and it may be set relative to [a] body position”, i.e., relative to various body portions shown in FIGS. 8-12 of Erivantcev 1, in a sense that the images of those sensor modules (e.g., 113, 115, 117 or 119) must be captured in the field of view of a stereo camera (126), i.e., the “alignment position (location)” when the user wearing them moves her arm(s) or hand(s) to the specific “position(s)”. Thus, Examiner’s interpretation reasonably reads on.
PNG
media_image1.png
595
1042
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully submits that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues (Remarks, p. 9)
Further, Erivantcev 1 fials to disclose presenting a “representation” of a position as provided by claim 1, and instead relies on “instructing (301) a user … to move the sensor module into a field of view” (Erivantcev 1, paragraph 0107). This “field of view” is a fixed property of the camera hardware, rather than a rendered visual representation of an alignment position defined specifically as “relative to the body portion”. … Erivantcev 1 lacks any disclosure of a displayed UI element or visual target positioned relative to the user’s anatomy to facilitate spatial alignment.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above, Examiner reasonably interprets the “field of view of the stereo camera (126)” as the “alignment position”, because claim 1 fails to clearly recite that the “alignment position” must be “a rendered visual representation”. Again, Examiner respectfully submits that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Then, “presenting, on a display, a representation of an alignment position” reasonably includes “instructing (301) a user (e.g., by text) … to move the sensor module into a field of view” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, because such “instruction (301)” is not required to be a “displayed UI element or visual target”.
Accordingly, Claim 1 in not allowable.
As to claims 2-8, they depend from claim 1, and is not allowable at least for the same reasons above.
As to claim 9, it “contains limitations like those discussed above with respect to claim 1” (Remarks, p. 9), and is not allowable for the same reasons above.
As to claims 10-15, they depend from claim 9, and are not allowable at least for the same reasons above.
As to claim 16, it “contains limitations like those discussed above with respect to claim 1” (Remarks, p. 9), and is not allowable for the same reasons above.
As to claims 18-22, they depend from claim 16, and are not allowable at least for the same reasons above.
Examiner maintains his decision, and provides succinct explanation as described above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1-2, 7-10, 14-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Erivantcev et al. (US 2020/0033937 A1, hereinafter Erivantcev 1).
As to claim 1, Erivantcev 1 discloses a method (Erivantcev 1, Abs., “calibrating the IMUs with respect to a common reference”) performed by a first computing device (Erivantcev 1, FIG. 1, [0031], “head module (111)”), the method comprising:
determining an orientation of a body portion (Erivantcev 1, e.g., FIGS. 10-11, [0094], “images of a hand module (117) on the right hand (106) can be captured as illustrated in FIGS. 10 and 11 for the calibration of the hand module (117)”) using a camera (Erivantcev 1, FIG. 1, [0090], “camera (126)”) on the first computing device (Erivantcev 1, FIG. 1, [0031], “head module (111)”);
presenting, on a display, a representation of an alignment position (Erivantcev 1, FIG. 13, [0107], “instructing (301) a user wearing a sensor module (e.g., 113, 115, 117 or 119) to move the sensor module into a field of view of a stereo camera (126) of a head mount display”) for a second computing device (Erivantcev 1, FIGS. 10-13, [0096], [0107], “hand module (e.g., 117 or 119)”) relative to the body portion (Erivantcev 1, e.g., FIGS. 10-11, [0094], e.g., relative to the “right hand (106)”);
receiving a communication from the second computing device (Erivantcev 1, FIG. 13, [0107], “obtaining (305) an orientation measurement generated by the sensor module at a time the stereo image is captured”), the communication including orientation data (Erivantcev 1, FIG. 13, [0107], the “orientation measurement”) for the second computing device (Erivantcev 1, FIG. 13, [0107], “by the sensor module”) in the alignment position (Erivantcev 1, FIG. 13, [0107], the “field of view”); and
determining a calibration parameter based on the orientation data and the orientation of the body portion (Erivantcev 1, FIG. 13, [0107], “determining (311) an orientation transformation to align the orientation measurement of the sensor module with the orientation of the portion of the body”), the calibration parameter used to establish a common coordinate system between the first computing device and the second computing device (Erivantcev 1, FIG. 13, [0105], “an image as captured using a user pose illustrated in FIG. 12 can be used to calibration the reference orientation of the camera (126) relative to the skeleton of the user, which allows the sensor devices (e.g., 113, 115, 117 and 119) to be further calibrated to the skeleton of the user (e.g., common coordinate system (100) illustrated in FIG. 1)”).
As to claim 2, Erivantcev 1 discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining at least one additional orientation of the body portion using the camera (Erivantcev 1, FIG. 14, [0112], “capturing (323) stereo images (e.g., illustrated in FIGS. 4-12) of a portion of the body of the user wearing the sensor module in at least two different positions (e.g., different poses as captured in the stereo images)”);
receiving at least one additional communication from the second computing device, the at least one additional communication including additional orientation data for the second computing device when the body portion is in the at least one additional orientation (Erivantcev 1, FIG. 14, [0112], “obtaining (325) orientation measurements generated by the sensor module while being in the positions respectively”); and
updating the calibration parameter based on the additional orientation data and the at least one additional orientation of the body portion (Erivantcev 1, FIG. 14, [0112], “determining (331) an orientation transformation to align the orientation measurement of the sensor module with the orientation of the sensor module and an orientation transformation to align the orientation of the sensor module with the orientation of the portion of the body”).
As to claim 7, Erivantcev 1 discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: presenting, on the display, a representation of the body portion (Erivantcev 1, e.g., see FIGS. 10-12, [0090], “For example, when the left arm (103, 112) of the user is moved into the field of view of the camera (126), the camera (126) can take a stereo image of the left arm (103) wearing the sensor module (113) in a way illustrated in FIGS. 4 and 5”).
As to claim 8, Erivantcev 1 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the body portion (Erivantcev 1, e.g., FIGS. 10-11, [0094], “right hand (106)”) comprises an extremity of a user (Erivantcev 1, e.g., FIGS. 10-11, [0094], “right hand (106)”) of the first computing device (Erivantcev 1, FIG. 1, [0031], “head module (111)”).
As to claim 9, it differs from claim 1 only in that it is the computing system performing the method of claim 1. It recites substantially the same limitations as in claim 1, and Erivantcev 1 discloses them. Please see claim 1 for detailed analysis.
As to claim 10, it recites substantially the same limitations as in claim 2, and Erivantcev 1 discloses them. Please see claim 2 for detailed analysis.
As to claims 14-15, they recite substantially the same limitations as in claims 7-8, respectively, and Erivantcev 1 discloses them. Please see claims 7-8 for detailed analysis.
As to claim 16, it differs from claim 1 only in that it is the computer-readable storage medium having program instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one processor, direct the at least one processor to perform the method of claim 1. It recites substantially the same limitations as in claim 1, and Erivantcev 1 discloses them. Please see claim 1 for detailed analysis.
As to claim 19, it recites substantially the same limitations as in claim 7, and Erivantcev 1 discloses them. Please see claim 7 for detailed analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 3-6, 11-13, 18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erivantcev et al. (US 2020/0033937 A1, Erivantcev 1) in view of Erivantcev et al. (US 2019/0212359 A1, hereinafter Erivantcev 2).
As to claim 3, it differs from claim 2 only in that it recites substantially the same limitations as in claim 2, and further recites “in response to a touch input to the second computing device”.
Erivantcev 1 teaches the limitations recited in claim 2, and please see claim 2 for detailed analysis. Erivantcev 1 does not teach determining …. “in response to a touch input to the second computing device”.
However, Erivantcev 2 teaches the concept of determining …. in response to a touch input to the second computing device (Erivantcev 2, FIG. 12, [0122], “the handheld devices (117 and 119) may include one or more buttons which, when activated, indicate that the user is in the calibration pose, which cause the light-Emitting Diode (LED) lights to be on and cause the camera (309) to capture an image for calibration”; FIG. 13, [0149], “The calibration pose may be detected based on one or more user input generated using the handheld devices (117 and 119), such as button clicks, touch inputs, joystick inputs”).
At the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the “calibration pose” taught by Erivantcev 1 and 2 to be further confirmed by, e.g., “touch inputs”, as taught by Erivantcev 2, in order to “allow the determination of the deviation of the measurement space of a sensor device from a reference coordinate system using a convenient pose of a user” (Erivantcev 2, [0033]).
As to claim 4, Erivantcev 2 teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining at least a first location for the first computing device within an environment (Erivantcev 2, e.g., FIGS. 1-3, [0048], “The head sensor (111) can also be calibrated to produce measurements relative to the common reference coordinate system (100)”);
receiving second orientation data from the second computing device (Erivantcev 2, FIGS. 1-3, [0050]-[0051], “each of the sensor devices (111-119) communicates its measurements directly to the computing device (141) in a way independent from the operations of other sensor devices”; “Alternative, one of the sensor devices (111-119) may function as a base unit that receives measurements from one or more other sensor devices and transmit the bundled and/or combined measurements to the computing device (141)”); and
determining at least a second location for the second computing device based on the second orientation data and the calibration parameter (Erivantcev 2, e.g., FIGS. 1-3, [0049], “the hands, arms (105, 103), the head (107) and the torso (101) of the user may move relative to each other and relative to the coordinate system (100). The measurements of the sensor devices (111-119) provide orientations of the hands (106 and 108), the upper arms (105, 103), and the head (107) of the user relative to the common coordinate system (100)”). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 3.
As to claim 5, Erivantcev 2 teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining at least a first orientation for the first computing device within an environment;
receiving second orientation data from the second computing device; and determining at least a second orientation for the second computing device based on the second orientation data and the calibration parameter (Erivantcev 2, e.g., FIG. 20, [0177], e.g., “Each of the upper arm (103), the forearm (383), and the hand (108) has an orientation relative to a common reference system (e.g., the shoulder (102), a room, or a location on the Earth where the user is positioned). The orientation of the upper arm (103), the forearm (383), or the hand (108) is indicated by a local coordinate system (391, 393, or 395) aligned with the upper arm (103), the forearm (383), or the hand (108) respectively”). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 3.
As to claim 6, Erivantcev 2 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the calibration parameter comprises a value of rotation along at least one axis (Erivantcev 2, see, e.g., FIG. 11, [0114]-[0117], “FIG. 11 illustrates the computation of a rotation for the calibration of the front facing direction of a head mounted device … From the projected direction Hh (303), a rotation β (307) along the vertical direction Z from the front facing direction X”). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 3.
As to claims 11-13, they recite substantially the same limitations as in claims 4-6, respectively, and Erivantcev 2 teaches them. Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 3. Please see claims 4-6 for detailed analysis.
As to claim 18, it recites substantially the same limitations as in claim 3, and Erivantcev 1 in view of Erivantcev 2 teaches them. Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 3. Please see claim 3 for detailed analysis.
As to claims 20-21, they recite substantially the same limitations as in claims 5-6, respectively, and Erivantcev 2 teaches them. Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 3. Please see claims 5-6 for detailed analysis.
As to claim 22, it recites substantially the same limitations as in claim 3, and Erivantcev 1 in view of Erivantcev 2 teaches them. Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 3. Please see claim 3 for detailed analysis.
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Osman (US 2017/0262056 A1) teaches the concept of “one of the plurality of sensors at each of the predefined locations is selected as an optimal sensor for the respective predefined location” (Abs.); Messingher et al. (US 2016/0054798 A1) teaches the concept of “virtual hand being rendred based on the identified finger position pose” (Abs.); and Stafford et al. (US 2015/0258431 A1) teaches the concept of “identifying positions of fingers of a hand” (Abs.).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD J HONG whose telephone number is (571) 270-7765. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST.
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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached on (571) 272-7772. 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.
May 14, 2026
/RICHARD J HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623
***
Prosecution Insights