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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on November 27, 2023 and January 7, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Reference character 210 in Fig. 1. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalit ies : “if correlation exceeds” should read “if the correlation exceeds” (line 8); “with respect to patient” should read “with respect to the patient” (lines 9-10); and “if correlation is below” should read “if the correlation is below” (line 10) to follow proper antecedent basis . Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informality: “comprising an alert” should read “comprising the alert” (line 1) to follow proper antecedent basis. Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “PT movement with patient” should read “PT movement with the patient” (lines 1-2”); and “PT movement with respect to patient” should read “PT movement with respect to the patient” (line 2) to follow proper antecedent basis. Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informality: “mounted on patient’s body” should read “mounted on the patient’s body” (line 1) to follow proper antecedent basis . Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalit ies : “if correlation exceeds” should read “if the correlation exceeds” (line 2); and “if correlation is below” should read “if the correlation is below” (line 3) to follow proper antecedent basis. Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informality: “below a selected threshold” should read “below the selected threshold” (line 3). Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informality: “one or more PT” should read “ said one or more PT” (line 2) to follow proper antecedent basis; and “to determining rotation data” should read “to determine rotation data” (line 2). Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “PT movement with patient” should read “PT movement with the patient” (lines 1-2”); and “PT movement with respect to patient” should read “PT movement with respect to the patient” (line 2) to follow proper antecedent basis. Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informality: “mounted on patient’s body” should read “mounted on said patient’s body” (line 1) to follow proper antecedent basis. Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informality: “one or more PTs” should read “ said one or more PTs” (line 1) to follow proper antecedent basis. Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: “PT movement with patient” should read “PT movement with the patient” (lines 1-2”); and “PT movement with respect to patient” should read “PT movement with respect to the patient” (line 2) to follow proper antecedent basis. Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: “if correlation exceeds” should read “if the correlation exceeds” (line 9); “with respect to patient” should read “with respect to the patient” (lines 10-11 ); and “if correlation is below” should read “if the correlation is below” (line 1 1 ) to follow proper antecedent basis. Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informality: “comprising an alert” should read “comprising the alert” (lines 1-2) to follow proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are directed to a method, system, and program device used to determine patient location data using a computational algorithm, which is an abstract idea. Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons provided below which are in line with the 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 241, p 74618, December 16, 2014), the July 2015 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 146, p. 45429, July 30, 2015), the May 2016 Subject Matter Eligibility Update (Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 88, p. 27381, May 6, 2016), and the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, page 50, January 7, 2019). The analysis of claim 1 is as follows: Step 1: Claim 1 is drawn to a process. Step 2A – Prong One: Claim 1 recites an abstract idea. In particular, claim 1 recites the following limitations: [A1] – “determining a correlation between said translation data and said rotation data”; The element [A1] of claim 1 is drawn to an abstract idea since it involve s a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and using pen and paper. Step 2A – Prong Two: Claim 1 recites the following limitations that are beyond the judicial exception: [A2] – “providing location data from one or more patient trackers (PT) placed on a patient's body”; [B2] – “processing said location data and identifying translation data indicative of translation movement of the PT and rotation data indicative of angular orientation variation of the PT”; [C2] – “generating output signal (i) indicative of PT movement if correlation exceeds a selected threshold, or (ii) comprising an alert on PT movement with respect to patient if correlation is below said selected threshold.” These elements [A2]-[C2] of claim 1 do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. In particular, the element [A2] and [C2] are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., mere data gathering or output of data at a high level of generality - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the element [ B 2] is merely an instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f). Step 2B: Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. In particular, the recitation [ A2 ] does not qualify as significantly more because this limitation merely describes the nature of the location data and does not incorporate a particular machine as part of the claimed invention. Also, the recitation [ A2 ] is merely insignificant extrasolution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea that uses conventional, routine, and well known elements or simply displaying the results of the algorithm that uses conventional, routine, and well known elements. In particular, the one or more patient trackers (PT) are nothing more than a means for detecting the motion of a patient . Such patient trackers are conventional as evidenced by: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190257672 A1 ( Khalfin et al. ) discloses that patient trackers are well known ( Abstract “user's magnetic tracking system”; [0003] AC electromagnetic magnetic trackers (herein referred to as “magnetic trackers” or “magnetic tracking devices”) that determine the position and orientation of a sensor in a magnetic tracker with respect to a transmitter or vice versa, are well known to those of skill in the art”) Further, the element [ B 1] does not qualify as significantly more because this limitation is simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ; Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l , 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ; Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l , 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic , 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)). Claims 2-6 depend from claim 1, and recite the same abstract idea as claim 1. Furthermore, these claims only contain recitations that further limit the abstract idea (that is, the claims only recite limitations that further limit the algorithm), with the following exceptions: Claim 5 : “at least one head mounted PT” ; and Claim 6 : “a single PT mounted on patient’s body”. Each of these claims limitations does not integrate the exception into a practical application. In particular, the elements of claims 5-6 are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., mere data gathering at a higher level of generality - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g). Also, each of these limitations does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself because they are merely insignificant extrasolution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea that uses conventional, routine, and well known elements or simply displaying the results of the algorithm that uses conventional, routine, and well known elements. In particular, the PT is nothing more than a generic sensor mounted on the body or head of the user . Such patient trackers are conventional as evidenced by Khalfin (as provided above with respect to the rejection of claim 1 and [0017] of Khalfin reciting “magnetic tracking system containing a headset” ). In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea) . Looking at the limitations of each claim as an ordered combination in conjunction with the claims from which they depend (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process. The analysis of claim 7 is as follows: Step 1: Claim 7 is drawn to a machine. Step 2A – Prong One: Claim 7 recites an abstract idea. In particular, claim 7 recites the following limitations: [A1] – “determining, in response to detected movement if said PT is moving with said patient or with respect to said patient in accordance with said correlation.”; The element [A1] of claim 7 is drawn to an abstract idea since it involve s a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and using pen and paper. Step 2A – Prong Two: Claim 7 recites the following limitations that are beyond the judicial exception: [A2] – “at least one processing and memory circuitry (PMC) (500), and a respective input/output (I/O) interface”; and [B2] – “said at least one PMC is adapted for receiving and processing location data collected by one or more patient trackers (PT) by determining correlation between rotation data and translation data of said PT”. These elements [A2]-[B2] of claim 7 do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. In particular, the element [B2] is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., mere data gathering or output of data at a high level of generality - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the element [A2] is merely an instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f). Step 2B: Claim 7 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. In particular, the recitation [B2] does not qualify as significantly more because this limitation merely describes the nature of the location data and does not incorporate a particular machine as part of the claimed invention. Also, the recitation [B2] is merely insignificant extrasolution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea that uses conventional, routine, and well known elements or simply displaying the results of the algorithm that uses conventional, routine, and well known elements. In particular, the one or more patient trackers (PT) are nothing more than a means for detecting the motion of a patient. Such patient trackers are conventional as evidenced by Khalfin (as provided above with respect to the rejection of claim 1). Further, the element [A2] does not qualify as significantly more because this limitation is simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ; Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l , 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ; Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l , 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic , 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)). Claims 8-17 depend from claim 7, and recite the same abstract idea as claim 7. Furthermore, these claims only contain recitations that further limit the abstract idea (that is, the claims only recite limitations that further limit the algorithm), with the following exceptions: Claim 8 : “ generating an output signal ”; Claim 9 : “generating an output signal ”. Claim 13: “a single PT mounted on patient's body”; Claim 14: “one or more PTs comprising a sensor arrangement and transmitter circuitry”; Claim 15: “at least one head mounted PT”; Claim 16: “at least one PT comprising a magnetic sensor arrangement”; and Claim 17: “collected from a single PT”. Each of these claims limitations does not integrate the exception into a practical application. In particular, the elements of claims 8-9 are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., mere output of data at a higher level of generality - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g). Also, each of the limitations of claims 13-17 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself because they are merely insignificant extrasolution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea that uses conventional, routine, and well known elements or simply displaying the results of the algorithm that uses conventional, routine, and well known elements. In particular, the PT is nothing more than a magnetic sensor mounted on the body or head of the user. Such patient trackers are conventional as evidenced by Khalfin (as provided above with respect to the rejection of claim 1 and [0017] of Khalfin reciting “magnetic tracking system containing a headset”). In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea) . Looking at the limitations of each claim as an ordered combination in conjunction with the claims from which they depend (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process. The analysis of claim 18 is as follows: Step 1: Claim 18 is drawn to a machine. Step 2A – Prong One: Claim 18 recites an abstract idea. In particular, claim 18 recites the following limitations: [A1] – “determining a correlation between said translation data and said rotation data”. The element [A1] of claim 18 is drawn to an abstract idea since it involves a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and using pen and paper. Step 2A – Prong Two: Claim 18 recites the following limitations that are beyond the judicial exception: [A2] – “being responsive to receive location data from one or more patient trackers (PT) placed on a patient's body”; [B2] – “processing said location data and identifying translation data indicative of translation movement of the PT and rotation data indicative of angular orientation variation of the PT;” ; and [C2] – “generating output signal (i) indicative of PT movement if correlation exceeds a selected threshold, or (ii) comprising an alert on PT movement with respect to patient if correlation is below said selected threshold”. These elements [A2]-[C2] of claim 18 do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. In particular, the element [A2] and [C2] are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., mere data gathering or output of data at a high level of generality - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the element [B2] is merely an instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f). Step 2B: Claim 1 8 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. In particular, the recitation [ A 2] does not qualify as significantly more because this limitation merely describes the nature of the location data and does not incorporate a particular machine as part of the claimed invention. Also, the recitation [ A 2] is merely insignificant extrasolution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea that uses conventional, routine, and well known elements or simply displaying the results of the algorithm that uses conventional, routine, and well known elements. In particular, the one or more patient trackers (PT) are nothing more than a means for detecting the motion of a patient. Such patient trackers are conventional as evidenced by Khalfin (as provided above with respect to the rejection of claim 1). Further, the element [ B 2] does not qualify as significantly more because this limitation is simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ; Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l , 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ; Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l , 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic , 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)). Claims 19-20 depend from claim 18 , and recite the same abstract idea as claim 7. Furthermore, these claims only contain recitations that further limit the abstract idea (that is, the claims only recite limitations that further limit the algorithm) . In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea) . Looking at the limitations of each claim as an ordered combination in conjunction with the claims from which they depend (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 3 , 11 , and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 3 recites “determining absolute value of said translation data and of said rotation data and determining correlation between absolute values of said translation data and said rotation data” in lines 2-4. It is unclear if an absolute value is determined for the translation data and another absolute value is determined for the rotation data, or if only one absolute value is determined among the translation data and rotation data. Is the claim language intended to mean “determining an absolute value of said translation data and an absolute value of said rotation data and determining correlation between the absolute value of said translation data and the absolute value of said rotation data”? For the purpose of examination, one or multiple absolute values may be determined. Claim 11 recites “determining absolute value of said translation data and of said rotation data and determining correlation between absolute values of said translation data and said rotation data” in lines 2- 4. It is unclear if an absolute value is determined for the translation data and another absolute value is determined for the rotation data, or if only one absolute value is determined among the translation data and rotation data. Is the claim language intended to mean “determining an absolute value of said translation data and an absolute value of said rotation data and determining correlation between the absolute value of said translation data and the absolute value of said rotation data”? For the purpose of examination, one or multiple absolute values may be determined. Claim 20 recites “determining absolute value of said translation data and of said rotation data and determining correlation between absolute values of said translation data and said rotation data” in lines 2-4. It is unclear if an absolute value is determined for the translation data and another absolute value is determined for the rotation data, or if only one absolute value is determined among the translation data and rotation data. Is the claim language intended to mean “determining an absolute value of said translation data and an absolute value of said rotation data and determining correlation between the absolute value of said translation data and the absolute value of said rotation data”? For the purpose of examination, one or multiple absolute values may be determined. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-3, 6-11, 13-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20200297442 A1 ( Adebar et al.) . Regarding claim 1, Adebar teaches a method comprising: (a) providing location data from one or more patient trackers (PT) placed on a patient's body ([0039] “ sensor system 108 may be used to compute an approximate location of medical instrument 104 with respect to the anatomy of patient P. The location can be used to produce both macro-level (external) tracking images of the anatomy of patient P and virtual internal images of the anatomy of patient P ”); (b) processing said location data and identifying translation data indicative of translation movement of the PT and rotation data indicative of angular orientation variation of the PT ([0032] “ “position” refers to the location of an object or a portion of an object in a three-dimensional space (e.g., three degrees of translational freedom along Cartesian X, Y, and Z coordinates) ”; “ “orientation” refers to the rotational placement of an object or a portion of an object (three degrees of rotational freedom—e.g., roll, pitch, and yaw) ”); (c) determining a correlation between said translation data and said rotation data ([0044] “ tracking system 230 may alternately and/or additionally rely on historical pose, position, or orientation data stored for a known point of an instrument system along a cycle of alternating physiological motion, such as breathing ”; [0067] ‘ a position and orientation of the distal tip 318 of the elongate device 310 may be used to generate a virtual view of the three-dimensional surface model of the lungs from the perspective indicated by the position and orientation. ”); (d) generating output signal (i) indicative of PT movement if correlation exceeds a selected threshold, or (ii) comprising an alert on PT movement with respect to patient if correlation is below said selected threshold ([0066]; [0072] “ The encoders at the servo joints 254 and 256 may report motion or a change in position to the control system 112. That motion would be compared with expected motion, whether in a parked state or a drive state, to determine whether or not the patient has moved. Thus, motion of components of the medical system 100 relative to patient P may be detected and responded to by the control system 112 as motion of the patient P. ”; [0075] “ after motion of the portion of the medical instrument as compared with a threshold motion value or several threshold motion values, the control system 112 may generate a communication or message for rendering or presentation in the display system 110 based on the comparison performed at operation 406. ”; [0093-0094]). Regarding claim 2, Adebar teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said output signal comprising an alert on PT movement further comprises an indication on required registration of said PT to the patient's body ([0076] “T he message may be interactive and provide options the physician O to take some action (for example request an update to a registration or request a new registration) or to ignore the detected motion ”). Regarding claim 3, Adebar teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said determining correlation between said translation data and said rotation data comprises determining absolute value of said translation data and of said rotation data and determining correlation between absolute values of said translation data and said rotation data ([0097] “ the divergence may be determined in many ways, such as an absolute magnitude, but also in the magnitude in a specific direction, or in terms of frequency of motion. The indication of the patient P has moved is determined relative to the medical instrument, such that a movement of the medical instrument relative to the patient (for example, the cart supporting the medical instrument may be accidentally pushed) is interpreted as patient movement. ”). Regarding claim 6, Adebar teaches the method of claim 1, operable with a single PT mounted on patient's body and providing location data in three axes ([0039] “ The system may implement one or more electromagnetic (EM) sensors ”; [0043] “I n some embodiments, position sensor system 220 may be configured and positioned to measure six degrees of freedom, e.g., three position coordinates X, Y, Z and three orientation angles indicating pitch, yaw, and roll of a base point or five degrees of freedom, three position coordinates X, Y, Z and two orientation angles indicating pitch and yaw of a base point ”; Figs. 3A-3B). Regarding claim 7, Adebar teaches a system comprising at least one processing and memory circuitry (PMC) (500), and a respective input/output (I/O) interface ([0037] “ a control system 112. Control system 112 includes at least one memory and at least one computer processor (not shown) for effecting control between medical instrument 104, master assembly 106, sensor system 108, and display system 110, and/or other components of the medical system 100 ”); said at least one PMC is adapted for receiving and processing location data collected by one or more patient trackers (PT) by determining correlation between rotation data and translation data of said PT ([0032] “ “position” refers to the location of an object or a portion of an object in a three-dimensional space (e.g., three degrees of translational freedom along Cartesian X, Y, and Z coordinates) ”; “ “orientation” refers to the rotational placement of an object or a portion of an object (three degrees of rotational freedom—e.g., roll, pitch, and yaw) ”; [0044] “ tracking system 230 may alternately and/or additionally rely on historical pose, position, or orientation data stored for a known point of an instrument system along a cycle of alternating physiological motion, such as breathing ”; [0067] ‘ a position and orientation of the distal tip 318 of the elongate device 310 may be used to generate a virtual view of the three-dimensional surface model of the lungs from the perspective indicated by the position and orientation. ”), and for determining, in response to detected movement if said PT is moving with said patient or with respect to said patient in accordance with said correlation ([0066]; [0072] “ The encoders at the servo joints 254 and 256 may report motion or a change in position to the control system 112. That motion would be compared with expected motion, whether in a parked state or a drive state, to determine whether or not the patient has moved. Thus, motion of components of the medical system 100 relative to patient P may be detected and responded to by the control system 112 as motion of the patient P. ”; [0075] “ after motion of the portion of the medical instrument as compared with a threshold motion value or several threshold motion values, the control system 112 may generate a communication or message for rendering or presentation in the display system 110 based on the comparison performed at operation 406. ”; [0093-0094]). Regarding claim 8, Adebar teaches the system of claim 7, wherein said PMC is further configured for generating an output signal indicating of (i) PT movement if correlation exceeds a selected threshold, or (ii) an alert on PT movement with respect to patient if correlation is below said selected threshold ([0066]; [0072] “ The encoders at the servo joints 254 and 256 may report motion or a change in position to the control system 112. That motion would be compared with expected motion, whether in a parked state or a drive state, to determine whether or not the patient has moved. Thus, motion of components of the medical system 100 relative to patient P may be detected and responded to by the control system 112 as motion of the patient P. ”; [0075] “ after motion of the portion of the medical instrument as compared with a threshold motion value or several threshold motion values, the control system 112 may generate a communication or message for rendering or presentation in the display system 110 based on the comparison performed at operation 406. ”; [0093-0094]). Regarding claim 9, Adebar teaches the system of claim 8, wherein said PMC is configured for generating an output signal indicating a need for registration of said PT to the patient's body in response to determining that said correlation is below a selected threshold ([0076] “T he message may be interactive and provide options the physician O to take some action (for example request an update to a registration or request a new registration) or to ignore the detected motion ”). Regarding claim 10, Adebar teaches the system of claim 7, wherein said PMC is adapted to receive location data from one or more PT, and to determining rotation data indicative of angular variation of location, and translation data indicative of translation movement of the PT ([0032] “ “position” refers to the location of an object or a portion of an object in a three-dimensional space (e.g., three degrees of translational freedom along Cartesian X, Y, and Z coordinates) ”; “ “orientation” refers to the rotational placement of an object or a portion of an object (three degrees of rotational freedom—e.g., roll, pitch, and yaw) ”). Regarding claim 11, Adebar teaches the system of claim 7, wherein said determining correlation between said translation data and said rotation data comprises determining absolute value of said translation data and of said rotation data and determining correlation between absolute values of said translation data and said rotation data ([0097] “ the divergence may be determined in many ways, such as an absolute magnitude, but also in the magnitude in a specific direction, or in terms of frequency of motion. The indication of the patient P has moved is determined relative to the medical instrument, such that a movement of the medical instrument relative to the patient (for example, the cart supporting the medical instrument may be accidentally pushed) is interpreted as patient movement. ”). Regarding claim 13, Adebar teaches the system of claim 7, operable with a single PT mounted on patient's body (10) and providing location data in three axes ([0039] “ The system may implement one or more electromagnetic (EM) sensors ”; [0043] “I n some embodiments, position sensor system 220 may be configured and positioned to measure six degrees of freedom, e.g., three position coordinates X, Y, Z and three orientation angles indicating pitch, yaw, and roll of a base point or five degrees of freedom, three position coordinates X, Y, Z and two orientation angles indicating pitch and yaw of a base point ”; Figs. 3A-3B). Regarding claim 14, Adebar teaches the system of claim 7, further comprising one or more PTs comprising a sensor arrangement and transmitter circuitry and configured for transmitting location data determining by said sensor arrangement in a selected sampling rate ([0036]; [0044] “ This stored data may be used to develop shape information about flexible body 216. In some examples, a series of positional sensors (not shown), such as electromagnetic (EM) sensors similar to the sensors in position sensor 220 may be positioned along flexible body 216 and then used for shape sensing ”; [0061] “ the position of the elongate device 310 may be sampled 10 times per second, 100 times per second, or at another suitable frequency ”). Regarding claim 16, Adebar teaches the system of claim 14, wherein said one or more PTs comprise at least one PT comprising a magnetic sensor arrangement ([0036] “ a position/location sensor system (e.g., an electromagnetic (EM) sensor system) ”; [0043]). Regarding claim 17, Adebar teaches the system of claims 7, adapted for differentiating between PT movement with patient and PT movement with respect to patient in accordance with location data collected from a single PT ([0039] “ The system may implement one or more electromagnetic (EM) sensors ”). Regarding claim 18, Adebar teaches a program storage device readable by machine, tangibly embodying a program of instructions executable by the machine ([0037] “ Control system 112 also includes programmed instructions (e.g., a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing the instructions) to implement some or all of the methods described in accordance with aspects disclosed herein ”) to perform a method comprising: (a) being responsive to receive location data from one or more patient trackers (PT) placed on a patient's body ([0039] “ sensor system 108 may be used to compute an approximate location of medical instrument 104 with respect to the anatomy of patient P. The location can be used to produce both macro-level (external) tracking images of the anatomy of patient P and virtual internal images of the anatomy of patient P ”); (b) processing said location data and identifying translation data indicative of translation movement of the PT and rotation data indicative of angular orientation variation of the PT ([0032] “ “position” refers to the location of an object or a portion of an object in a three-dimensional space (e.g., three degrees of translational freedom along Cartesian X, Y, and Z coordinates) ”; “ “orientation” refers to the rotational placement of an object or a portion of an object (three degrees of rotational freedom—e.g., roll, pitch, and yaw) ”); (c) determining a correlation between said translation data and said rotation data ([0044] “ tracking system 230 may alternately and/or additionally rely on historical pose, position, or orientation data stored for a known point of an instrument system along a cycle of alternating physiological motion, such as breathing ”; [0067] ‘ a position and orientation of the distal tip 318 of the elongate device 310 may be used to generate a virtual view of the three-dimensional surface model of the lungs from the perspective indicated by the position and orientation. ”); (d) generating output signal (i) indicative of PT movement if correlation exceeds a selected threshold, or (ii) comprising an alert on PT movement with respect to patient if correlation is below said selected threshold ([0066]; [0072] “ The encoders at the servo joints 254 and 256 may report motion or a change in position to the control system 112. That motion would be compared with expected motion, whether in a parked state or a drive state, to determine whether or not the patient has moved. Thus, motion of components of the medical system 100 relative to patient P may be detected and responded to by the control system 112 as motion of the patient P. ”; [0075] “ after motion of the portion of the medical instrument as compared with a threshold motion value or several threshold motion values, the control system 112 may generate a communication or message for rendering or presentation in the display system 110 based on the comparison performed at operation 406. ”; [0093-0094]). Regarding claim 19, Adebar teaches the program storage device of claim 18, wherein said output signal comprising an alert on PT movement further comprises an indication on required registration of said PT to the patient's body ([0076] “T he message may be interactive and provide options the physician O to take some action (for example request an update to a registration or request a new registration) or to ignore the detected motion ”). Regarding claim 20, Adebar teaches the program storage device of claim 18, wherein said determining correlation between said translation data and said rotation data comprises determining absolute value of said translation data and of said rotation data and determining correlation between absolute values of said translation data and said rotation data ([0097] “ the divergence may be determined in many ways, such as an absolute magnitude, but also in the magnitude in a specific direction, or in terms of frequency of motion. The indication of the patient P has moved is determined relative to the medical instrument, such that a movement of the medical instrument relative to the patient (for example, the cart supporting the medical instrument may be accidentally pushed) is interpreted as patient movement. ”). 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 4-5, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200297442 A1 ( Adebar et al.) in view of US 20220287632 A1 ( Martinot , Pierre). Regarding claim 4, Adebar teaches the method of claim 1. Adebar does not explicitly teach providing for differentiating between PT movement with patient and PT movement with respect to patient in accordance with movement below 1 millimeter. However, Martinot teaches providing for differentiating between PT movement with patient and PT movement with respect to patient in accordance with movement below 1 millimeter ([0186] “The second predetermined range consisting of values being a mandible rotation movement amplitude value. That value is for example an amplitude of the order of 1/10 millimetre ”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method taught by Adebar to include differentiating between movements below 1 millimeter. One would have been motivated to make this modification because movements in the human body, such as the movement of the mandible during respiration , can be very small (only a few tenths of a millimeter ) , as suggested by Martinot ([0186, 0325]). Additionally, Adebar teaches that if the system is being used to access a small region in the body, the target area requires increased accuracy, and the divergence of movement indicating a patient has moved can occur when the divergence is greater than 1mm [0097]. Therefore, the determination of PT movement with the patient versus with respect to the patient is capable of being differentiated in accordance with movement below 1 mm. Regarding claim 5, Adebar teaches the method of claim 1. Adebar does not explicitly teach wherein said one or more PT comprises at least one head mounted PT. However, Martinot teaches wherein said one or more PT comprises at least one head mounted PT ([0033] “the analysis unit is configured for identifying a movement of the head of the subject based on the gyroscope data, on the accelerometer data, and/or the magnetometer data.”; [0107] “one part mounted on the forehead of a patient”; [0109] “The sensing unit is mountable on the mandible of the subject.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary still in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method taught by Adebar to include at least one head mounted patient tracker. One would have been motivated to make this modification because the using the combination of accelerometers, gyroscopes, and/or magnetometers are able to measure movement of the head and mandible of a patient to indicate respiratory movement in a manner that offers patient comfort, as suggested by Martinot [0109, 0114]. Regarding claim 12, Adebar teaches the system of claim 7. Adebar does not teach operable for differentiating between PT movement with patient and PT movement with respect to patient in accordance with movement below 1 millimeter. However, Martinot teaches operable for differentiating between PT movement with patient and PT movement with respect to patient in accordance with movement below 1 millimeter ([0186] “The second predetermined range consisting of values being a mandible rotation movement amplitude value. That value is for example an amplitude of the order of 1/10 millimetre ”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the system taught by Adebar to include differentiating between movements below 1 millimeter. One would have been motivated to make this modification because movements in the human body, such as the movement of the mandible during respiration, can be very small (only a few tenths of a millimeter), as suggested by Martinot ([0186, 0325]). Additionally, Adebar teaches that if the system is being used to access a small region in the body, the target area requires increased accuracy, and the divergence of movement indicating a patient has moved can occur when the divergence is greater than 1mm [0097]. Therefore, the determination of PT movement with the patient versus with respect to the patient is capable of being differentiated in accordance with movement below 1 mm. Regarding claim 15, Adebar teaches the system of claim 14. Adebar does not explicitly teach wherein said one or more PTs comprises at least one head mounted PT. However, Martinot teaches wherein said one or more PTs comprises at least one head mounted PT ([0033] “the analysis unit is configured for identifying a movement of the head of the subject based on the gyroscope data, on the accelerometer data, and/or the magnetometer data.”; [0107] “one part mounted on the forehead of a patient”; [0109] “The sensing unit is mountable on the mandible of the subject.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary still in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the system taught by Adebar to include at least one head mounted patient tracker. One would have been motivated to make this modification because the using the combination of accelerometers, gyroscopes, and/or magnetometers are able to measure movement of the head and mandible of a patient to indicate respiratory movement in a manner that offers patient comfort, as suggested by Martinot [0109, 0114]. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning thi