Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/169,800

Alignment Using Two-Part Marker and Image Visible Marker

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 15, 2023
Examiner
BROWN, SHEREE N
Art Unit
2612
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Novarad Corporation
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% — above average
65%
Career Allow Rate
481 granted / 738 resolved
+3.2% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+27.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
772
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
14.3%
-25.7% vs TC avg
§103
25.0%
-15.0% vs TC avg
§102
32.7%
-7.3% vs TC avg
§112
22.0%
-18.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 738 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Application Status This office action is responsive to the amendments filed on 10/21/2025. The objection to the specification is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments. In light of the Applicant’s remarks, this action has been made NON-FINAL. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/21/2025 is being considered by the examiner. A signed IDS is hereby attached. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant alleged the following: “Bojarski's markers are similar to the optical marker in claim 1 but are not similar to or the same as an image visible marker that can be captured in an image data set by a medical imaging device.”. The examiner is not persuaded. The examiner asserts the combination of Bojarski and Chopra discloses the Applicant’s claim language. More specifically, Chopra teachings of radiopaque markers in Paragraphs 0093 & 0100 discloses the Applicant’s claim language of “an image visible marker that can be captured in an image data set by a medical imaging device”. Accordingly, the examiner maintains the rejection. The Applicant alleged the following: “However, the fiducial markers of Bojarski are not image visible markers. Image visible markers are defined in the specification of the present application, at least in part as: "The two-part device may include an image visible marker that is detectable by a medical imaging device. The two-part device may be placed on a person when a medical imaging device is used to capture a medical image (e.g., a CT (computed tomography) scan, MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scan or X-ray) of the person." See paragraph [0013] of the present specification. Because the markers in Bojarski cited by the Office Action are not the same as the image visible marker claimed, claims 1 - 24 should be allowed”. The examiner is not persuaded. As noted above, the examiner asserts the combination of Bojarski and Chopra discloses the Applicant’s claim language. More specifically, Chopra teachings of radiopaque markers in Paragraphs 0093 & 0100 discloses the Applicant’s claim language of “an image visible marker that can be captured in an image data set by a medical imaging device”. As shown below, the examiner has provided an illustration. PNG media_image1.png 809 895 media_image1.png Greyscale Accordingly, the examiner maintains the rejection. The Applicant alleged the following: “However, a male piece with a marker that is connected to a female piece connected to the HMD or surgical helmet does not teach or suggest that a common connector removably joins an optical marker to an image visible marker. Furthermore, the cited portions of Bojarski do not teach an image visible marker and cannot anticipate claim 1. Instead Bojarski, teaches magnets or a male/female connector to attach a marker to a helmet”. The examiner is not persuaded. The examiner asserts the combination of Bojarski and Chopra discloses the Applicant’s claim language. More specifically, Bojarski teachings of “connected or linked to the marker, the base of the marker or a holding member connected to the marker” in Column 59, Lines 20-35 & Column 59, Lines 60-67 & Column 60, Lines 1-17 correlates to the Applicant’s broad claim language of “a common connector.” Moreover, the combination of Bojarski and Chopra goes on to discloses image visible marker in Chopra Paragraphs 0093 & 0100. Accordingly, the examiner maintains the rejection. The Applicant alleged the following: “Claim 1 also recites "a common connector to removably join the image visible marker to the optical marker and to define a fixed distance between the image visible marker and the optical marker". However, the Bojarski reference fails to disclose a common connector that defines a fixed distance between the image visible marker and the optical marker”. The examiner is not persuaded. The examiner asserts the combination of Bojarski and Chopra discloses the Applicant’s claim language. More specifically, Bojarski teachings of “connected or linked to the marker, the base of the marker or a holding member connected to the marker” in Column 59, Lines 20-35 & Column 59, Lines 60-67 & Column 60, Lines 1-17 correlates to the Applicant’s broad claim language of “a common connector.” Moreover, the combination of Bojarski and Chopra goes on to discloses image visible marker in Chopra Paragraph 0093. Additionally, Chopra’s teachings of “In addition to the coordinate position of the various P and E markers, there can be a fixed linear distance between various elements, such as the distance between the center of P.sub.1 and P.sub.0 284, the distance between P.sub.0 and the edge of the fiducial marker 286, or the distance between P.sub.2 and the edge of the fiducial marker 282. It can be appreciated that any distance between any two points can be used” in Paragraphs 0093 & 0100 correlates to the Applicant’s claim language of “and to define a fixed distance between the image visible marker and the optical marker.” Accordingly, the examiner maintains the rejection. The Applicant alleged the following: “The common connector may define a direction and/or a fixed distance between the optical marker and the image visible marker." The prior art of Bojarski does not allow for this type of improved functionality.”. The examiner is not persuaded. As noted above, the examiner asserts the combination of Bojarski and Chopra discloses the Applicant’s claim language. More specifically, Bojarski teachings of “connected or linked to the marker, the base of the marker or a holding member connected to the marker” in Column 59, Lines 20-35 & Column 59, Lines 60-67 & Column 60, Lines 1-17 correlates to the Applicant’s broad claim language of “a common connector.” Moreover, the combination of Bojarski and Chopra goes on to discloses image visible marker in Chopra Paragraph 0093. Additionally, Chopra’s teachings of “In addition to the coordinate position of the various P and E markers, there can be a fixed linear distance between various elements, such as the distance between the center of P.sub.1 and P.sub.0 284, the distance between P.sub.0 and the edge of the fiducial marker 286, or the distance between P.sub.2 and the edge of the fiducial marker 282. It can be appreciated that any distance between any two points can be used” in Paragraphs 0093 & 0100 correlates to the Applicant’s claim language of “and to define a fixed distance between the image visible marker and the optical marker.” MPEP § 2106 states Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the examiner maintains the rejection. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 1-24 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bojarski, US Patent No.:11,857,378 in view of Chopra, US20220008141. Claim 1: Bojarski discloses a device to enable alignment of an image data set with an anatomy of a person using an augmented reality (AR) headset (See Bojarski Abstract & Figure 1; Figures 4A-4C & Column 10, Lines 35-50) but failed to explicitly disclose the following: “an image visible marker that is detectable by a medical imaging device” and “to define a fixed distance between the image visible marker”. Chopra discloses the Applicant’s claim language of “an image visible marker that is detectable by a medical imaging device” in Paragraph 0093. Moreover, Chopra discloses the Applicant’s claim language of “to define a fixed distance between the image visible marker” in Paragraph 0100. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Bojarski by the teachings of Chopra to produce visual image data set from a visual image sensor containing at least one visual marker, more effectively (See Chopra Summary of the Disclosure section). In addition, both references teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, incorporating augmented reality (AR) technology with medical devices. As modified: The combination of Bojarski and Chopra discloses the following: an image visible marker that is detectable by a medical imaging device (See Chopra Paragraph 0093); an optical marker (“one marker comprises at least one of an optical marker, a geometric pattern, a bar code, a QR code, an alphanumeric code, a radiofrequency marker, an infrared marker, a retroreflective marker, an active marker, and a passive marker.” See Bojarski Column 4, Lines 1-25); and a common connector (“connected or linked to the marker, the base of the marker or a holding member connected to the marker” See Bojarski Column 59, Lines 20-35 & Column 59, Lines 60-67 & Column 60, Lines 1-17) to removably join the image visible marker (See Chopra Paragraph 0093) to the optical marker (“connected or linked to the marker, the base of the marker or a holding member connected to the marker” See Bojarski Column 59, Lines 20-35 & Column 59, Lines 60-67 & Column 60, Lines 1-17) and to define a fixed distance between the image visible marker and the optical marker (“In addition to the coordinate position of the various P and E markers, there can be a fixed linear distance between various elements, such as the distance between the center of P.sub.1 and P.sub.0 284, the distance between P.sub.0 and the edge of the fiducial marker 286, or the distance between P.sub.2 and the edge of the fiducial marker 282. It can be appreciated that any distance between any two points can be used” See Chopra Paragraphs 0093 & 0100). Claim 2: The combination of Bojarski and Chopra discloses wherein the common connector (See Bojarski Column 59, Lines 20-35 & Column 59, Lines 60-67 & Column 60, Lines 1-17) defines a direction for the fixed distance between the optical marker (See Bojarski Column 23, Lines 5-20) and the image visible marker (See Chopra Paragraph 0093). Claim 3: The combination of Bojarski and Chopra discloses wherein the optical marker is at least one of an optical code, a shaded marker, a colored marker, or an infrared marker (“one marker comprises at least one of an optical marker, a geometric pattern, a bar code, a QR code, an alphanumeric code, a radiofrequency marker, an infrared marker, a retroreflective marker, an active marker, and a passive marker.” See Bojarski Column 4, Lines 1-25). Claim 4: The combination of Bojarski and Chopra discloses a base on which the image visible marker is attached (See Chopra Paragraph 0093). Claim 5: The combination of Bojarski and Chopra discloses an adhesive layer on a surface of the base to enable the base to be adhered to a person’s body (See Bojarski Column 43, Lines 5-15). Claim 6: The combination of Bojarski and Chopra discloses a projection formed on a surface of the base (See Bojarski Column 20, Lines 10-25), wherein the projection is associated with the image visible marker (See Chopra Paragraph 0093). Claim 7: The combination of Bojarski and Chopra discloses a cap on which the optical marker is presented (“one marker comprises at least one of an optical marker, a geometric pattern, a bar code, a QR code, an alphanumeric code, a radiofrequency marker, an infrared marker, a retroreflective marker, an active marker, and a passive marker.” See Bojarski Column 4, Lines 1-25). Claim 8: The combination of Bojarski and Chopra discloses a second optical marker on a second face of the cap (“one marker comprises at least one of an optical marker, a geometric pattern, a bar code, a QR code, an alphanumeric code, a radiofrequency marker, an infrared marker, a retroreflective marker, an active marker, and a passive marker.” See Bojarski Column 4, Lines 1-25). Claim 9: The combination of Bojarski and Chopra discloses wherein the second optical marker is oriented at a 45-degree angle with respect to the optical marker (See Bojarski Column 16, Lines 45-60). Claim 10: The combination of Bojarski and Chopra discloses four additional optical markers with faces oriented at a 45-degree angle (See Bojarski Column 16, Lines 45-60) with respect the optical marker that is a first optical code (“one marker comprises at least one of an optical marker, a geometric pattern, a bar code, a QR code, an alphanumeric code, a radiofrequency marker, an infrared marker, a retroreflective marker, an active marker, and a passive marker.” See Bojarski Column 4, Lines 1-25). Claim 11: The combination of Bojarski and Chopra discloses wherein the four additional optical markers (“one marker comprises at least one of an optical marker, a geometric pattern, a bar code, a QR code, an alphanumeric code, a radiofrequency marker, an infrared marker, a retroreflective marker, an active marker, and a passive marker.” See Bojarski Column 4, Lines 1-25) are oriented radially at 90-degree angles with respect to one another around a center axis of a cap (See Bojarski Column 16, Lines 45-60). Claim 12: The combination of Bojarski and Chopra discloses wherein the common connector is configured to fit a cap to the base and is at least one of: a snap coupling, a press fit coupling, an adhesive coupling, a Velcro coupling, or a pin connected coupling (See Bojarski Column 59, Lines 60-67 & Column 60, Lines 1-5). Claim 13: The combination of Bojarski and Chopra discloses wherein the base includes an EKG (electrocardiogram) electrode (See Bojarski Column 29, Lines 50-67) as the image visible marker (See Chopra Paragraph 0093). Claim 14: The combination of Bojarski and Chopra discloses wherein the image visible marker is an MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) marker or a radiopaque marker (See Chopra Paragraph 0093). Claim 15: The combination of Bojarski and Chopra discloses wherein a projection contains the MRI marker or radiopaque marker (See Bojarski Column 35, Lines 1-25). Claim 16: The combination of Bojarski and Chopra discloses wherein the image visible marker is a metal marker in the shape of at least one of: a circle, square, rectangle, triangle, sphere, a 2D shape, or a 3D shape (“the marker may be square, between 50 and 80 mm on each side and between 5 to 10 mm thick” See Chopra Figure 2C & Paragraph 0093). Claim 17: Claim 17 is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. Claim 18: The combination of Bojarski and Chopra discloses an optical code on a top surface of a multi-faceted cap and optical codes on angled surfaces of the multi-faceted cap (“one marker comprises at least one of an optical marker, a geometric pattern, a bar code, a QR code, an alphanumeric code, a radiofrequency marker, an infrared marker, a retroreflective marker, an active marker, and a passive marker.” See Bojarski Column 4, Lines 1-25). Claim 19: The combination of Bojarski and Chopra discloses wherein optical codes (“one marker comprises at least one of an optical marker, a geometric pattern, a bar code, a QR code, an alphanumeric code, a radiofrequency marker, an infrared marker, a retroreflective marker, an active marker, and a passive marker.” See Bojarski Column 4, Lines 1-25) are on angled side surfaces and are at least a 25-degree angle with respect to the optical code on a top surface of a cap (See Bojarski Column 55, Lines 1-15). Claim 20: The combination of Bojarski and Chopra discloses wherein the optical codes (“one marker comprises at least one of an optical marker, a geometric pattern, a bar code, a QR code, an alphanumeric code, a radiofrequency marker, an infrared marker, a retroreflective marker, an active marker, and a passive marker.” See Bojarski Column 4, Lines 1-25) on side surfaces are at 90-degree angles radially with respect to one another and around a center axis of a multi-faceted cap (See Bojarski Column 16, Lines 45-60). Claim 21: The combination of Bojarski and Chopra discloses wherein the common connector is at least one of: a snap coupling, a press fit coupling, or an adhesive coupling (See Bojarski Column 59, Lines 60-67 & Column 60, Lines 1-5). Claim 22: The combination of Bojarski and Chopra discloses wherein the common connector is configured to receive the image visible marker that is at least one of: an MRI marker, a radiopaque marker, a metal marker, a titanium marker with on optical code formed in the titanium marker, or an ultrasound marker (See Chopra Paragraph 0093). Claim 23: Claim 23 is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. Claim 24: Claim 24 is rejected on the same basis as claim 5. Pertinent Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20210186647 discloses an augmented reality system, and specifically to correct image projection when it is used in image guided surgery. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEREE N BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-4229. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00 PM EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SAID BROOME can be reached on (571) 272-2931. 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. /SHEREE N BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612 October 31, 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 15, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 23, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 24, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 21, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593956
METHOD FOR BUILDING IMAGE READING MODEL BASED ON CAPSULE ENDOSCOPE, DEVICE, AND MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12573130
METHOD AND SYSTEM PROVIDING TEMPORARY TEXTURE APPLICATION TO ENHANCE 3D MODELING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12548204
NEURAL FRAME EXTRAPOLATION RENDERING MECHANISM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12541487
Method for Constructing Database, Method for Retrieving Document and Computer Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12541539
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR A COMPLIANCE FRAMEWORK DATABASE SCHEMA
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
65%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+27.0%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 738 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month