Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Drawings The Replacement Sheet for FIGs 1 and 2 on 10/21/2025 ha s been designated “Prior Art”. The drawings have been accepted. Claim Status Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10 are pending. Claims 2, 3, 7, and 8 have been cancelled. Remarks The Applicant argues there is no suggestion in Ye or Park of optimizing both a pose of a marker set and poses of individual fiducial markers as claimed. The Examiner finds Ye to teach a Levenberg-Marquardt optimization algorithm in [Col 12 lines 40-45] . The Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm, according to the Applicants as-filed specification in paragraph [0086] cites “ the pose of the marker set and the poses of individual fiducial markers for each image can be simultaneously optimized on the basis of a nonlinear optimization algorithm such as the Gauss-Newton or Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm ” . The Examiner finds the Levenberg-Marquardt optimization of Ye to teach both optimizing a pose of a marker set and poses of individual fiducial markers. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 1, 4, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye et al. (US 10,719,953 B1) “Ye” in view of Park et al. (KR 20210094277) Machine Translation “Park”. 6 . Ye teaches: A marker tracking system for tracking a marker ("A system tracks poses of a passive object" [ABSTRACT]) in augmented reality ("augmented reality" [Col. 2 line 60]) , the system comprising: one or more cameras ("camera" [Col. 3 line 15]) provided to photograph ("image data captured by a camera." [ABSTRACT]) a marker set as an aggregate of two or more individual fiducial markers of the marker ("fiducial markers on fiducial surfaces of a polygonal structure of the object" [ABSTRACT]) ; and a computing device ("computing system " [Col. 3 line 12 ]) configured to obtain an image captured by at least one of the one or more the camera s ("image data captured by a camera." [ABSTRACT] shown in FIG. 1 where “Image Device(s) 135” capture a “Polygonal Structure 122”. ) , set a fiducial marker of the fiducial markers from the obtained image to be used ( set a "Fiducial Marker 134" as shown in FIGs 8-11 to be used. ) , create 3D information of the fiducial marker ("The pose p of the object 120 may be defined as a 6D vector including the 3D axis-angle representation of R and the 3D translation vector t." [Col. 8 lines 49-52]) , acquire a pose of the marker set from each image obtained by photographing the marker set at various angles from the one or more cameras ( “single camera ” or "multi-camera imaging system ” [Col 6 lines 14-16. ] . ) optimize the pose of the marker set and poses of the individual fiducial markers for each image on the basis of a nonlinear optimization algorithm, and estimate a pose of the marker on the basis of the optimized pose of the marker set and the optimized poses of the individual fiducial markers ("The system 100 (e.g., the object tracking controller 202) determines 425 an estimated pose of the polygonal structure 122 by minimizing the reprojection error. For example, the reprojection error E.sub.r defined by Equation 5 may be minimized using a damped least squares algorithm, such as the Levenberg-Marquaardt algorithm." [Col 12 lines 40-45] . Per Applicants as-filed specification at paragraph [0086], the Levenberg-Marquaart algorithm can optimize the pose of the marker set and the poses of individual fiducial markers for each image simultaneously on the nonlinear optimization algorithm of Levenberg-Marquardt ) . Ye teaches a camera and suggests using a plurality of cameras but does not explicitly teach photographing the marker set from the camera or cameras at various angles . However, in an analogous field of endeavor Park teaches: photographing at various angles from one or more cameras ("a plurality of cameras installed at a plurality of location so as to be able to photograph the marker from a plurality of viewpoints" [Claim 1]) . The Imaging Device(s) 135 of Ye [FIG. 1] can be modified by Par k to use one or more cameras from a variety of angles to improve positioning . The motivation for the combination is provided by Park to improve “the position and angle of the distal end of the medical device are important, such as fine needle aspiration and injection” [0001]. Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the claim is rejected. 9 . Ye and Park teach: The marker tracking system according to claim 6, wherein the computing device is configured to, in the process of estimating the marker pose, collect information on corners of the marker ("the object tracking controller 202) determines 325 the estimated pose of the polygonal structure 122 using inter-frame corner tracking" [Col. 9 lines 66-67 and Col. 10 lines 1-2] of Ye. ) , estimate an initial pose of the marker on the basis of the collected corner information ("estimated pose of the polygonal structure 122" [Col. 9 lines 67 and Col. 10 line 1] of Ye . ) , adjust the initial pose of the marker so as to minimize an error (reprojection error) between 2D corner coordinates of the markers obtained through the marker corner information collecting process and 2D coordinates obtained by reprojecting 3D corner coordinates on the world coordinate system (" The APE may include determining an estimated pose of the of the polygonal structure in the frame based on minimizing reprojection error between projected image points of the fiducial markers and observed image points of the fiducial markers in the frame." [ Col. 3 lines 25-29 ] . APE is the “approximate pose estimation” [Col. 3 line 24] of Ye . ) , and readjust a detailed pose of the marker on the basis of a dense image alignment technique so as to minimize an appearance difference between the detected fiducial marker image and a template fiducial marker image prepared in advance ("Subsequent to the APE, the object tracking controller updates the estimated pose using a dense pose refinement (DPR). The DPR includes performing on pixel comparisons to identify the pose of the polygonal structure and the object." [Col. 3 lines 36-40] of Ye. ) . Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the claim is rejected. 1 and 4. The method of claims 1and 4 have been analyzed in view of the method of Ye in claim 18. C laim “18. A method” and further in view of claims 6 and 9 respectively. Claims 1 and 4 are rejected in a similar manner to claims 6 and 9 respectively. Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the claim is rejected. Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye et al. (US 10,719,953 B1) “Ye” in view of Park et al. (KR 20210094277) Machine Translation “Park” and further in view of Moteki et al. (US 2016/0267661 A1) “Moteki”. 10 . Ye and Park teach: The marker tracking system according to claim 9 Ye and Park do not explicitly teach: wherein the dense image alignment technique includes the Lucas-Kanade image alignment technique. However, Moteki teaches: wherein the dense image alignment technique includes the Lucas-Kanade image alignment technique ("B. D. Lucas and T. Kanade, “An iterative image registration technique with an application to stereo vision”, in Proc. Imaging Understanding Workshop, pp. 121-130, 1981." [0054]) . The Dense Pose Refinement (DPR) of Ye can be modified by Moteki to use a Lucas-Kanade technique for image alignment. The motivation is provided by Ye and Moteki. Ye mentions “Lucas-Kanade” in [Col. 10 line 5] and Moteki describes “ In a system that realizes augmented reality, it is important that virtual space be accurately aligned with real space in order to superimpose information on an appropriate position in an image captured by a camera .“ [0004] of Moteki . The Lucas-Kanade alignment can be used for appropriate positioning. Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the claim is rejected. 5. The method of claim 5 has been analyzed in view of the method of Ye, in claim 18. Claim “18. A method” and further in view of claim 10. Claim 5 is rejected in a similar manner to claim 10. Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the claim is rejected. Relevant Prior Art WO 2023201074 A1 FIGs 3, 4, 5 and 11. Abstract A tool for use in endoscopic surgical procedures includes a shaft, wherein the shaft includes a first end, a second end, and a first axis; and a pointer at the first end of the shaft, wherein the pointer includes: a tip located on the first end of the pointer, and a plurality of fiducial markers disposed on the pointer, wherein at least one of the fiducial markers is disposed on a surface that extends transversely to the first axis, wherein the plurality of fiducial markers are configured for providing information for locating the tip of the pointer in an endoscopic image captured by an endoscopic imaging device. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT TED W BARNES whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-1785 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri. 8:00-5:00 . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Benny Tieu can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-7490 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT /TED W. BARNES/ Ph.D. Electrical Engineering Primary Examiner Art Unit 2682 /TED W BARNES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682