Patent Grant
9261978
The present invention describes three-dimensional (hereinafter “3D”) pointing techniques, systems and devices, as well as some techniques and devices which are usable in other types of handheld devices.
Technologies associated with the communication of information have evolved rapidly over the last several decades. Television, cellular telephony, the Internet and optical communication techniques (to name just a few things) combine to inundate consumers with available information and entertainment options. Taking television as an example, the last three decades have seen the introduction of cable television service, satellite television service, pay-per-view movies and video-on-demand. Whereas television viewers of the 1960s could typically receive perhaps four or five over-the-air TV channels on their television sets, today's TV watchers have the opportunity to select from hundreds, thousands, and potentially millions of channels of shows and information. Video-on-demand technology, currently used primarily in hotels and the like, provides the potential for in-home entertainment selection from among thousands of movie titles.
The technological ability to provide so much information and content to end users provides both opportunities and challenges to system designers and service providers. One challenge is that while end users typically prefer having more choices rather than fewer, this preference is counterweighted by their desire that the selection process be both fast and simple. Unfortunately, the development of the systems and interfaces by which end users access media items has resulted in selection processes which are neither fast nor simple. Consider again the example of television programs. When television was in its infancy, determining which program to watch was a relatively simple process primarily due to the small number of choices. One would consult a printed guide which was formatted, for example, as series of columns and rows which showed the correspondence between (1) nearby television channels, (2) programs being transmitted on those channels and (3) date and time. The television was tuned to the desired channel by adjusting a tuner knob and the viewer watched the selected program. Later, remote control devices were introduced that permitted viewers to tune the television from a distance. This addition to the user-television interface created the phenomenon known as “channel surfing” whereby a viewer could rapidly view short segments being broadcast on a number of channels to quickly learn what programs were available at any given time.
Despite the fact that the number of channels and amount of viewable content has dramatically increased, the generally available user interface, control device options and frameworks for televisions has not changed much over the last 30 years. Printed guides are still the most prevalent mechanism for conveying programming information. The multiple button remote control with up and down arrows is still the most prevalent channel/content selection mechanism. The reaction of those who design and implement the TV user interface to the increase in available media content has been a straightforward extension of the existing selection procedures and interface objects. Thus, the number of rows in the printed guides has been increased to accommodate more channels. The number of buttons on the remote control devices has been increased to support additional functionality and content handling, e.g., as shown in
In addition to increases in bandwidth and content, the user interface bottleneck problem is being exacerbated by the aggregation of technologies. Consumers are reacting positively to having the option of buying integrated systems rather than a number of segregable components. An example of this trend is the combination television/VCR/DVD in which three previously independent components are frequently sold today as an integrated unit. This trend is likely to continue, potentially with an end result that most if not all of the communication devices currently found in the household will be packaged together as an integrated unit, e.g., a television/VCR/DVD/internet access/radio/stereo unit. Even those who continue to buy separate components will likely desire seamless control of, and interworking between, the separate components. With this increased aggregation comes the potential for more complexity in the user interface. For example, when so-called “universal” remote units were introduced, e.g., to combine the functionality of TV remote units and VCR remote units, the number of buttons on these universal remote units was typically more than the number of buttons on either the TV remote unit or VCR remote unit individually. This added number of buttons and functionality makes it very difficult to control anything but the simplest aspects of a TV or VCR without hunting for exactly the right button on the remote. Many times, these universal remotes do not provide enough buttons to access many levels of control or features unique to certain TVs. In these cases, the original device remote unit is still needed, and the original hassle of handling multiple remotes remains due to user interface issues arising from the complexity of aggregation. Some remote units have addressed this problem by adding “soft” buttons that can be programmed with the expert commands. These soft buttons sometimes have accompanying LCD displays to indicate their action. These too have the flaw that they are difficult to use without looking away from the TV to the remote control. Yet another flaw in these remote units is the use of modes in an attempt to reduce the number of buttons. In these “moded” universal remote units, a special button exists to select whether the remote should communicate with the TV, DVD player, cable set-top box, VCR, etc. This causes many usability issues including sending commands to the wrong device, forcing the user to look at the remote to make sure that it is in the right mode, and it does not provide any simplification to the integration of multiple devices. The most advanced of these universal remote units provide some integration by allowing the user to program sequences of commands to multiple devices into the remote. This is such a difficult task that many users hire professional installers to program their universal remote units.
Some attempts have also been made to modernize the screen interface between end users and media systems. However, these attempts typically suffer from, among other drawbacks, an inability to easily scale between large collections of media items and small collections of media items. For example, interfaces which rely on lists of items may work well for small collections of media items, but are tedious to browse for large collections of media items. Interfaces which rely on hierarchical navigation (e.g., tree structures) may be speedier to traverse than list interfaces for large collections of media items, but are not readily adaptable to small collections of media items. Additionally, users tend to lose interest in selection processes wherein the user has to move through three or more layers in a tree structure. For all of these cases, current remote units make this selection processor even more tedious by forcing the user to repeatedly depress the up and down buttons to navigate the list or hierarchies. When selection skipping controls are available such as page up and page down, the user usually has to look at the remote to find these special buttons or be trained to know that they even exist. Accordingly, organizing frameworks, techniques and systems which simplify the control and screen interface between users and media systems as well as accelerate the selection process, while at the same time permitting service providers to take advantage of the increases in available bandwidth to end user equipment by facilitating the supply of a large number of media items and new services to the user have been proposed in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/768,432, filed on Jan. 30, 2004, entitled “A Control Framework with a Zoomable Graphical User Interface for Organizing, Selecting and Launching Media Items”, the disclosure of which is incorporated here by reference.
Of particular interest for this specification are the remote devices usable to interact with such frameworks, as well as other applications and systems. As mentioned in the above-incorporated application, various different types of remote devices can be used with such frameworks including, for example, trackballs, “mouse”-type pointing devices, light pens, etc. However, another category of remote devices which can be used with such frameworks (and other applications) is 3D pointing devices. The phrase “3D pointing” is used in this specification to refer to the ability of an input device to move in three (or more) dimensions in the air in front of, e.g., a display screen, and the corresponding ability of the user interface to translate those motions directly into user interface commands, e.g., movement of a cursor on the display screen. The transfer of data between the 3D pointing device may be performed wirelessly or via a wire connecting the 3D pointing device to another device. Thus “3D pointing” differs from, e.g., conventional computer mouse pointing techniques which use a surface, e.g., a desk surface or mousepad, as a proxy surface from which relative movement of the mouse is translated into cursor movement on the computer display screen. An example of a 3D pointing device can be found in U.S. Pat. No. 5,440,326.
The '326 patent describes, among other things, a vertical gyroscope adapted for use as a pointing device for controlling the position of a cursor on the display of a computer. A motor at the core of the gyroscope is suspended by two pairs of orthogonal gimbals from a hand-held controller device and nominally oriented with its spin axis vertical by a pendulous device. Electro-optical shaft angle encoders sense the orientation of a hand-held controller device as it is manipulated by a user and the resulting electrical output is converted into a format usable by a computer to control the movement of a cursor on the screen of the computer display.
However, there is significant room for improvement in the area of handheld device design, generally, and 3D pointer design, more specifically.
Systems and methods according to the present invention address these needs and others by providing a handheld device, e.g., a 3D pointing device, which uses at least one sensor to detect motion of the handheld device. The detected motion can then be mapped into a desired output, e.g., cursor movement.
According to an exemplary embodiment of the present invention, a pointing device includes a first rotational sensor for determining rotation of the pointing device about a first axis and generating a first rotational output associated therewith, a second rotational sensor for determining rotation of the pointing device about a second axis and generating a second rotational output associated therewith, an accelerometer for determining an acceleration of the pointing device and outputting an acceleration output associated therewith and a processing unit for modifying the first and second rotational outputs based on the acceleration and for generating an output based on the modified first and second rotational outputs.
According to another exemplary embodiment of the present invention, a method for controlling a 3D pointing includes the steps of detecting a lack of movement associated with the 3D pointing device and placing the 3D pointing device into a reduced power state as a result of the detecting step.
According to yet another exemplary embodiment of the present invention, a method for controlling a system includes the steps of detecting movement associated with a device, determining if the movement indicates that the device is currently being held by a user; and controlling the system based on a result of the determining step.
The accompanying drawings illustrate exemplary embodiments of the present invention, wherein:
a)-6(d) illustrate the effects of tilt;
a)-10(d) are plots of frequency domain tremor data collected as part of a test of an exemplary method and device for identifying a user based on hand tremor according to an exemplary embodiment of the present invention;
The following detailed description of the invention refers to the accompanying drawings. The same reference numbers in different drawings identify the same or similar elements. Also, the following detailed description does not limit the invention. Instead, the scope of the invention is defined by the appended claims.
In order to provide some context for this discussion, an exemplary aggregated media system 200 in which the present invention can be implemented will first be described with respect to
In this exemplary embodiment, the media system 200 includes a television/monitor 212, a video cassette recorder (VCR) 214, digital video disk (DVD) recorder/playback device 216, audio/video tuner 218 and compact disk player 220 coupled to the I/O bus 210. The VCR 214, DVD 216 and compact disk player 220 may be single disk or single cassette devices, or alternatively may be multiple disk or multiple cassette devices. They may be independent units or integrated together. In addition, the media system 200 includes a microphone/speaker system 222, video camera 224 and a wireless I/O control device 226. According to exemplary embodiments of the present invention, the wireless I/O control device 226 is a 3D pointing device according to one of the exemplary embodiments described below. The wireless I/O control device 226 can communicate with the entertainment system 200 using, e.g., an IR or RF transmitter or transceiver. Alternatively, the I/O control device can be connected to the entertainment system 200 via a wire.
The entertainment system 200 also includes a system controller 228. According to one exemplary embodiment of the present invention, the system controller 228 operates to store and display entertainment system data available from a plurality of entertainment system data sources and to control a wide variety of features associated with each of the system components. As shown in
As further illustrated in
More details regarding this exemplary entertainment system and frameworks associated therewith can be found in the above-incorporated by reference U.S. patent application “A Control Framework with a Zoomable Graphical User Interface for Organizing, Selecting and Launching Media Items”. Alternatively, remote devices in accordance with the present invention can be used in conjunction with other systems, for example computer systems including, e.g., a display, a processor and a memory system or with various other systems and applications.
As mentioned in the Background section, remote devices which operate as 3D pointers are of particular interest for the present specification. Such devices enable the translation of movement, e.g., gestures, into commands to a user interface. An exemplary 3D pointing device 400 is depicted in
According to one exemplary embodiment of the present invention, two rotational sensors 502 and 504 and one accelerometer 506 can be employed as sensors in 3D pointing device 400 as shown in
One challenge faced in implementing exemplary 3D pointing devices 400 in accordance with the present invention is to employ components, e.g., rotational sensors 502 and 504, which are not too costly, while at the same time providing a high degree of correlation between movement of the 3D pointing device 400, a user's expectation regarding how the user interface will react to that particular movement of the 3D pointing device and actual user interface performance in response to that movement. For example, if the 3D pointing device 400 is not moving, the user will likely expect that the cursor ought not to be drifting across the screen. Likewise, if the user rotates the 3D pointing device 400 purely around the y-axis, she or he would likely not expect to see the resulting cursor movement on display 408 contain any significant x2 axis component. To achieve these, and other, aspects of exemplary embodiments of the present invention, various measurements and calculations are performed by the handheld device 400 which are used to adjust the outputs of one or more of the sensors 502, 504 and 506 and/or as part of the input used by a processor to determine an appropriate output for the user interface based on the outputs of the sensors 502, 504 and 506. These measurements and calculations are used to compensate for factors which fall broadly into two categories: (1) factors which are intrinsic to the 3D pointing device 400, e.g., errors associated with the particular sensors 502, 504 and 506 used in the device 400 or the way in which the sensors are mounted in the device 400 and (2) factors which are not intrinsic to the 3D pointing device 400, but are instead associated with the manner in which a user is using the 3D pointing device 400, e.g., linear acceleration, tilt and tremor. Exemplary techniques for handling each of these effects are described below.
A process model 600 which describes the general operation of 3D pointing devices according to exemplary embodiments of the present invention is illustrated in
The output from the accelerometer 506 is provided and, if the accelerometer 506 provides analog output, then the output is sampled and digitized by an A/D converter (not shown) to generate sampled accelerometer output 602. The sampled output values are converted from raw units to units of acceleration, e.g., gravities (g), as indicated by conversion function 604. The acceleration calibration block 606 provides the values used for the conversion function 604. This calibration of the accelerometer output 602 can include, for example, compensation for one or more of scale, offset and axis misalignment error associated with the accelerometer 506. Exemplary conversions for the accelerometer data can be performed using the following equation:
A=S*((M−P)·*G(T)) (1)
wherein M is a 3×1 column vector composed of the sampled output values (x, y, z), P is a 3×1 column vector of sensor offsets, and S is a 3×3 matrix that contains both scale, axis misalignment, and sensor rotation compensation. G(T) is a gain factor that is a function of temperature. The “*” operator represents matrix multiplication and the “·*” operator represents element multiplication. The exemplary accelerometer 506 has an exemplary full range of +/−2 g. Sensor offset, P, refers to the sensor output, M, for an accelerometer measurement of 0 g. Scale refers to the conversion factor between the sampled unit value and g. The actual scale of any given accelerometer sensor may deviate from these nominal scale values due to, e.g., manufacturing variances. Accordingly the scale factor in the equations above will be proportional to this deviation.
Accelerometer 506 scale and offset deviations can be measured by, for example, applying 1 g of force along one an axis and measuring the result, R1. Then a −1 g force is applied resulting in measurement R2. The individual axis scale, s, and the individual axis offset, p, can be computed as follows:
s=(R1−R2)/2 (2)
p=(R1+R2)/2 (3)
In this simple case, P is the column vector of the p for each axis, and S is the diagonal matrix of the 1/s for each axis.
However, in addition to scale and offset, readings generated by accelerometer 506 may also suffer from cross-axes effects. Cross-axes effects include non-aligned axes, e.g., wherein one or more of the sensing axes of the accelerometer 506 as it is mounted in the 3D pointing device 400 are not aligned with the corresponding axis in the inertial frame of reference, or mechanical errors associated with the machining of the accelerometer 506 itself, e.g., wherein even though the axes are properly aligned, a purely y-axis acceleration force may result in a sensor reading along the z-axis of the accelerometer 506. Both of these effects can also be measured and added to the calibration performed by function 606.
The accelerometer 506 serves several purposes in exemplary 3D pointing devices according to exemplary embodiments of the present invention. For example, if rotational sensors 502 and 504 are implemented using the exemplary Coriolis effect rotational sensors described above, then the output of the rotational sensors 502 and 504 will vary based on the linear acceleration experienced by each rotational sensor. Thus, one exemplary use of the accelerometer 506 is to compensate for fluctuations in the readings generated by the rotational sensors 502 and 504 which are caused by variances in linear acceleration. This can be accomplished by multiplying the converted accelerometer readings by a gain matrix 610 and subtracting (or adding) the results from (or to) the corresponding sampled rotational sensor data 612. For example, the sampled rotational data αy from rotational sensor 502 can be compensated for linear acceleration at block 614 as:
αy′=αy−C*A (4)
wherein C is the 1×3 row vector of rotational sensor susceptibility to linear acceleration along each axis given in units/g and A is the calibrated linear acceleration. Similarly, linear acceleration compensation for the sampled rotational data αz from rotational sensor 504 can be provided at block 614. The gain matrices, C, vary between rotational sensors due to manufacturing differences. C may be computed using the average value for many rotational sensors, or it may be custom computed for each rotational sensor.
Like the accelerometer data, the sampled rotational data 612 is then converted from a sampled unit value into a value associated with a rate of angular rotation, e.g., radians/s, at function 616. This conversion step can also include calibration provided by function 618 to compensate the sampled rotational data for, e.g., scale and offset. Conversion/calibration for both αy and αz can be accomplished using, for example, the following equation:
αrad/s=(α′−offset(T))*scale+dOffset (5)
wherein α′ refers to the value being converted/calibrated, offset(T) refers to an offset value associated with temperature, scale refers to the conversion factor between the sampled unit value and rad/s, and dOffset refers to a dynamic offset value. Equation (5) may be implemented as a matrix equation in which case all variables are vectors except for scale. In matrix equation form, scale corrects for axis misalignment and rotational offset factors. Each of these variables is discussed in more detail below.
The offset values offset(T) and dOffset can be determined in a number of different ways. When the 3D pointing device 400 is not being rotated in, for example, the y-axis direction, the sensor 502 should output its offset value. However, the offset can be highly affected by temperature, so this offset value will likely vary. Offset temperature calibration may be performed at the factory, in which case the value(s) for offset(T) can be preprogrammed into the handheld device 400 or, alternatively, offset temperature calibration may also be learned dynamically during the lifetime of the device. To accomplish dynamic offset compensation, an input from a temperature sensor 619 is used in rotation calibration function 618 to compute the current value for offset(T). The offset(T) parameter removes the majority of offset bias from the sensor readings. However, negating nearly all cursor drift at zero movement can be useful for producing a high-performance pointing device. Therefore, the additional factor dOffset, can be computed dynamically while the 3D pointing device 400 is in use. The stationary detection function 608 determines when the handheld is most likely stationary and when the offset should be recomputed. Exemplary techniques for implementing stationary detection function 608, as well as other uses therefore, are described below.
An exemplary implementation of dOffset computation employs calibrated sensor outputs which are low-pass filtered. The stationary output detection function 608 provides an indication to rotation calibration function 618 to trigger computation of, for example, the mean of the low-pass filter output. The stationary output detection function 608 can also control when the newly computed mean is factored into the existing value for dOffset. Those skilled in the art will recognize that a multitude of different techniques can be used for computing the new value for dOffset from the existing value of dOffset and the new mean including, but not limited to, simple averaging, low-pass filtering and Kalman filtering. Additionally, those skilled in the art will recognize that numerous variations for offset compensation of the rotational sensors 502 and 504 can be employed. For example, the offset(T) function can have a constant value (e.g., invariant with temperature), more than two offset compensation values can be used and/or only a single offset value can be computed/used for offset compensation.
After conversion/calibration at block 616, the inputs from the rotational sensors 502 and 504 can be further processed to rotate those inputs into an inertial frame of reference, i.e., to compensate for tilt associated with the manner in which the user is holding the 3D pointing device 400, at function 620. Tilt correction is another significant aspect of some exemplary embodiments of the present invention as it is intended to compensate for differences in usage patterns of 3D pointing devices according to the present invention. More specifically, tilt correction according to exemplary embodiments of the present invention is intended to compensate for the fact that users will hold pointing devices in their hands at different x-axis rotational positions, but that the sensing axes of the rotational sensors 502 and 504 in the 3D pointing devices 400 are fixed. It is desirable that cursor translation across display 408 is substantially insensitive to the way in which the user grips the 3D pointing device 400, e.g., rotating the 3D pointing device 400 back and forth in a manner generally corresponding to the horizontal dimension (x2-axis) of the display 508 should result in cursor translation along the x2-axis, while rotating the 3D pointing device up and down in a manner generally corresponding to the vertical dimension (y2-axis) of the display 508 should result in cursor translation along the y2-axis, regardless of the orientation in which the user is holding the 3D pointing device 400.
To better understand the need for tilt compensation according to exemplary embodiments of the present invention, consider the example shown in
If, on the other hand, the user holds the 3D pointing device 400 in a different orientation, e.g., with some amount of x-axis rotation relative to the inertial frame of reference, then the information provided by the sensors 502 and 504 would not (absent tilt compensation) provide an accurate representation of the user's intended interface actions. For example, referring to
According to exemplary embodiments of the present invention, returning to
The value θ can be numerically computed as a tan 2(y,z) to prevent division by zero and give the correct sign. Then, function 620 can perform the rotation R of the converted/calibrated inputs αy and αz using the equation:
to rotate the converted/calibrated inputs αy and αz to compensate for the tilt θ. Tilt compensation as described in this exemplary embodiment is a subset of a more general technique for translating sensor readings from the body frame of reference into a user's frame of reference, which techniques are further described in the above-incorporated by reference patent application entitled “3D Pointing Devices with Tilt Compensation and Improved Usability”.
Once the calibrated sensor readings have been compensated for linear acceleration, processed into readings indicative of angular rotation of the 3D pointing device 400, and compensated for tilt, post-processing can be performed at blocks 626 and 628. Exemplary post-processing can include compensation for various factors such as human tremor. Although tremor may be removed using several different methods, one way to remove tremor is by using hysteresis. The angular velocity produced by rotation function 620 is integrated to produce an angular position. Hysteresis of a calibrated magnitude is then applied to the angular position. The derivative is taken of the output of the hysteresis block to again yield an angular velocity. The resulting output is then scaled at function 628 (e.g., based on the sampling period) and used to generate a result within the interface, e.g., movement of a cursor 410 on a display 408.
Having provided a process description of exemplary 3D pointing devices according to the present invention,
In the exemplary embodiment of
In addition, the parasitic acceleration effects that are not measured by a rotational sensor should also be removed. These effects include actual linear acceleration, acceleration measured due to rotational velocity and rotational acceleration, and acceleration due to human tremor.
Stationary detection function 608, mentioned briefly above, can operate to determine whether the 3D pointing device 400 is, for example, either stationary or active (moving). This categorization can be performed in a number of different ways. One way, according to an exemplary embodiment of the present invention, is to compute the variance of the sampled input data of all inputs (x, y, z, αy, αz) over a predetermined window, e.g., every quarter of a second. This variance is then compared with a threshold to classify the 3D pointing device as either stationary or active.
Another stationary detection technique according to exemplary embodiments of the present invention involves transforming the inputs into the frequency domain by, e.g., performing a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) on the input data. Then, the data can be analyzed using, e.g., peak detection methods, to determine if the 3D pointing device 400 is either stationary or active. Additionally, a third category can be distinguished, specifically the case where a user is holding the 3D pointing device 400 but is not moving it (also referred to herein as the “stable” state. This third category can be distinguished from stationary (not held) and active by detecting the small movement of the 3D pointing device 400 introduced by a user's hand tremor when the 3D pointing device 400 is being held by a user. Peak detection can also be used by stationary detection function 608 to make this determination. Peaks within the range of human tremor frequencies, e.g., nominally 8-12 Hz, will typically exceed the noise floor of the device (experienced when the device is stationary and not held) by approximately 20 dB.
In the foregoing examples, the variances in the frequency domain were sensed within a particular frequency range, however the actual frequency range to be monitored and used to characterize the status of the 3D pointing device 400 may vary. For example, the nominal tremor frequency range may shift based on e.g., the ergonomics and weight of the 3D pointing device 400, e.g., from 8-12 Hz to 4-7 Hz.
According to another exemplary embodiment of the present invention, stationary detection mechanism 608 can include a state machine. An exemplary state machine is shown in
State transitions can be determined by a number of different conditions based upon the interpreted sensor outputs. Exemplary condition metrics include the variance of the interpreted signals over a time window, the threshold between a reference value and the interpreted signal over a time window, the threshold between a reference value and the filtered interpreted signal over a time window, and the threshold between a reference value and the interpreted signal from a start time can be used to determine state transitions. All, or any combination, of these condition metrics can be used to trigger state transitions. Alternatively, other metrics can also be used. According to one exemplary embodiment of the present invention, a transition from the INACTIVE state to the ACTIVE state occurs either when (1) a mean value of sensor output(s) over a time window is greater than predetermined threshold(s) or (2) a variance of values of sensor output(s) over a time window is greater than predetermined threshold(s) or (3) an instantaneous delta between sensor values is greater than a predetermined threshold.
The INACTIVE state enables the stationary detection mechanism 608 to distinguish between brief pauses during which the 3D pointing device 400 is still being used, e.g., on the order of a tenth of a second, and an actual transition to either a stable or stationary condition. This protects against the functions which are performed during the STABLE and STATIONARY states, described below, from inadvertently being performed when the 3D pointing device is being used. The 3D pointing device 400 will transition back to the ACTIVE state when conditioninactive
The 3D pointing device 400 will transition to either the STABLE state or the STATIONARY state after the second predetermined time period elapses. As mentioned earlier, the STABLE state reflects the characterization of the 3D pointing device 400 as being held by a person but being substantially unmoving, while the STATIONARY state reflects a characterization of the 3D pointing device as not being held by a person. Thus, an exemplary state machine according to the present invention can provide for a transition to the STABLE state after the second predetermined time period has elapsed if minimal movement associated with hand tremor is present or, otherwise, transition to the STATIONARY state.
The STABLE and STATIONARY states define times during which the 3D pointing device 400 can perform various functions. For example, since the STABLE state is intended to reflect times when the user is holding the 3D pointing device 400 but is not moving it, the device can record the movement of the 3D pointing device 400 when it is in the STABLE state e.g., by storing outputs from the rotational sensor(s) and/or the accelerometer while in this state. These stored measurements can be used to determine a tremor pattern associated with a particular user or users as described below. Likewise, when in the STATIONARY state, the 3D pointing device 400 can take readings from the rotational sensors and/or the accelerometer for use in compensating for offset as described above.
If the 3D pointing device 400 starts to move while in either the STABLE or STATIONARY state, this can trigger a return to the ACTIVE state. Otherwise, after measurements are taken, the device can transition to the SLEEP state. While in the sleep state, the device can enter a power down mode wherein power consumption of the 3D pointing device is reduced and, e.g., the sampling rate of the rotational sensors and/or the accelerometer is also reduced. The SLEEP state can also be entered via an external command so that the user or another device can command the 3D pointing device 400 to enter the SLEEP state.
Upon receipt of another command, or if the 3D pointing device 400 begins to move, the device can transition from the SLEEP state to the WAKEUP state. Like the INACTIVE state, the WAKEUP state provides an opportunity for the device to confirm that a transition to the ACTIVE state is justified, e.g., that the 3D pointing device 400 was not inadvertently jostled.
The conditions for state transitions may be symmetrical or may differ. Thus, the threshold associated with the conditionactive
Entering or leaving a state can be used to trigger other device functions as well. For example, the user interface can be powered up based a transition from any state to the ACTIVE state. Conversely, the 3D pointing device and/or the user interface can be turned off (or enter a sleep mode) when the 3D pointing device transitions from ACTIVE or STABLE to STATIONARY or INACTIVE. Alternatively, the cursor 410 can be displayed or removed from the screen based on the transition from or to the stationary state of the 3D pointing device 400.
Tremor
As mentioned above, the period of time during which the handheld device is in the STABLE state can, for example, be used to memorize tremor data associated with a particular user. Typically, each user will exhibit a different tremor pattern. According to exemplary embodiments of the present invention, this property of user tremor can be used to identify which user is currently holding the handheld device without requiring any other action on the part of the user (e.g., entering a password). For example, a user's tremor pattern can be memorized by the handheld or the system (e.g., either stored in the 3D pointing device 400 or transmitted to the system) during an initialization procedure wherein the user is requested to hold the 3D pointing device as steadily as possible for, e.g., 10 seconds.
This pattern can be used as the user's unique (or quasi-unique) signature to perform a variety of user interface functions. For example, the user interface and/or the handheld device can identify the user from a group of users, e.g., a family, by comparing a current tremor pattern with those stored in memory. The identification can then be used, for example, to retrieve preference settings associated with the identified user. For example, if the 3D pointing device is used in conjunction with the media systems described in the above-incorporated by reference patent application, then the media selection item display preferences associated with that user can be activated after the system recognizes the user via tremor pattern comparison. System security can also be implemented using tremor recognition, e.g., access to the system may be forbidden or restricted based on the user identification performed after a user picks up the 3D pointing device 400.
A number of different approaches can be taken to implement schemes for tremor pattern detection, classification and storage according to the present invention. One exemplary embodiment will now be described with respect to
Returning to
Information regarding some of these feature sets and corresponding tests can be found in the article by J. Jakubowski, K. Kwiatos, A. Chwaleba, S. Osowski, “Higher Order Statistics and Neural Network For Tremor Recognition,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 152-159, IEEE, February 2002, the disclosure of which is incorporated here by reference. According to one purely exemplary embodiment of the present invention, described in more detail below, low frequency spectra from a power spectral density (PSD) of the collected data was used as the feature set at step 902. In addition to the domains, transforms etc., listed above, the features sets may also vary based on the number and types of sensors available in the handheld device for which tremor detection/identification is to be employed. For example, in the handheld, 3D pointing device 400 described in earlier exemplary embodiments, tremor data can be collected from one or both of the rotational sensors, the accelerometer, or any combination thereof.
After extracting the feature set from the collected data, the feature set can be reduced at step 904. More specifically, the feature set can be reduced at step 904 to the set of features which best represent the feature set for purposes of differentiating between classes (users). For example, the DC values of user tremor data may be omitted from the reduced feature set, whereas the 9 Hz values of user tremor data may be included in the reduced feature set, since the latter would be expected to be more useful in distinguishing between different user's hand tremors. The reduced feature set can, for example, be a Most Expressive Feature (MEF) set which is determined using a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) algorithm. The PCA algorithm employs a singular value decomposition of the features set to automatically find an appropriate set of basis vectors that best expresses the feature vectors (e.g., in the sense of minimum mean-squared error (MMSE)). An example for applying the PCA technique can be found in “Eigenspace-Based Recognition of Faces: Comparisons and a New Approach,” authored by P. Navarrete and J. Ruiz-del Solar, Image Analysis and Processing, 2001, the disclosure of which is incorporated here by reference.
The reduced feature sets can then be used to identify clusters at step 908, which can be performed using supervised learning i.e., wherein the process operates based on a priori knowledge of which individual user contributed which data set or unsupervised learning, i.e., wherein the process does not have any a priori information. Various techniques can be applied to determine clusters associated with tremor data according to exemplary embodiments of the present invention, including, for example, K-means clustering and RBF neural net classification. Once the clusters are identified, then estimated statistics associated with the identified clusters (e.g., mean and/or covariance) can be used to distinguish new feature vectors as lying within certain clusters or outside of certain clusters, i.e., to identify a user who is currently holding the handheld device 400 based on current sensor outputs, at step 910. The learning method can be enhanced via use of the sensor state information (described above, e.g., with respect to
To test the afore-described exemplary techniques for identifying users based on detected hand tremor, data sets associated with four other users (in addition to the data illustrated in
In this test case, the clustering step was performed based on the a priori knowledge (supervised learning) of which user generated which data set. In an actual implementation, it is likely that an automated clustering technique, e.g., one of those described above, would be employed at step 906. For this purely exemplary test, clusters were identified separately for data received from the rotational sensor 502 and 504 to define two class centroids associated with each data set. Then, the sum of the distances (Euclidean in this example) between each vector in the data sets and the two class centroids was calculated. The results of this process are shown in
Some specific selections of, e.g., feature sets, etc. were made to perform the illustrated test, however these selections are purely illustrative as mentioned herein.
A number of variations can be employed according to exemplary embodiments of the present invention. For example, once the clusters are identified at step 908, a cluster discrimination step can be performed in order to accentuate the discriminating feature(s) of each cluster. A cluster discriminant operates to apply a transformation matrix to the data which provides a minimum grouping within sets, and a maximum distance between sets. Given a matrix which describes the overall covariance, and another which describes the sum of the covariances of each of the clusters, the linear discriminant's task is to derive a linear transformation which simultaneously maximizes the distances between classes and minimizes the within-class scatter. Although a number of discriminants are known in the general field of pattern recognition, for example the Fisher Linear Discriminant (FLD), not all are likely to be suitable to the specific problem of identifying users based on hand tremor as described herein. One specific discriminant which was used in the foregoing text example, is known as the EFM-1 discriminant and is described in the article entitled “Enhanced Fisher Linear Discriminant Models for Face Recognition”, authored by C. Liu and H. Wechsler, Proc. 14th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, Queensland Australia, Aug. 17-20, 1998, the disclosure of which is incorporated here by reference.
Moreover, although the foregoing test was performed using a handheld pointing device in accordance with earlier described exemplary embodiments of the present invention, tremor-based identification of users is not so limited. In fact, tremor-based identification can be employed in any other type of 3D pointing device having any type of motion sensor or sensors (including gyroscopes) from which tremor data can be generated. Further, tremor-based identification in accordance with the present invention is also not limited to pointing devices, but can be employed in any handheld device, e.g., cell phones, PDAs, etc., which incorporate one or more motion sensors or which have some other mechanism for measuring hand tremor associated therewith. A training period may be employed to perform, e.g., steps 900-908, subsequent to which a handheld device can perform a method which simply gathers data associated with the hand tremor of a current user and compares that data with the previously established user classes to identify the current user. This identity information can then be used in a number of different applications, examples of which are mentioned above.
For example, the identity of the user (as recognized by tremor-based recognition or via another identification technique) can be used to interpret gestures made by that user to signal commands to a user interface, e.g., that of the above-incorporated by reference patent application. For example, in a gesture based command system wherein patterns of movement over time are associated with specific interface commands, different users may employ somewhat different patterns of movement over time of the handheld to initiate the same interface command (much like different people have different handwriting styles). The ability to provide for user identification can then be mapped to the different gesture patterns, e.g., stored in the handheld or in the system, such that the system as a whole correctly identifies each pattern of movement over time as the command gesture intended by the user.
Frame of Reference Mapping
As mentioned above, exemplary embodiments of the present invention process movement data received from sensor(s) in the 3D pointing device to convert this data from the frame of reference of the 3D pointing device's body into another frame of reference, e.g., the user's frame of reference. In the exemplary application of a 3D pointing device used to control a user interface displayed on a screen, e.g., a television, the user's frame of reference might be a coordinate system associated with the television screen. Regardless, translation of the data from the body frame of reference into another frame of reference improves the usability of the handheld device by resulting in an operation that is from the user's perspective rather than the device's perspective. Thus, when the user moves his or her hand from left to right in front of a display while holding the 3D pointing device, the cursor will move in the left to right direction regardless of the orientation of the 3D pointing device.
To simplify this discussion an exemplary processing system associated with a 3D pointing device is shown in
Block 1303 converts detected movement into the reference frame of the user instead of the reference frame of the device. Orientation may be represented by many different mathematically similar methods including Euler angles, a direction cosine matrix (DCM), or a unit quaternion. Position is generally represented as an offset from the coordinate system origin in a consistent unit including but not limited to meters, centimeters, feet, inches, and miles. In one exemplary embodiment described above, a 3D pointing device measures inertial forces including acceleration and rotational velocity. These forces are measured relative to the body of the device by sensors mounted therein. In order to convert the measured data into the user frame of reference, the device estimates both its position and its orientation.
In this exemplary embodiment, it is assumed that the user frame of reference is stationary and has fixed orientation, although those skilled in the art will appreciate that this technique in accordance with the present invention can be readily extended to the cases where the user's frame of reference is non-stationary by either directly transforming to the time-varying frame or by first converting to a stationary frame and then converting to the moving frame. For the stationary, fixed-orientation user frame of reference example, conversion from the body frame to the user frame can be performed by use of the following equations:
where:
Rotate represents the quaternion rotation operator such that Rotate(A, Q) is equal to Q*AQ where Q* is the quaternion conjugate and the vector A is a quaternion with the complex component equal to A and the real component equal to 0;
Pu is the position in the user frame of reference;
Pb is the position in the device frame of reference;
′ represents the derivative. Therefore, Pu′ is the derivative of the position in the user frame of reference which is the velocity in the user frame of reference;
Wu is the angular velocity of the device in body angles in the user frame of reference;
Wb is the angular velocity of the device in body angles in the body frame of the device;
Pdelta is the difference between the origin of the user frame of reference and the body frame of reference in the user frame of reference coordinate system;
Q is the normalized rotation quaternion that represents the rotation from the body frame to the user frame. Since the rotation quaternion to rotate from the user frame to the body frame is Q*, we could replace Q with R* where R is the rotation from the user frame to the body frame. Note that Q can be represented in a number of equivalent forms including Euler angles and the direction cosine matrix (DCM), and the above equations may vary slightly in their equivalent forms based upon different representations of Q.
During operation, the device estimates Q in an implementation dependent manner to perform this transformation. One exemplary implementation described above involves compensating for tilt (i.e., variations in x-axis roll of the 3D pointing device based on the manner in which it is held by a user). The orientation is computed by first estimating the acceleration component due to gravity in the body frame, Ab. By definition, the acceleration vector due to gravity in the user frame, Ag, is set to [0, 0, −1]. Since gravity cannot estimate the heading (rotation about the z-axis), the body frame estimate for heading is used. Therefore, the rotation quaternion has an axis of rotation in the z=0 plane. The following is one of several mathematically equivalent methods for computing the rotation quaternion:
V=∥Ab∥×∥Ag∥ (cross product of unit vectors)
qV=|V∥
α=sin−1|V|
Q=Quaternion[qV,α/2]=[qV*sin(α/2), cos(α/2)
Position is then computed as the double integral of the acceleration in the user frame. The acceleration in the user frame is the acceleration of the body frame rotated into the user frame by Q above. Normally, the origin is assumed to be zero when the device is first activated, but the origin may be reset during normal operation either manually or automatically.
Generally, when the device is not moving, Pu′, Pu″, Wu, and Wu″ are all 0. In this exemplary embodiment, Pb″ and Wb are measured. Although an infinite number of rotations Q exist, the minimal rotation can be selected from the available set and used to estimate Wu based on Wb. Alternatively, Q may be computed using an assumed starting offset orientation Qo, by integrating Wb over time as shown using the discrete time integral below:
WbAngle=|Wb|*period
QDELTA=[|Wb|sin(WbAngle), cos(WbAngle)]
QNEXT=Q0**QDELTA
Where * represents multiplication and ** represents quaternion multiplication. Additional stability can be provided by constant field vectors including gravity and the earth's magnetic field and combined with the results above. The combination can be achieved using several numerical and filtering methods including, but not limited to, Kalman filtering.
A variety of different sensors could be employed as long as they measure motion with respect to the body of the device. Exemplary sensors include accelerometers, rotational sensors, gyroscopes, magnetometers and cameras. The user frame does not need to be stationary. For example, if the user's frame of reference is selected to be the user's forearm, then the device would only respond to wrist and finger movement.
One skilled in the art will recognize the commutative property applies to the frame of reference transformations described in this invention. Therefore, the order of the mathematical operations can be altered without materially affecting the invention described herein. In addition, many motion processing algorithms can operate in either frame of reference equivalently, especially when the user frame is chosen to be stationary with a constant orientation.
In addition to providing ease of use, frame of reference transformations according to this exemplary embodiment of the present invention can also be used to address other challenges in handheld device implementations. For example, if a sensor (such as an accelerometer) is not located precisely at the center of rotation in the body frame of reference, the measured acceleration will include both the acceleration of the frame and acceleration components due to the rotation of the frame. Therefore, the measured acceleration can first be transformed to a different target location within the body frame of the device using the following relationship:
Abody=Aaccelerometer+ω×R+ω×(ω×R)
where R is the vector from the accelerometer to the target location, ω is the angular velocity of the body frame of reference and ω′ is the angular acceleration of the body frame of reference. If the body frame of the device is constructed such that it lies at R from the accelerometer, then it should have zero angular acceleration effects and may be more easily used to compute the device movement in the user frame. This compensates for intentional or unintentional misalignment between the accelerometer and the center of the body frame of reference. In addition, the estimate of the gravity vector becomes much simpler since there are fewer forces acting at the center of rotation. Then,
Auser=Rotate(Abody,Q)
where Q is the rotation from the body frame of reference to the accelerometer frame of reference.
Unfortunately, different users have different values for R. For example, one user may use the handheld device by rotating their elbow while another may use the device by rotating their wrist. In addition, people have different sized wrists and forearms. For improved usability this exemplary embodiment of the handheld dynamically computes R and moves the body origin such that it has minimal acceleration components due to angular motion. The exemplary embodiment estimates R by defining R as [Rx, 0, 0] and solving for Rx using and minimizing Abody−Rotate[Ag, Q]. Note that many numerical methods exist including recursive least squares and Kalman filtering that may perform minimization to compute Rx.
Based on the foregoing, it will be appreciated that the present invention describes various techniques for mapping sensed motion of a handheld device from one frame of reference (e.g., a body frame of reference) to another frame of reference (e.g., a user's frame of reference). These mappings can be independent from other mappings associated with the use of the handheld device, e.g., the mapping of sensed motion to cursor movement or can be combined therewith. Moreover, transformations according to the present invention can be performed to transform the sensed motion in all three dimensions, for translational motion and rotational motion or any subset thereof, from the perspective of either the input side of the motion equation or the output side. Additionally, the selection of the frame of reference into which the sensed motion is mapped or transformed can be made in a number of different ways. One example provided above shows the second frame of reference being a user's frame of reference associated with the tilt of the device, however many other variations are possible. For example, the user may select his or her desired frame of reference, which setting can be stored in the handheld as one of a plurality of user preferences and used to perform the transformation. Other examples include user recognition and explicit command (e.g., button or user interface selection) as techniques for selecting the second frame of reference.
Additionally, although some of the exemplary embodiments describe above operate on data in the velocity domain, the present invention is not so limited. Mapping or transformation according to the present invention can alternatively or additionally be performed on, for example, position or acceleration data and can be for translational motion, rotational motion or both. Also the order of processing is not critical. For example, if the handheld device is being used to output gesture commands, the mapping can be performed first and then the gesture determined or the gesture can be determined first and then the mapping can be performed.
Removal of Unintentional Movement
According to exemplary embodiments of the present invention, techniques for processing sensed motion remove undesirable effects due to, for example, other user-device interactions, such as button actuation, and/or tremor. Generally, as referred to in
This exemplary embodiment of the present invention includes a variety of different techniques for processing movement during user initiated events including button clicks. According to a first exemplary embodiment, both a distance threshold and a time threshold are employed to process movement information generated by the motion sensor(s), e.g., rotational sensor(s), accelerometer(s), magnetometer(s), gyroscope(s), camera(s), or any combination thereof, etc., after a user action, e.g., a button click, has occurred. Distance alone may not be sufficient to yield both a stable and a responsive pointer during a button click. When a button press is detected by the hand held device, the output pointer movement from 1516 is suppressed until either the distance exceeds a distance threshold or the amount of elapsed time exceeds a time threshold. Either or both of the distance and time thresholds may be different for, e.g., a button press action and button release action. The exemplary button processing may optionally be disabled by sending a command to the handheld.
Different buttons can also have different thresholds from one another. The amount of movement that the handheld experiences during a button click depends upon a number of factors including, but not limited to, the user, the button actuation force, the button travel, and the location of the button relative to the handheld center of support (normally a user's hand). The button movement processing parameters may be set individually to optimize the performance for each button. In addition, the parameters can be learned based upon the session history or based upon the user if the user is known to the system.
Additionally, the human factors processing function 1516 may store and track the past movement history of the handheld device. For example, when the handheld device detects that a button has been pressed, a processing unit in the handheld device can back up to the time before the user initiated the button event. Physically actuating the button takes a non-finite, measurable amount of time that can be determined by psychological testing and dynamic device measurement. When the button is actuated, the device can revert to the state before the button actuation occurred by deleting data samples taken from the motion sensor(s) during/after the button actuation occurred. Therefore, the errant movement that occurred during the button press will be ignored and “erased”. For example, in response to a detected button press, the output from block 1516 may change from a detected position P1 (subsequent to a button press action) to a recalled position P2, which position P2 had previously been output by block 1516 a predetermined time period prior to the button press action detection. If the device is already processing one button action and is still suppressing movement when another button action occurs, it may be unnecessary for the human factors processing function 1516 to reiterate the backing up process.
In user interfaces, at least two typical types of button activations can occur. In the first type (fine mode clicking) shown in
To address the additional challenges posed by coarse mode clicking, human factors processing unit 1516 may employ a second alternative or complementary technique. According to this second exemplary embodiment, movement data received from the motion sensor(s) is processed into a movement vector and it is assumed that the user may intend some movement change of the cursor or other associated output from the device during the button actuation. As known from Newton's first law, “an object in motion tends to stay in motion”. Thus, when a button is pressed on the handheld device, it creates a high-frequency movement that deviates from the path. Using the motion vector and filtered movement information, the output from the pointing device can continue during and after the user-initiated event in a manner which is consistent with previous movement history. This can be accomplished by adding a filter to the processing chain. The filter is designed to permit intended motion during and after the user-initiated event while excluding the high frequency movement associated with the event itself. Many processing methods such as low-pass filtering enable the removal of high-frequency components but at the expense of increased latency. Since latency (the time between the movement of the device and the time the pointer moves) may be important to the user, exemplary embodiments of the present invention can use an adaptive filter which is switched into the signal processing path when a user-initiated event is detected (e.g., based on the same signal which is used by the handheld device to convey the user-event to a user interface). The adaptive filter is configured as a low-pass filter that attenuates sharp, high-frequency button presses. An additional input to the adaptive filtering block is an optional pre-button activity warning that occurs before the button has been completely debounced. The pre-button activity warning reduces the filter latency requirements by allowing the processing to be notified of a button event sooner than it would otherwise. The adaptive filter with the pre-button activity warning minimizes the engineering tradeoff between intended movement and latency.
According to yet another exemplary embodiment of the present invention, since the designers of 3D pointing devices usually know the direction of the undesirable movement at design time, the direction of movement perturbation is therefore known based upon the ergonomics and intended use of the device. For example, the designer knows the direction of button actuation relative to the device. The primary movement consists of either linear movement parallel to the button travel vector or rotational movement due to the torque about the users grip. This knowledge permits the implementation of a directional preference filter that includes the knowledge of the button actuation movement. For example, the filter design can include state-space filters such as a Kalman filter and adaptive filters. Such a filter detects the undesired deviation from the intended path in a known direction during button actuation and then interpolates the desired movement path during button actuation. This preferential filtering yields a more responsive pointer during intended changes in direction while still removing the unintended button movement. One skilled in the art will recognize that the state-space filter can be extended to learn the design parameters during the course of normal use.
The human factors processing function 916 according to exemplary embodiments of the present invention may implement one or both of the above-described techniques and, if both are used, provide a classifier to switch between the techniques. For example, when the first, precise type of button click is detected, the first technique can be used. When the second, less precise type of button click is detected, the second technique can be used. One classifier for switching between techniques can use the velocity of the handheld device at the time of button actuation or at the time just before button actuation. For example, if (a) the velocity of the handheld device is below a predetermined velocity threshold then the first technique is employed which discards motion data generated subsequent to a detected event until either motion sensed by the motion sensor(s) indicates that the handheld device has moved more than a predetermined distance threshold or a predetermined time has expired, otherwise, (b) if the velocity of the handheld device is above the predetermined velocity, then the second technique is employed which instead filters the motion data generated subsequent to a detected event.
Button clicks or presses as referred to in the foregoing exemplary embodiments include, but are not limited to, both button presses and button releases. All of the above techniques can be applied to any known device interaction that yields undesirable movement, and are not limited to button clicks. For example, the above techniques can be applied to scroll wheel actuation, touch pad usage, or capacitive strip usage. Thus, exemplary embodiments of the present invention describe methods and devices for canceling unwanted movement that occurs based upon activating or deactivating another event.
The parameters for the methods describe above can be adapted to support the expected movement characteristic for the event. In the exemplary embodiment, the parameters for button presses can be different from the parameters for button releases. In addition to movement cancellation, the user interface may impose or suggest additional constraints on user-event handling according to the present invention. For example, in Microsoft Windows™ operating systems, if the cursor moves while the button is pressed, then a “drag” action is initiated. Therefore, parameters associated with motion data processing in response to a button press action by a user can have values which tend to restrict pointer movement during button actuation in order to prevent unwanted drag events. In contrast, cursor movement after a button release in Microsoft Windows™ operating systems has little effect on objects in the user interface and, therefore, exemplary motion data processing in accordance with the present invention can employ parameters (e.g., time and or distance thresholds, filter coefficients, etc.) which tend to be less restrictive of pointer movements as compared to the corresponding parameters associated with motion data processing subsequent to button presses.
The movement may be processed in the velocity or position domain in a number of different fashions to help remove unwanted button movement. Simple filtering in the velocity domain may be used. The filter may be an FIR or IIR filter, although these may introduce an undesirable amount of processing delay. An adaptive filter can be used successfully without introducing too much delay.
Exemplary embodiments of the present invention can also be implemented as a Kalman filter (or extended Kalman filter). The Kalman filter could select the most likely usage scenario (stationary or moving) and apply the appropriate movement. Neural networks can be used for the same result. Thus it will be appreciated that the present invention further provides a method for (a) detecting that an event has occurred, (b) inferring the user's intended motion and (c) interpreting the user's intended motion rather than the actual motion of the handheld device. The motion can be in either the 6DOF 3D domain or the mapped 2DOF pointing domain. The 6DOF 3D domain could be in either the device's body frame of reference or the user's frame of reference.
According to another exemplary embodiment of the present invention, the movement associated with the user-initiated event can be modeled and included explicitly in a motion equation which provides an output from the handheld device based on the motion data gathered from the motion sensor(s). More specifically, using the button press example of a user-initiated event, the movement caused by button presses can be modeled a priori to determine one or more exemplary movement amplitudes and directions associated with the button press action and these values can then be stored in a memory unit of the handheld device. Then, when a button press is detected, the processing unit of the handheld device can use the modeled movement in the motion equation to adapt the output such that it reflects the user's intended motion rather than the movement detected by the motion sensor(s) that was associated with the button press. The processing unit can use the modeled values in a variety of different ways, e.g., subtract them from the detected motion values, attenuate the detected motion values based on the modeled values associated with the particular user-initiated event, adjust a semantic map associated with the handheld's output, etc.
Thus it can be seen that exemplary embodiments of the present invention describe innovative methods of implementing a handheld remote control for various uses including controlling a television. The device can also be used for other applications, e.g., as an input device to a personal computer and object control.
No longer does the remote control have to resemble a miniature keyboard of buttons (the typical IR remote of today has 40 buttons). Rather, remote control devices in accordance with the present invention can closely resemble a mouse in that the activity of pointing conveys information over and above the mere pressing of buttons. The result is a much more powerful user environment for the remote control of devices and applications. Imagine today's PC without a mouse and you have today's TV control environment. Now imagine adding mouse-like functionality to the TV; the result is a vastly improved user experience. All it requires is a wireless handheld capable of allowing pointing as well as button activation. The present invention describes just such a device. One advantage of this design over the traditional remote control is that it allows the user to position a cursor on the screen in addition to detecting button activation. The result is that screen-sensitive buttons and controls in addition to gesture recognition are possible. The result is a very powerful, flexible and extensible user interface when compared with the traditional remote control where adding a function requires a new button to be added. Exemplary embodiments of the present invention provide these capabilities using handheld remote control devices that employ, e.g., MEMS-based rotational sensors which measure angular velocity of the device. In addition, exemplary embodiments provide for teach body frame adjustment, calibration and post-processing to remove unintentional movement. The result is a totally unique implementation that is better performing, cheaper and smaller than conventional handheld remote control devices.
These exemplary techniques use MEMS sensors to measure rotational angular velocity and linear acceleration. Then, calibration is used in conjunction with stationary detection to adjust and scale the raw readings. The linear acceleration readings are then integrated and used to determine orientation of the handheld body frame. This orientation data is then used to map the rotational velocity readings into the appropriate frame of reference. The final step is that the readings of all movement are post-processed so that unintentional movement like human tremor is filtered out.
Systems and methods for processing data according to exemplary embodiments of the present invention can be performed by one or more processors executing sequences of instructions contained in a memory device. Such instructions may be read into the memory device from other computer-readable mediums such as secondary data storage device(s). Execution of the sequences of instructions contained in the memory device causes the processor to operate, for example, as described above. In alternative embodiments, hard-wire circuitry may be used in place of or in combination with software instructions to implement the present invention.
The above-described exemplary embodiments are intended to be illustrative in all respects, rather than restrictive, of the present invention. Thus the present invention is capable of many variations in detailed implementation that can be derived from the description contained herein by a person skilled in the art. For example, although the foregoing exemplary embodiments describe, among other things, the use of inertial sensors to detect movement of a device, other types of sensors (e.g., ultrasound, magnetic or optical) can be used instead of, or in addition to, inertial sensors in conjunction with the afore-described signal processing. All such variations and modifications are considered to be within the scope and spirit of the present invention as defined by the following claims. No element, act, or instruction used in the description of the present application should be construed as critical or essential to the invention unless explicitly described as such. Also, as used herein, the article “a” is intended to include one or more items.
This application is a divisional application of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/119,663, filed May 2, 2005 which is related to, and claims priority from, U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/566,444 filed on Apr. 30, 2004, entitled “Freespace Pointing Device”, the disclosure of which is incorporated here by reference. This application is also related to, and claims priority from, U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/612,571, filed on Sep. 23, 2004, entitled “Free Space Pointing Devices and Methods”, the disclosure of which is incorporated here by reference. This application is also related to, and claims priority from, U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/641,383, filed on Jan. 5, 2005, entitled “Methods and Devices for Removing Unintentional Movement in Free Space Pointing Devices”, the disclosure of which is incorporated here by reference. This application is also related to, and claims priority from, U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/641,410, filed on Jan. 5, 2005, entitled “Freespace Pointing Devices and Methods for Using Same”, the disclosure of which is incorporated here by reference. This application is also related to, and claims priority from, U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/641,405, filed on Jan. 5, 2005, entitled “Handheld Remote Control Device”, the disclosure of which is incorporated here by reference. This application is also related to U.S. patent application Ser. Nos. 11/119,987, 11/119,719, and 11/119,688, entitled “Methods and Devices for Removing Unintentional Movement in 3D Pointing Devices”, “3D Pointing Devices with Orientation Compensation and Improved Usability”, “Methods and Devices for Identifying Users Based on Tremor”, all of which were filed concurrently with U.S. application Ser. No. 11/119,663, filed May 2, 2005 and all of which are incorporated here by reference.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2878286 | Temple | Mar 1959 | A |
| 3474241 | Kuipers | Oct 1969 | A |
| 3660648 | Kuipers | May 1972 | A |
| 3931747 | Erspamer | Jan 1976 | A |
| 4038876 | Morris | Aug 1977 | A |
| 4402250 | Baasch | Sep 1983 | A |
| 4558313 | Garwin et al. | Dec 1985 | A |
| 4558604 | Auer | Dec 1985 | A |
| 4578674 | Baker et al. | Mar 1986 | A |
| 4617634 | Izumida et al. | Oct 1986 | A |
| 4623930 | Oshima et al. | Nov 1986 | A |
| 4686772 | Sobel | Aug 1987 | A |
| 4718078 | Bleidorn et al. | Jan 1988 | A |
| 4745402 | Auerbach | May 1988 | A |
| 4787051 | Olson | Nov 1988 | A |
| 4839838 | LaBiche et al. | Jun 1989 | A |
| 4906907 | Tsuchihashi et al. | Mar 1990 | A |
| 4961369 | McGill | Oct 1990 | A |
| 5005551 | McNelley | Apr 1991 | A |
| 5045843 | Hansen | Sep 1991 | A |
| 5060175 | Cubalchini et al. | Oct 1991 | A |
| 5062696 | Oshima et al. | Nov 1991 | A |
| 5128671 | Thomas, Jr. | Jul 1992 | A |
| 5138154 | Hotelling | Aug 1992 | A |
| 5181181 | Glynn | Jan 1993 | A |
| 5280744 | DeCarlo et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
| 5327161 | Logan et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
| 5329276 | Hirabayashi | Jul 1994 | A |
| 5331563 | Masumoto et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
| 5341466 | Perlin et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
| 5359348 | Pilcher et al. | Oct 1994 | A |
| 5369889 | Callaghan et al. | Dec 1994 | A |
| 5373857 | Travers et al. | Dec 1994 | A |
| 5383363 | Kulmaczewski | Jan 1995 | A |
| 5393974 | Jee | Feb 1995 | A |
| 5396265 | Ulrich et al. | Mar 1995 | A |
| 5404307 | Odagawa | Apr 1995 | A |
| 5412421 | Hale et al. | May 1995 | A |
| 5430435 | Hoch et al. | Jul 1995 | A |
| 5440326 | Quinn | Aug 1995 | A |
| 5453758 | Sato | Sep 1995 | A |
| 5459489 | Redford | Oct 1995 | A |
| 5481957 | Paley et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
| 5484355 | King, II et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
| 5485171 | Copper et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
| 5506605 | Paley | Apr 1996 | A |
| 5524196 | Blades | Jun 1996 | A |
| 5525764 | Junkins et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
| 5546309 | Johnson et al. | Aug 1996 | A |
| 5554980 | Hashimoto et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
| 5572221 | Marlevi et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
| 5573011 | Felsing | Nov 1996 | A |
| 5574479 | Odell | Nov 1996 | A |
| 5587558 | Matsushima | Dec 1996 | A |
| 5598187 | Ide et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
| 5615132 | Horton et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
| 5627565 | Morishita et al. | May 1997 | A |
| 5638092 | Eng et al. | Jun 1997 | A |
| 5638523 | Mullet et al. | Jun 1997 | A |
| 5640152 | Copper | Jun 1997 | A |
| 5644082 | Iwata et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
| 5645077 | Foxlin | Jul 1997 | A |
| 5661502 | Cheng | Aug 1997 | A |
| 5671342 | Millier et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
| 5698784 | Hotelling et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5701424 | Atkinson | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5703623 | Hall et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5706448 | Blades | Jan 1998 | A |
| 5714698 | Tokioka et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
| 5736923 | Saab | Apr 1998 | A |
| 5740471 | Terui | Apr 1998 | A |
| 5741182 | Lipps et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
| 5745226 | Gigioli, Jr. | Apr 1998 | A |
| 5745710 | Clanton, III et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
| 5757360 | Nitta et al. | May 1998 | A |
| 5757362 | Levine | May 1998 | A |
| 5771406 | Sakamoto et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5786805 | Barry | Jul 1998 | A |
| 5790121 | Sklar et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5794081 | Itoh et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5796354 | Cartabiano et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5796395 | De Hond | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5807174 | Fukuhara et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5807284 | Foxlin | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5819206 | Horton et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5822713 | Profeta | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5825350 | Case, Jr. et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5828987 | Tano et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5835077 | Dao et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5835156 | Blonstein et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5867146 | Kim et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
| 5870079 | Hennessy | Feb 1999 | A |
| 5878286 | Tomita et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5880722 | Brewer et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5881321 | Kivolowitz | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5883619 | Ho et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5889506 | Lopresti et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5892501 | Kim et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
| 5898421 | Quinn | Apr 1999 | A |
| 5902968 | Sato et al. | May 1999 | A |
| 5912612 | DeVolpi | Jun 1999 | A |
| 5940072 | Jahanghir et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5953683 | Hansen et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
| 5955988 | Blonstein et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
| 5969706 | Tanimoto et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
| 5978043 | Blonstein et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5982369 | Sciammarella et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 6002394 | Schein et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6005551 | Osborne et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6005578 | Cole | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6016144 | Blonstein et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
| 6028594 | Inoue | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6037933 | Blonstein et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6043807 | Carroll | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6047132 | Maeda | Apr 2000 | A |
| 6049823 | Hwang | Apr 2000 | A |
| 6057831 | Harms et al. | May 2000 | A |
| 6069594 | Barnes et al. | May 2000 | A |
| 6072467 | Walker | Jun 2000 | A |
| 6073490 | Konovalov et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
| 6084577 | Sato et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
| 6088031 | Lee et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
| 6092076 | McDonough et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
| 6104969 | Beeks | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6115028 | Balakrishnan et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
| 6154199 | Butler | Nov 2000 | A |
| 6154723 | Cox et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
| 6163021 | Mickelson | Dec 2000 | A |
| 6164808 | Shibata et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
| 6175362 | Harms et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6181333 | Chaney et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6188392 | OConnor et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
| 6191774 | Schena et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
| 6191781 | Chaney et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
| 6195089 | Chaney et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
| 6198470 | Agam et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
| 6208936 | Minor et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
| 6230324 | Tomita et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6268849 | Boyer et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
| 6282467 | Shah et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
| 6295646 | Goldschmidt Iki et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
| 6314575 | Billock et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
| 6330856 | Fitzgerald et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
| 6346959 | Uchiyama et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
| 6349257 | Liu et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
| 6369794 | Sakurai et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6369837 | Schirmer | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6385542 | Millington | May 2002 | B1 |
| 6397387 | Rosin et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
| 6400406 | Kim | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6400996 | Hoffberg et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6404416 | Kahn et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6411308 | Blonstein et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6412110 | Schein et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6415225 | Hiyokawa et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6421067 | Kamen et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6426761 | Kanevsky et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6429813 | Feigen | Aug 2002 | B2 |
| 6452609 | Katinsky et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
| 6466198 | Feinstein | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6466199 | Takase et al. | Oct 2002 | B2 |
| 6466831 | Shibata et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6473713 | McCall et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
| 6492981 | Stork et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
| 6496779 | Hwang | Dec 2002 | B1 |
| 6515669 | Mohri | Feb 2003 | B1 |
| 6529161 | Fukushima et al. | Mar 2003 | B2 |
| 6529218 | Ogawa et al. | Mar 2003 | B2 |
| 6544126 | Sawano et al. | Apr 2003 | B2 |
| 6556127 | Moser et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
| 6557350 | Farmer et al. | May 2003 | B2 |
| 6561993 | Adapathya et al. | May 2003 | B2 |
| 6583781 | Joshi et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
| 6583783 | Dietrich et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
| 6590536 | Walton | Jul 2003 | B1 |
| 6621452 | Knockeart et al. | Sep 2003 | B2 |
| 6650313 | Levine et al. | Nov 2003 | B2 |
| 6650343 | Fujita et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
| 6661410 | Casebolt et al. | Dec 2003 | B2 |
| 6672962 | Ozaki et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
| 6724368 | Strubbe | Apr 2004 | B2 |
| 6727887 | Levine et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
| 6735777 | Kim | May 2004 | B1 |
| 6744420 | Mohri | Jun 2004 | B2 |
| 6753849 | Curran et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
| 6757446 | Li et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
| 6765598 | Kim | Jul 2004 | B2 |
| 6770863 | Walley | Aug 2004 | B2 |
| 6819344 | Robbins | Nov 2004 | B2 |
| 6833844 | Shiota et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
| 6871413 | Arms et al. | Mar 2005 | B1 |
| 6897854 | Cho et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
| 6929548 | Wang | Aug 2005 | B2 |
| 6933923 | Feinstein | Aug 2005 | B2 |
| 6954867 | Casebolt et al. | Oct 2005 | B2 |
| 6975959 | Dietrich et al. | Dec 2005 | B2 |
| 6978472 | Nashida et al. | Dec 2005 | B1 |
| 6982697 | Wilson et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
| 6984208 | Zheng | Jan 2006 | B2 |
| 6990639 | Wilson | Jan 2006 | B2 |
| 6998966 | Pedersen et al. | Feb 2006 | B2 |
| 7038661 | Wilson et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
| 7093201 | Duarte | Aug 2006 | B2 |
| 7098891 | Pryor | Aug 2006 | B1 |
| 7155974 | Saito et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
| 7158118 | Liberty | Jan 2007 | B2 |
| 7166832 | Takenaka | Jan 2007 | B2 |
| 7173604 | Marvit et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
| 7188045 | Cirielli | Mar 2007 | B1 |
| 7194816 | Tamura | Mar 2007 | B2 |
| 7236156 | Liberty et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
| 7239301 | Liberty et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
| 7254279 | Chen | Aug 2007 | B2 |
| 7262760 | Liberty | Aug 2007 | B2 |
| 7353134 | Cirielli | Apr 2008 | B2 |
| 7383517 | Baudisch et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
| 7409292 | Eckert et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
| 7414611 | Liberty | Aug 2008 | B2 |
| 7421343 | Hawkinson | Sep 2008 | B2 |
| 7487045 | Vieira | Feb 2009 | B1 |
| 7489298 | Liberty et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
| 7535456 | Liberty et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
| 7843425 | Lu et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
| 8051450 | Robarts et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
| 8072424 | Liberty | Dec 2011 | B2 |
| 8106795 | Kataoka | Jan 2012 | B2 |
| 8629836 | Liberty | Jan 2014 | B2 |
| 20010015123 | Nishitani et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
| 20020015064 | Robotham et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
| 20020032696 | Takiguchi et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
| 20020033848 | Sciammarella et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
| 20020054129 | Heron et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
| 20020054158 | Asami | May 2002 | A1 |
| 20020112237 | Kelts | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020118123 | Kim et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020126026 | Lee et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020126121 | Robbins | Sep 2002 | A1 |
| 20020140745 | Ellenby et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20020158843 | Levine et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20030080282 | Walley | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030107551 | Dunker | Jun 2003 | A1 |
| 20030159051 | Hollnagel | Aug 2003 | A1 |
| 20030172283 | O'Hara | Sep 2003 | A1 |
| 20030193572 | Wilson et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20040036650 | Morgan | Feb 2004 | A1 |
| 20040070564 | Dawson et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
| 20040075650 | Paul et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
| 20040078194 | Liljeryd et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
| 20040095317 | Zhang et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040123320 | Daily et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040189620 | Roh et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040193413 | Wilson et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040196287 | Wong et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040204240 | Barney | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040221243 | Twerdahl et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
| 20040227725 | Calarco et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
| 20040229693 | Lind et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
| 20040239626 | Noguera | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20040252120 | Hunleth et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20040268393 | Hunleth et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20050008148 | Jacobson | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050033200 | Soehren et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050037843 | Wells et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050097474 | Accot | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20050125826 | Hunleth et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050160813 | Imai | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050174324 | Liberty et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
| 20050212767 | Marvit et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050213840 | Chen | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050222784 | Tuff et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20050222802 | Tamura et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20050243061 | Liberty et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20050243062 | Liberty | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20050253806 | Liberty et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20050275623 | Chadha | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20060007115 | Furuhashi et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060028446 | Liberty et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060092133 | Touma et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060125789 | Tu et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060150734 | Mimnagh-Kelleher et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060262116 | Moshiri et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20070035518 | Francz et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
| 20070066394 | Ikeda et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070072680 | Ikeda | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070247425 | Liberty et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20080016962 | Dwyer et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080024435 | Dohta | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080108870 | Wiita et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080134784 | Jeng et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080158154 | Liberty et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
| 20080158155 | Liberty et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
| 20090002203 | Kataoka | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 1153675 | Jul 1997 | CN |
| 3930581 | Mar 1991 | DE |
| 19701344 | Jul 1997 | DE |
| 19701374 | Jul 1997 | DE |
| 19648487 | Jun 1998 | DE |
| 19814254 | Oct 1998 | DE |
| 19937307 | Feb 2000 | DE |
| 10029173 | Jan 2002 | DE |
| 10241392 | May 2003 | DE |
| 10219198 | Nov 2003 | DE |
| 0919906 | Jun 1999 | EP |
| 1126701 | Aug 2001 | EP |
| 591019 | Aug 1947 | GB |
| 2237911 | May 1991 | GB |
| 2284478 | Jun 1995 | GB |
| 2307133 | May 1997 | GB |
| 2316482 | Feb 1998 | GB |
| 2319374 | May 1998 | GB |
| 3059619 | Mar 1991 | JP |
| H0728591 | Jan 1995 | JP |
| H07146123 | Jun 1995 | JP |
| H07200142 | Aug 1995 | JP |
| H07271546 | Oct 1995 | JP |
| H07302148 | Nov 1995 | JP |
| H07318332 | Dec 1995 | JP |
| H0834569 | Feb 1996 | JP |
| H0895704 | Apr 1996 | JP |
| H08106352 | Apr 1996 | JP |
| H08114415 | May 1996 | JP |
| H08122070 | May 1996 | JP |
| H08152959 | Jun 1996 | JP |
| H08211993 | Aug 1996 | JP |
| H08262517 | Oct 1996 | JP |
| H08263255 | Oct 1996 | JP |
| 8314625 | Nov 1996 | JP |
| H08335136 | Dec 1996 | JP |
| H0944311 | Feb 1997 | JP |
| H09114959 | May 1997 | JP |
| H09230997 | Sep 1997 | JP |
| H09251350 | Sep 1997 | JP |
| H09274534 | Oct 1997 | JP |
| H09282085 | Oct 1997 | JP |
| H09319510 | Dec 1997 | JP |
| H09322089 | Dec 1997 | JP |
| H10093936 | Apr 1998 | JP |
| H10191468 | Jul 1998 | JP |
| H10240434 | Sep 1998 | JP |
| H10275048 | Oct 1998 | JP |
| H1145150 | Feb 1999 | JP |
| 11085387 | Mar 1999 | JP |
| H1185387 | Mar 1999 | JP |
| H11146299 | May 1999 | JP |
| 2901476 | Jun 1999 | JP |
| 2000056897 | Feb 2000 | JP |
| 2000115652 | Apr 2000 | JP |
| 2000172248 | Jun 2000 | JP |
| 2000242383 | Sep 2000 | JP |
| 2000270237 | Sep 2000 | JP |
| 2000308756 | Nov 2000 | JP |
| 2001008384 | Jan 2001 | JP |
| 2001052009 | Feb 2001 | JP |
| 2001100908 | Apr 2001 | JP |
| 2001159951 | Jun 2001 | JP |
| 2001175412 | Jun 2001 | JP |
| 3194841 | Aug 2001 | JP |
| 3204844 | Sep 2001 | JP |
| 3228845 | Nov 2001 | JP |
| 2002062981 | Feb 2002 | JP |
| 3262677 | Mar 2002 | JP |
| 2002082773 | Mar 2002 | JP |
| 2002091692 | Mar 2002 | JP |
| 3273531 | Apr 2002 | JP |
| 2002207703 | Jul 2002 | JP |
| 2002215327 | Aug 2002 | JP |
| 2002259335 | Sep 2002 | JP |
| 2002312117 | Oct 2002 | JP |
| 2003009577 | Jan 2003 | JP |
| 2004061502 | Feb 2004 | JP |
| 2004062774 | Feb 2004 | JP |
| 3517482 | Apr 2004 | JP |
| 2004126756 | Apr 2004 | JP |
| 2006113019 | Apr 2006 | JP |
| 2007083013 | Apr 2007 | JP |
| 2007531942 | Nov 2007 | JP |
| 2011052009 | Mar 2011 | JP |
| 200111596 | Feb 2001 | KR |
| 200276592 | Oct 2002 | KR |
| 9300171 | Aug 1994 | NL |
| 2125853 | Feb 1999 | RU |
| 2126161 | Feb 1999 | RU |
| 2141738 | Nov 1999 | RU |
| 392066 | Jun 2000 | TW |
| 530998 | May 2003 | TW |
| 96 11435 | Apr 1996 | WO |
| 9843183 | Oct 1998 | WO |
| 0033566 | Jun 2000 | WO |
| 0034474 | Jun 2000 | WO |
| 0178055 | Oct 2001 | WO |
| 03021947 | Mar 2003 | WO |
| 03 048909 | Jun 2003 | WO |
| 2005 099166 | Oct 2005 | WO |
| 2005099166 | Oct 2005 | WO |
| 2007007227 | Jan 2007 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| International Search Report for PCT/US05/15051 mailed Feb. 19, 2008. |
| Written Opinion for PCT/US05/15051 mailed Feb. 19, 2008. |
| Office Action for Chinese Application No. 200580021163.7 mailed Jan. 25, 2008. |
| International Search Report for PCT/US05/42558 mailed Nov. 30, 2006. |
| Written Opinion for PCT/US05/42558 mailed Nov. 30, 2006. |
| Navarrete, P., et al., “Eigensapce-based Recognition of Faces: Comparisons and a new Approach,” Image Analysis and Processing, 2001, pp. 1-6. |
| Jakubowski, J., et al., “Higher Order Statistics and Neural Network for Tremor Recognition,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 49, No. 2, Feb. 2002, pp. 152-159. |
| Liu, C., et al., “Enhanced Fisher Linear Discriminant Models for Face Recognition,” Proc. 14th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, Queensland, Australia, Aug. 17-20, 1998, pp. 1-5. |
| International Search Report for PCT/US05/15096, mailed May 15, 2006. |
| Written Opinion for PCT/US05/15096, mailed May 15, 2006. |
| International Search Report for PCT/US04/35369, mailed May 11, 2006. |
| Written Opinion for PCT/US04/35369, mailed May 11, 2006. |
| Geen, J., et al., “New iMEMS Angular-Rate-Sensing Gyroscope,” Analog Dialogue, 37-03 (2003), pp. 1-4. |
| Appendices A, B and C, from U.S. Pat. No. 6,069,594 to Barnes et al., pp. 1-104, May 30, 2000. |
| Supplemental European Search Report for Application No. EP 05 74 4089 mailed Mar. 6, 2008. |
| Supplemental European Search Report for Application No. EP 05 76 1047 mailed Apr. 2, 2008. |
| European Search Report for Application No. EP 05757855 mailed Apr. 10, 2008. |
| Strachan, S., et al., “Muscle Tremor as an Input Mechanism,” UIST '04, XP002473042, Oct. 24-27, 2004, pp. 1-2. |
| “Notice of Reasons for Rejection” issued by the JPO on Jun. 10, 2009, in the corresponding Japanese Patent Application No. 2007-511062. |
| W. T. Ang, et al., “Design and Implementation of Active Error Canceling in Hand-held Microsurgical Instrument,” Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, vol. 2, Oct. 2001, pp. 1106-1111. |
| W. T. Ang, et al., “Design of All-Accelerometer Inertial Measurement Unit for Tremor Sensing in Hand-held Microsurgical Instrument,” Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE International Conference on Robotics & Automation, Sep. 2003, pp. 1781-1786. |
| J. Jakubowski, et al., “Increasing Effectiveness of Human Hand Tremor Separation Process by Using Higher-Order Statistics,” Measurement Science Review, vol. 1, No. 1, 2001, pp. 43-46. |
| J. Jakubowski, et al., “Higher Order Statistics and Neural Network for Tremor Recognition,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 49, No. 2, Feb. 2002, pp. 152-159. |
| J. Raethjen, et al., “Tremor Analysis in Two Normal Cohorts,” Clinical Neurophysiology 115, 2004, pp. 2151-2156. |
| C. N. Riviere, et al., “Adaptive Canceling of Physiological Tremor for Improved Precision in Microsurgery,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 45, No. 7, Jul. 1998, pp. 839-846. |
| C. N. Riviere, et al., “Toward Active Tremor Canceling in Handheld Microsurgical Instruments,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, vol. 19, No. 5, Oct. 2003, pp. 793-800. |
| J. Timmer, et al., “Characteristics of Hand Tremor Time Series,” Biological Cybernetics, vol. 70, 1993, pp. 75-80. |
| J. Timmer, et al., “Cross-Spectral Analysis of Physiological Tremor and Muscle Activity: I Theory and application to Unsynchronized Electromyogram,” Biological Cybernetics, vol. 78, 1998, pp. 349-357. |
| J. Timmer, et al., “Cross-Spectral Analysis of Physiological Tremor and Muscle Activity: II Application to Synchronized Electromyogram,” Biological Cybernetics, vol. 78, 1998, pp. 359-368. |
| J. Timmer, “Modeling Noisy Time Series: Physiological Tremor,” International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, vol. 8, No. 7, 1998, pp. 1505-1516. |
| J. Timmer, et al., “Cross-Spectral Analysis of Tremor Time Series,” International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, vol. 10, No. 11, 2000, pp. 2595-2610. |
| J. Timmer, et al., “Pathological Tremors: Deterministic Chaos or Nonlinear Stochastic Oscillators?” Chaos, vol. 10, No. 1, Mar. 2000, pp. 278-288. |
| V. Digalakis, et al., “ML Estimation of a Stochastic Linear System with the EM Algorithm and Its Application to Speech Recognition,” IEEE Transactions on Speech and Audio Processing, vol. 1, No. 4, Oct. 1993, pp. 431-442. |
| S. Haykin, et al., “Adaptive Tracking of Linear Time-Variant Systems by Extended RLS Algorithms,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 45, No. 5, May 1997, pp. 1118-1128. |
| B. F. La Scala, et al., “Design of an Extended Kalman Filter Frequency Tracker,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 44, No. 3, Mar. 1996, pp. 739-742. |
| K. Nishiyama, “Robust Estimation of a Single Complex Sinusoid in White Noise—H∞ Filtering Approach,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 47, No. 10, Oct. 1999, pp. 2853-2856. |
| K. Nishiyama, “A Nonlinear Filter for Estimating a Sinusoidal Signal and its Parameters in White Noise: On the Case of a Single Sinusoid,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 45, No. 4, Apr. 1997, pp. 970-981. |
| B. Widrow, et al., “Fundamental Relations Between the LMS Algorithm and the DFT,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems, vol. 34, No. CAS-7, Jul. 1987, pp. 814-820. |
| A. H. Sayed, “A Framework for State-Space Estimation with Uncertain Models,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 46, No. 7, Jul. 2001, pp. 998-1013. |
| Website: J. Timmer, “Data Analysis and Modeling of Dynamic Processes in the Life Sciences,” Freiburg Center for Data Analysis and Modeling, http://webber.physik.uni-freiburg.de/˜jeti/, retrieved Aug. 17, 2007, pp. 1-2. |
| Website: “Freiburg Center for Data Analysis and Modeling—Publications,” http://www.fdm.uni-freiburg.de/cms/puplications/publications/, retrieved Aug. 17, 2007, pp. 1-11. |
| Website: C. Riviere, Robotics Institute, http://www.ri.cmu.edu/people/riviere—cameron.html, retrieved Aug. 17, 2007, pp. 1-4. |
| Website: A. Beuter, Publications, University of Quebec at Montreal, http://www.er.uqam.ca/nobel/r11040/publicat.htm, retrieved Aug. 17, 2007, pp. 1-7. |
| Website: R. Murray-Smith, Hamilton Institute, http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/˜rod/, retrieved Aug. 17, 2007, pp. 1-5. |
| Website: Z. Jian, et al., “Adaptive Noise Cancellation,” Rice University, http://www.ece.rice.edu/˜klwang/elec434/elec434.htm, retrieved Aug. 17, 2007, pp. 1-6. |
| Website: A. H. Sayed, “UCLA Adaptive Systems Laboratory—Home Page,” UCLA, http://asl.ee.ucla.edu/index.php?option=com—frontpage&Itemid=1, retrieved Aug. 17, 2007, p. 1. |
| Japanese Office Action in related Japanese Application No. 2007-510993, dated Jan. 19, 2010. |
| Decision on Appeal in related U.S. Appl. No. 11/821,018, dated Sep. 26, 2014. |
| Extended European Search Report mailed Jun. 6, 2011 in related EP Application No. 10011833.0. |
| Extended European Search Report mailed May 10, 2011 in related EP Application No. 10014911.1. |
| Extended European Search Report mailed Apr. 11, 2014 in related EP Application No. 13005551.0. |
| Feltens, “Vector methods to compute azimuth, elevation, ellipsoidal normal, and the Cartesian (X, Y, Z) to geodetic (ø, λ, h) transformation,” Journal of Geodesy, Aug. 2008, pp. 493-504, vol. 82, No. 8. |
| Fishkin et al., “Enhanced Dynamic Queries via Movable Filters,” CHI '95 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, May 1, 1995, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., New York, NY, USA. |
| Flaherty, “Silicon springs to its sensors,” Electronics Times, Mar. 2, 1998, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi—m0WVI/is—1998—March—2/ai—58372213/. |
| Foley et al., “Second Edition Computer Graphics: Principles and Practice,” Nov. 1992, Chapters 1, 5, 7, Appendix, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., Reading, MA, USA. |
| Foxlin, “Chapter 7. Motion Tracking Requirements and Technologies,” Handbook of Virtual Environment Technology, 2002. |
| Foxlin, “Inertial Head-Tracker Sensor Fusion by a Complementary Separate-Bias Kalman Filter,” Proceedings of the IEEE 1996 Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium, Mar. 30-Apr. 3, 1996, pp. 185-194, 267, Santa Clara, CA, USA. |
| Foxlin, “Pedestrian Tracking with Shoe-Mounted Inertial Sensors,” IEEE Computer Graphics & Applications, Nov./Dec. 2005, pp. 38-46, vol. 25, No. 6. |
| Friedberg et al., “Linear Algebra, 4th Edition,” 2003, Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA. |
| Gebre-Egziabher et al., “A Gyro-Free Quaternion-Based Attitude Determination System Suitable for Implementation Using Low Cost Sensors,” IEEE 2000 Position Location and Navigation Symposium, Mar. 13-16, 2000, pp. 185-192, San Diego, CA, USA. |
| Gripton, “The Application and Future Development of a MEMS SiVSG® for Commercial and Military Inertial Products,” 2002 IEEE Position Location and Navigation Symposium, Apr. 15-18, 2002, pp. 28-35. |
| Hamilton, “Lectures on Quaternions: Containing a Systematic Statement of a New Mathematical Method,” 1853, Hodges and Smith, Dublin, IE. |
| Hide et al., “Multiple Model Kalman Filtering for GPS and Low-cost INS integration,” Proceedings of the 17th International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of the Institute of Navigation (ION GNSS 2004), Sep. 21-24, 2004, pp. 1096-1103, Long Beach, CA, USA. |
| Hogue, “MARVIN: a Mobile Automatic Realtime Visual and INertial tracking system,” Thesis, May 2003, Graduate Program in Computer Science, York University, Toronto, Ontario, CA. |
| Hong et al., “Observability of Error States in GPS/INS Integration,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, Mar. 2005, vol. 54, No. 2. |
| IBM, “Dictionary of Computing: Information Processing, Personal Computing, Telecommunications, Office Systems, IBM-specific Terms,” 8th Edition, Mar. 1987, p. 475. |
| IEEE Standards, “802.16 IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks, Part 16: Air Interface for Fixed Broadband Wireless Access Systems,” IEEE Std 802.16 2004, Oct. 1, 2004, pp. 1-857. |
| International Standard, “Information technology—Vocabulary—Part 13: Computer Graphics,” Second Edition, Jun. 1, 1996. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability mailed Jan. 5, 2011 in related International Application No. PCT/EP2009/057978. |
| International Search Report mailed Aug. 5, 2002 in related International Application No. PCT/US01/08261. |
| International Search Report mailed Nov. 13, 2002 in related International Application No. PCT/US01/08331. |
| International Search Report mailed Jul. 25, 2002 in related International Application No. PCT/US01/08377. |
| International Search Report mailed Feb. 9, 2005 in related International Application No. PCT/US04/14487. |
| International Search Report mailed Jun. 12, 2006 in related International Application No. PCT/US05/14702. |
| International Search Report mailed Jun. 14, 2006 in related International Application No. PCT/US05/15068. |
| James D. Richards III's Response to Respondent's Motion to Certify to the Commission a Request for Judicial Enforcement of a Subpoena Duces Tecum and Ad Testificandum Directed to James D. Richards III, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, Mar. 20, 2009. |
| Joint Stipulation Regarding Technology at Issue, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, May 11, 2009. |
| Joint Stipulation Regarding the Technology in Issue, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, Feb. 23, 2009. |
| Jurman et al., “Calibration and data fusion solution for the miniature attitude and heading reference system,” Science Direct, Sensors and Actuators A, Aug. 26, 2007, pp. 411-420, vol. 138, No. 2. |
| Karin J. Norton's Letter regarding Feb. 18 and Feb. 20 Motion, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, Feb. 24, 2009. |
| Karush, “Webster's New World Dictionary of Mathematics,” 1989, Macmillan, USA. |
| Kevin B. Collins Letter Withdrawing Feb. 17, 2009 Motion, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, Feb. 20, 2009. |
| Kraft, “A Quaternion-based Unscented Kalman Filter for Orientation Tracking,” Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of Information Fusion, 2003 (vol. 1), Jul. 8-11, 2003, pp. 47-54, Cairns, Queensland, AU. |
| Leavitt et al., “High Bandwidth Tilt Measurement Using Low-Cost Sensors,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, Jun. 2006, pp. 320-327, vol. 11, No. 3. |
| LexisNexis, “Analog Devices Announces Two Design Wins for Versatile Micromachined Sensors,” Feb. 25, 1999, PR Newswire Association, Inc. |
| LexisNexis, “Analog Devices Partners with Caveo Technology to Develop Next-Generation Security Technology for Laptop Computers,” Intel Developer Forum 2000, Aug. 17, 2000, Business Wire, Inc. |
| Lobo et al., “Vision and Inertial Sensor Cooperation Using Gravity as a Vertical Reference,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, Dec. 2003, vol. 25, No. 12. |
| Mahony et al., “Complementary filter design on the special orthogonal group SO(3),” 44th IEEE Conference on Decision & Control, 2005 and 2005 European Control Conference, CDC-ECC '05, Dec. 12-15, 2005, pp. 1477-1484. |
| Mathematical Relationship Between Equations in U.S. Appl. No. 12/147,811 and U.S. Appl. No. 12/188,595. |
| McGraw-Hill, “Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, Fifth Edition,” 1994, pp. 11, 12, 592,1299, 1409, 1551, 2125, McGraw-Hill , Inc., USA. |
| Meyer et al., “A Survey of Position Trackers,” Communication Technology and Cognition Group, University of North Carolina, 1991. |
| Morrison, “ADI debuts accelerometer,” Electronic News, Mar. 16, 1998, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi—m0EKF/is—n2210—v44/ai—20403891/. |
| Motion by Donald S. Odell to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum and Ad Testificandum, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, Feb. 5, 2009. |
| Motion by James D. Richards III to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum and Ad Testifcandum, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, Jan. 21, 2009. |
| Motion of Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America Inc. for Leave to File Amended Answer to Complaint of Hillcrest Laboratories, Inc., United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, Nov. 25, 2008. |
| Motion of Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America Inc. for Summary Determination of Unpatentability of the '118, '760, and '611 Patents Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, Feb. 18, 2009. |
| Motion of Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America Inc. for Summary Determination of Unpatentability of the '118, '760, and '611 Patents Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, Feb. 20, 2009. |
| Movea SA Notice of Opposition to European Patent No. EP1741088 (Aug. 8, 2012), available at http://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP05744089&Ing=en&tab=doclist. |
| Supplementary European Search Report mailed Aug. 9, 2011 in related EP Application No. 04760954.0. |
| Tech Infobase, “ADI Advances Tilt/Motion Sensing and System Hardware Monitoring,” Oct. 1, 2000, http://cma.zdnet.com/texis/techinfobase/techinfobase/+ID6e4DLxzmwwwxqFqo—/display.htm. |
| Telephone Conference, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, Mar. 9, 2009. |
| Titterton et al., “Strapdown inertial navigation technology,” IEE Radar, Sonar, Navigation and Avionics Series 5, 1997, Peter Peregrinus Ltd., Chapters 1, 2, 3, 10. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 60/355,368, filed Feb. 7, 2002. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 60/566,444, filed Apr. 30, 2004. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 60/612,571, filed Sep. 23, 2004. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 60/641,410, filed Jan. 5, 2005. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/286,702, filed Nov. 23, 2005. |
| Vane et al., “Programming for TV, Radio, and Cable,” Ch. 3: The Marketplace: Part II, 1994, pp. 29-46, Butterworth-Heinemann, Newton, MA, USA. |
| Verhoeven et al., “Hypermedia on the Map: Spatial Hypermedia in HyperMap,” International Conference on Information, Communications and Signal Processing, ICICS '97, Singapore, Sep. 9-12, 1997, pp. 589-592. |
| Vogel et al., “Distant Freehand Pointing and Clicking on Very Large, High Resolution Displays,” UIST '05, Oct. 23-27, 2005, pp. 33-42, Seattle, WA, USA. |
| Fuerst et al., “Interactive Television: A Survey of the State of Research and the Proposal and Evaluation of a User Interface,” Jun. 1996, http://wwwai.wu-wien.ac.at/˜koch/stud/itv/paper.html. |
| Vigyan Prasar, “Vigyan Prasar: An Insight, Technology to the aid of science popularisation,” Jan. 1999, http://www.vigyanprasar.com/dream/jan99/janvpinsight.htm. |
| Quesenbery et al., “Designing for Interactive Television,” Aug. 15, 2003, http:www.wqusability.com/articles/itv-design.html. |
| Weisstein, “Rotation Matrix,” From MathWorld—A Wolfram Web Resource, http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RotationMatrix.html (last updated May 29, 2012). |
| Welch, “SCAAT: Incremental Tracking with Incomplete Information,” TR96-051, Oct. 1996, Department of Computer Science, UNC—Chapel Hill. |
| Wikipedia, “List of trigonometric identities,” Dec. 28, 2007, retrieved from Internet Aug. 23, 2012, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List—of—trigonometric—identities. |
| Wilson et al., “Demonstration of the XWand Interface for Intelligent Spaces,” UIST '02 Companion, Demonstrations, Oct. 27-30, 2002, pp. 37-38, Paris, FR. |
| Wilson et al., “Gesture Recognition Using the XWand,” Assistive Intelligent Environments Group, Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Apr. 2004. |
| Wilson, “XWand: UI for Intelligent Environments,” Apr. 26, 2004, http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/awilson/wand/default.htm. |
| Wilson et al., “XWand: UI for Intelligent Spaces,” CHI 2003, Apr. 5-10, 2003. Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA. |
| Written Opinion mailed Feb. 9, 2005 in related International Application No. PCT/US04/14487. |
| Written Opinion mailed Jun. 12, 2006 in related International Application No. PCT/US05/14702. |
| Written Opinion mailed Jun. 14, 2006 in related International Application No. PCT/US05/15068. |
| Office Action mailed May 18, 2010 in related KR Application No. 10-2009-7023531. |
| Office Action mailed Sep. 6, 2010 in related KR Application No. 10-2010-7016483. |
| Office Action mailed Oct. 4, 2011 in related TW Application No. 9411402. |
| European Patent Office Communication mailed Apr. 28, 2011 for EP Application No. 09769324.6 comprising Third Party Observation dated Apr. 14, 2011. |
| O'Driscoll, “The Essential Guide to Digital Set-top Boxes and Interactive TV,” Apr. 2000, Prentice Hall PTR, USA, Chapters 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 12. |
| Order No. 13: Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation As to Certain Claims, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, Feb. 23, 2009. |
| Order No. 14: Relating to Third-Party James D. Richards III's Motion No. 658-18 for Sanctions and for a New Protective Order and His Motion No. 658-13 to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum and Ad Testificandum and Ordering Richards to Comply With Said Subpoena, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, Feb. 27, 2009. |
| Order No. 19: Initial Determination Requesting Judicial Enforcement of Subpoena, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, Mar. 23, 2009. |
| Order No. 25: Denying Respondent Nintendo's Motion for Summary Determination of Unpatentability of the '760 and '611 Patents Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, Mar. 26, 2009. |
| Order No. 30: Denying Respondent's Motion to Stay, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, Apr. 2, 2009. |
| Order No. 31: Granting Nintendo's Motion No. 658-37 to File Second Amended Answer to Complaint, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, Apr. 2, 2009. |
| Order No. 37: Requiring Submissions From Complainant, Respondents and the Staff, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, Apr. 23, 2009. |
| Order No. 39: Granting Complainant's Motion to Submit Riviere Supplemental Report, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, Apr. 27, 2009. |
| Pancratov et al., “Why Computer Architecture Matters,” Computing in Science & Engineering, May/Jun. 2008, pp. 59-63, vol. 10, No. 4. |
| Park et al., “Covariance Analysis of Strapdown INS Considering Gyrocompass Characteristics,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, Jan. 1995, vol. 31, No. 1. |
| Park et al., “Examples of Estimation Filters from Recent Aircraft Projects at MIT,” Nov. 2004. |
| Pique, “Semantics of Interactive Rotations,” 1986 Workshop on Interactive 3D Graphics, Oct. 23-24, 1986, pp. 259-269, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. |
| planetmath.org, “PlanetMath: derivation of rotation matrix using polar coordinates,” Apr. 25, 2009, http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/DerivationOfRotationMatrixUsin . . . |
| Preliminary Conference, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, Oct. 23, 2008. |
| Press Release, “NetTV Selected for 800 Kansas City Classrooms,” http://www.fno.org/mar98/NKCSDPR1.html, Mar. 23, 1998. |
| Private Parties' Combined List of Confidential and Public Joint Exhibits Admitted or Rejected During the Evidentiary Hearing, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, May 21, 2009. |
| Private Parties' List of Confidential Joint Exhibits Admitted or Rejected During the Evidentiary Hearing, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, May 21, 2009. |
| Private Parties' List of Public Joint Exhibits Admitted or Rejected During the Evidentiary Hearing, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, May 21, 2009. |
| Proposed Conclusions of Law of Respondents Nintendo Co., Ltd and Nintendo of America Inc., United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, Jun. 3, 2009. |
| Request for Inter Partes Reexamination of U.S. Pat. No. 7,158,118, filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Jul. 13, 2012. |
| Respondents Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America Inc.'s Combined List of Confidential and Public Exhibits Admitted or Rejected During the Evidentiary Hearing, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, May 21, 2009. |
| Respondents Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America Inc.'s Corrected Responses to Complainant Hillcrest Laboratories, Inc.'s Fourth Set of Interrogatories, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, Feb. 18, 2009. |
| Respondents Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America Inc.'s List of Confidential Exhibits Admitted or Rejected During the Evidentiary Hearing, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, May 21, 2009. |
| Respondents Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America Inc.'s List of Public Exhibits Admitted or Rejected During the Evidentiary Hearing, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, May 21, 2009. |
| Respondents Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America Inc.'s Responses to Complainant Hillcrest Laboratories, Inc.'s Fourth Set of Interrogatories, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, Feb. 17, 2009. |
| Respondents Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America Inc.'s Second Motion for Leave to Submit Supplemental Notice of Prior Art, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, Feb. 24, 2009. |
| Respondents Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America Inc.'s Third Motion for Leave to Submit Supplemental Notice of Prior Art, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, Mar. 17, 2009. |
| Respondents Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America Inc.'s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Notice of Prior Art, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, Feb. 6, 2009. |
| Rios et al., “Fusion Filter Algorithm Enhancements for a MEMS GPS/IMU,” Proceedings of the 14th International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of the Institute of Navigation (ION GPS 2001), Sep. 11-14, 2001, pp. 1382-1393, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. |
| Riviere et al., “Toward Active Tremor Canceling in Handheld Microsurgical Instruments,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, Oct. 2003, vol. 19, No. 5. |
| Roumeliotis et al., “Cicumventing Dynamic Modeling: Evaluation of the Error-State Kalman Filter applied to Mobile Robot Localization,” 1999 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 1999 Proceedings, May 10-15, 1999, pp. 1656-1663, vol. 2, Detroit, MI, USA. |
| Sawada et al., “A Wearable Attitude-Measurement System Using a Fiberoptic Gyroscope,” Presence, Apr. 2002, pp. 109-118, vol. 11, No. 2. |
| SIGGRAPH, Presentation Slides submitted in United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, 2009, 103 pages. |
| Simon et al., “The YoYo: A Handheld Input Combining Elastic and Isotonic Input,” Human Computer Interaction—INTERACT '03, Jan. 2003, pp. 303-310. |
| Srivastava, “Interactive TV Technology and Markets,” Jan. 1, 2002, Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 7, Artech House, Boston, MA, USA. |
| ST, “MEMS Accelerometers,” Apr. 29, 2009, pp. 2508-2511. |
| ST Microelectronics, “MEMS Inertial Sensor: 3-axis—+/−2g Ultracompact Linear Accelerometer,” LIS3L02AL, Sep. 2005. |
| ST Microelectronics, “MEMS Inertial Sensor: 3-axis—+/−2g Ultracompact Linear Accelerometer,” LIS3L02ALE, Feb. 2006. |
| STMicroelectronics, “Inertial Sensor: 3-Axis—2g/6g Linear Accelerometer,” LIS3L02AS, Feb. 2003. |
| Stone et al., “The Movable Filter as a User Interface Tool,” Proceedings of CHI '94, ACM, Apr. 24-28, 1994, pp. 306-312, Boston, MA, USA. |
| Summons to Attend Oral Proceedings mailed Apr. 28, 2011 in related EP Application No. 05744089.3. |
| Summons to Attend Oral Proceedings mailed Aug. 3, 2011 in related EP Application No. 05757855.1. |
| Supplementary European Search Report mailed Apr. 2, 2008 in related EP Application No. 04796360.8. |
| Supplementary European Search Report mailed Apr. 10, 2008 in related EP Application No. 05757855.1. |
| Supplementary European Search Report mailed Oct. 8, 2009 in related EP Application No. 05760711.1. |
| Nintendo Co., Ltd., Presentation Slides submitted in United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, 2009, 211 pages. |
| Notice of Allowance mailed Jan. 14, 2011 in related JP Application No. 2007-510993. |
| Notice of Allowance mailed Nov. 17, 2014 in related JP Application No. 2012-126909. |
| Office Action mailed Dec. 22, 2006 in related CN Application No. 200480012477.6. |
| Office Action mailed Jan. 8, 2010 in related CN Application No. 200580021162.2. |
| Office Action mailed Mar. 9, 2011 in related CN Application No. 200580021162.2. |
| Office Action mailed Jan. 29, 2012 in related CN Application No. 200810095047.5. |
| Office Action mailed Oct. 30, 2009 in related CN Application No. 200810095047.5. |
| Office Action mailed Jul. 4, 2011 in related CN Application No. 200810095047.5. |
| Office Action mailed May 31, 2010 in related CN Application No. 200810181100.3. |
| Office Action mailed May 4, 2011 in related CN Application No. 200810181100.3. |
| Office Action mailed Oct. 31, 2014 in related CN Application No. 201110369736.2. |
| Office Action mailed Mar. 24, 2014 in related CN Application No. 201110369736.2. |
| Office Action mailed Apr. 21, 2015 in related CN Application No. 201110369736.2. |
| Office Action mailed Dec. 5, 2011 in related EP Application No. 04760954.0. |
| Office Action mailed Mar. 11, 2013 in related EP Application No. 04760954.0. |
| Office Action mailed Nov. 25, 2008 in related EP Application No. 05744089.3. |
| Office Action mailed Mar. 17, 2010 in related EP Application No. 05744089.3. |
| Office Action mailed Jul. 10, 2009 in related EP Application No. 05744089.3. |
| Office Action mailed Mar. 18, 2010 in related EP Application No. 05757855.1. |
| Office Action mailed Aug. 19, 2008 in related EP Application No. 05757855.1. |
| Office Action mailed Aug. 19, 2008 in related EP Application No. 05761047.9. |
| Office Action mailed Sep. 11, 2012 in related EP Application No. 09769324.6. |
| Office Action mailed Mar. 8, 2012 in related EP Application No. 10014911.1. |
| Office Action mailed Mar. 17, 2010 in related EP Application No. 05760711.1. |
| Office Action mailed Nov. 6, 2007 in related IN Application No. 4829/DELNP/2005. |
| Office Action mailed Jan. 10, 2014 in related IN Application No. 6379/DELNP/2006. |
| Office Action mailed Feb. 2, 2009 in related JP Application No. 2006-532896. |
| Office Action mailed Apr. 8, 2011 in related JP Application No. 2006-532896. |
| Office Action mailed Jul. 23, 2010 in related JP Application No. 2006-532896. |
| Office Action mailed Aug. 1, 2011 in related JP Application No. 2006-532896. |
| Office Action mailed Aug. 17, 2010 in related JP Application No. 2007-510993. |
| Office Action mailed Aug. 24, 2010 in related JP Application No. 2007-511062. |
| Office Action mailed Jan. 19, 2010 in related JP Application No. 2007-511065. |
| Office Action mailed Oct. 11, 2011 in related JP Application No. 2007-511065. |
| Office Action mailed Nov. 16, 2010 in related JP Application No. 2007-511065. |
| Office Action mailed Apr. 17, 2012 in related JP Application No. 2007-511065. |
| Office Action mailed Mar. 22, 2011 in related JP Application No. 2007-511071. |
| Office Action mailed Jun. 16, 2009 in related JP Application No. 2007-511071. |
| Office Action mailed Jul. 13, 2010 in related JP Application No. 2007-511071. |
| Office Action mailed May 16, 2011 in related JP Application No. 2009-124732. |
| Office Action mailed Jan. 29, 2013 in related JP Application No. 2011-133123. |
| Office Action mailed Dec. 9, 2011 in related JP Application No. 2011-237899. |
| Office Action mailed Jul. 30, 2013 in related JP Application No. 2012-126909. |
| Office Action mailed Aug. 17, 2007 in related KR Application No. 10-2005-702119. |
| Office Action mailed Sep. 11, 2009 in related KR Application No. 10-2006-7025226. |
| Office Action mailed Apr. 1, 2010 in related KR Application No. 10-2006-7025233. |
| Office Action mailed Jun. 24, 2009 in related KR Application No. 10-2006-7025233. |
| Office Action mailed Mar. 3, 2010 in related KR Application No. 10-2007-7029462. |
| Office Action mailed Aug. 5, 2009 in related KR Application No. 10-2007-7029462. |
| Alexander D. Chinoy's Letter Requesting Return of Physical Exhibits; United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658; Oct. 16, 2009. |
| Allen et al., “Tracking: Beyond 15 Minutes of Thought,” SIGGRAPH, Aug. 12-17, 2001. |
| Analog Devices ADXL 202, “Low Cost ± 2g Duel Axis iMEMS® Accelerometer with Digital Output,” 1998. |
| Analog Devices ADXL202E, “Low-Cost ± 2g Duel-Axis Accelerometer with Duty Cycle Output,” 2000. |
| Analog Devices ADXL330, “Small, Low Power, 3-Axis ± 3 g iMEMS® Accelerometer,” 2006. |
| Analog Devices ADXL50, “Monolithic Accelerometer With Signal Conditioning,” 1996. |
| Analog Devices ADXL202/ADXL210, “Low Cost ± 2 g/±10 g Duel Axis iMEMS® Accelerometers with Digital Output,” 1999. |
| Ang et al., “Physical Model of a MEMS Accelerometer for Low-g Motion Tracking Applications,” Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE International Conference on Robotics & Automation, Apr. 2004, New Orleans, LA, USA. |
| Answer of Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America Inc. to the Complaint of Hillcrest Laboratories, Inc. Under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as Amended; United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658; Oct. 20, 2008. |
| Arangarasan et al., “Modular Approach of Multimodal Integration in a Virtual Environment,” Proceedings of the Fourth IEEE International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces (ICMI'02), Oct. 16, 2002, pp. 331-336. |
| Bachmann et al., “Design and Implementation of MARG Sensors for 3-DOF Orientation Measurement of Rigid Bodies,” Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, ICRA '03, Sep. 14-19, 2003, pp. 1171-1178, vol. 1. |
| Bachmann, “Inertial and Magnetic Tracking of Limb Segment Orientation for Inserting Humans Into Synthetic Environments,” Dissertation, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, Dec. 2000. |
| Bachmann et al., “Orientation Tracking for Humans and Robots Using Inertial Sensors,” Proceedings of the 1999 International Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Robotics & Automation (CIRA99), Dec. 1999, pp. 187-194. |
| Baerveldt et al., “A Low-cost and Low-weight Attitude Estimation System for an Autonomous Helicopter,” 1997 IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Engineering Systems, 1997, INES '97 Proceedings, Sep. 15-17, 1997, pp. 391-395. |
| Barshan et al., “Inertial Navigation Systems for Mobile Robots,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, Jun. 1995, vol. 11, No. 3. |
| Bederson, “Quantum Treemaps and Bubblemaps for a Zoomable Image Browser,” UIST 2001, ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, CHI Letters, 3(2), Nov. 11-14, 2001, Orlando, FL, USA, pp. 71-80. |
| Bibi et al., “Modeling and Simulation of Bias Uncertainty of Gyroscope for Improved Navigation,” 2nd International Bhurban Conference on Applied Sciences and Technology, Jun. 16-21, 2003, Bhurban, Pakistan. |
| Bier et al., “A Taxonomy of See-Through Tools,” Proceedings of CHI '94, ACM, Apr. 24-28, 1994, Boston, MA, USA, pp. 358-364. |
| Bier et al., “Toolglass and Magic Lenses: The See-Through Interface,” Proceedings of Siggraph '93, Computer Graphics Annual Conference Series, ACM, Aug. 1993, Anaheim, CA, USA, pp. 73-80. |
| Blomster, “Orientation estimation combining vision and gyro measurements,” KTH Electrical Engineering, Master's Degree Project, Apr. 6, 2006, Stockholm, Sweden. |
| Bowman et al., “3D User Interfaces: Theory and Practice,” Aug. 2004, Addison Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Redwood City, CA, USA. |
| Card et al., “The Design Space of Input Devices,” CHI '90 Proceedings, Apr. 1990. |
| Caruso, “Applications of Magnetoresistive Sensors in Navigation Systems,” SAE Technical Paper Series, 970602, SAE The International Engineering Society for Advancing Mobility Land Sea Air and Space, International Congress & Exposition, Feb. 24-27, 1997, Detroit, MI, USA. |
| Caruso et al., “Vehicle Detection and Compass Applications using AMR Magnetic Sensors,” Proceedings Sensors Expo, May 4-6, 1999, Baltimore, MD, USA. |
| Choukroun et al., “A Novel Quaternion Kalman Filter,” Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, Technion—Israel Institute of Technology, TAE No. 930, Jan. 2004. |
| Choukroun, “Novel Methods for Attitude Determination Using Vector Observations,” Research Thesis, Senate of the Technion—Israel Institute of Technology, May 2003. |
| Ciciora et al., “Modern Cable Television Technology; Video, Voice, and Data Communications,” 1999, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA, Chapters 1, 7, 8, and 18-20. |
| Clarendon Press, Oxford, “The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles,” vol. 1, A-M, 1993, pp. 286, 371, 374, 1076, 2266-2268, 2371, 2542-2543. |
| Commission Investigative Staff's List of Admitted Exhibits (Public and Confidential), United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, Jul. 21, 2009. |
| Commission Investigative Staff's Rebuttal Exhibit List, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, Apr. 29, 2009. |
| Commission Investigative Staff's Response to Motion by Donald S. Odell to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum and Ad Testificandum, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, Feb. 13, 2009. |
| Commission Investigative Staff's Response to Motion of Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America Inc. for Leave to File Second Amended Answer to Complaint of Hillcrest Laboratories, Inc., United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, Mar. 30, 2009. |
| Commission Investigative Staff's Response to Respondant Nintendo's Motion for Summary Determination of Unpatentability of the '118, '760, and '611 Patents Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, Mar. 4, 2009. |
| Complainant's Combined List of Confidential and Public Exhibits Admitted or Rejected During the Evidentiary Hearing, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, May 21, 2009. |
| Complainant's List of Confidential Exhibits Admitted or Rejected During the Evidentiary Hearing, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, May 21, 2009. |
| Complainant's List of Public Exhibits Admitted or Rejected During the Evidentiary Hearing, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, May 21, 2009. |
| Day 1 Final Hearing Transcript, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, May 11, 2009. |
| Day 2 Final Hearing Transcript, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, May 12, 2009. |
| Day 3 Final Hearing Transcript, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, May 13, 2009. |
| Day 4 Final Hearing Transcript, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, May 14, 2009. |
| Day 5 Final Hearing Transcript, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, May 15, 2009. |
| Decision of Rejection mailed Feb. 15, 2011 in related JP Application No. 2007-511062. |
| Decision of Rejection mailed Feb. 14, 2012 in related JP Application No. 2007-511071. |
| Decision of Rejection mailed Jun. 23, 2014 in related JP Application No. 2012-126909. |
| Decision to Refuse Application mailed Dec. 30, 2011 in related EP Application No. 05757855.1. |
| Demonstratives Submitted in United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, 2009. |
| Dogancay, “Bias Compensation for the Bearings-Only Pseudolinear Target Track Estimator,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, Jan. 2006, vol. 54, No. 1. |
| Eibele et al., “Orientation as an additional User Interface in Mixed-Reality Environments,” Workshop Erweiterte Und Virtuelle Realitat, 2004, pp. 79-90. |
| Extended European Search Report mailed Dec. 7, 2010 in related EP Application No. 10011316.6. |
| Ex Parte Application for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum and Ad Testificandum to Christopher Roller, United States International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-658, Jan. 7, 2009. |
| Office Action mailed Sep. 22, 2015 in related EP Application No. 05760711.1. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20080158154 A1 | Jul 2008 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 60641410 | Jan 2005 | US | |
| 60566444 | Apr 2004 | US | |
| 60612571 | Sep 2004 | US | |
| 60641383 | Jan 2005 | US | |
| 60641405 | Jan 2005 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 11119663 | May 2005 | US |
| Child | 11820525 | US |
