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 statement (IDS) submitted on 02/20/26, 01/12/26, and 11/03/23 have been considered by the examiner. 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 -15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 1 follows. Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a n augmented reality (AR) system for obtaining and displaying measurements from a patient during a medical procedure . Thus, the claim is directed to a n apparatus , which is one of the statutory categories of invention The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The following limitations set forth a judicial exception: receiving measurements collected from the patient's tissue; tracking, the probe's position whilst the probe is collecting measurements to determine a position at which the measurements are collected; simultaneously to performing steps (a) and (b): tracking, using the at least one sensor, a position of an biological landmark on the patient such that a relationship can be determined between the position of the biological landmark and the position at which the measurements are collected; continuously tracking the position of the biological landmark throughout the medical procedure to obtain its current position These limitations set forth a judicial exception. These steps describe a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea. Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim fails to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. Claim 1 recites displaying on the near eye display the measurements at a position, such that the measurements are aligned in the surgeon's view of the patient's tissue at the position with respect to the patient to which they were collected, throughout the medical procedure , and updating the position of the measurements on the display based on the biological landmark's current position, which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The displaying of the measurements in the surgeon’s view and updating the position of the measurements does not provide an improvement to the technological field, the system does not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the displayed measurements. Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. Besides the Abstract Idea, the claim recites additional steps of: an AR headset comprising a near eye display for displaying the measurements overlaid in a surgeon's view of the patient's tissue at a position with respect to the patient to which they were collected at least one sensor for tracking the location of the patient; a memory for storing the measurements and their associated positions; and a processor; a probe being positioned adjacent to various regions of the patient's tissue; The providing and recording steps are well-understood, routine and conventional activities for those in the field of medical diagnostics. Further, the providing and recording steps are each recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant presolution activity, e.g., mere data gathering step necessary to perform the Abstract Idea. When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and comparing activity engaged in by medical professionals prior to Applicant's invention. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as the obtaining and comparing steps do not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct . 2347, 2358-59 (2014) ). These additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the additional limitations are each recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant pre-solution and post-solution activity, e.g., mere receiving data, displaying of data and/or outputting. See Liu [ par. 193, 202 ] . Consideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other meaningful limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are considered separately. Unlike the eligible claim in Diehr in which the elements limiting the exception are individually conventional, but taken together act in concert to improve a technical field, the claim here does not provide an improvement to the technical field. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim is therefore drawn to non-statutory subject matter. ; Independent claim s 14 and 15 are also not patent eligible for substantially similar reasons Dependent claims 2-13 also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they merely further limit the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 1 -15 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because "computer program" is not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. "Computer program" is not tangible, as it is not tied to a structural element. To overcome this 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Examiner suggests amending "computer program" to "a non-transitory product comprising a computer program." Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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 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 -12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018 / 0270474 ) . Liu was applied in Applicant’s IDS filed on 11/03/23 Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches an augmented reality (AR) system and method of using an AR system [fig. 20 B , element 1700 B; par. 197 ] for obtaining and displaying measurements from a patient during a medical procedure [ par. 204, 205 ] , the system comprising: an AR headset comprising a near eye display for displaying the measurements overlaid in a surgeon's view of the patient's tissue at a position with respect to the patient to which they were collected [ par. 202, 204, 206 ] ; at least one sensor for tracking the location of the patient [par. 214, 215] ; a memory for storing the measurements and their associated positions [par. 193, 213-215] ; and a processor [par. 193, 213-215] ; wherein the system is configured to perform the following steps during the medical procedure: (a) receiving measurements collected from the patient's tissue, wherein the measurements are collected by a probe being positioned adjacent to various regions of the patient's tissue [par. 215] ; (b) tracking, the probe's position whilst the probe is collecting measurements to determine a position at which the measurements are collected [par. 215] ; (d) displaying on the near eye display the measurements at a position, such that the measurements are aligned in the surgeon's view of the patient's tissue at the position with respect to the patient to which they were collected, throughout the medical procedure, by: continuously tracking the position of the biological landmark throughout the medical procedure to obtain its current position; updating the position of the measurements on the display based on the biological landmark's current position [par . 215 ] Another embodiment of Liu teaches (c) simultaneously to performing steps (a) and (b): tracking, using the at least one sensor, a position of an biological landmark on the patient such that a relationship can be determined between the position of the biological landmark and the position at which the measurements are collected [par. 233 ] ; Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Liu , to incorporate simultaneously to performing steps (a) and (b): tracking, using the at least one sensor, a position of an biological landmark on the patient such that a relationship can be determined between the position of the biological landmark and the position at which the measurements are collected , so that the image of the 3D model is projected accurately onto the non-flat physical target object 324 surface with a one-to-one correspondence , as evidence by another embodiment of Liu [par. 2 33 ]. Regarding claim 2, another embodiment of Liu teaches creating a virtual map of the measurements, wherein displaying on the near eye display the measurements comprises displaying the virtual map [par. 166 ] Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Liu , to incorporate creating a virtual map of the measurements, wherein displaying on the near eye display the measurements comprises displaying the virtual map , for creating and displaying a 3D model and tracking information of the imaging device , as evidence by Liu [par. 166 ]. Regarding claim 3, another embodiment of Liu teaches tracking the position of the biological landmark on the patient further comprises: illuminating a region of the patient using light of a specific wavelength and detecting by the sensor a fluorescent signal emitted by the biological landmark in response to the illuminating [par. 221, 222] Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Liu , to incorporate tracking the position of the biological landmark on the patient further comprises: illuminating a region of the patient using light of a specific wavelength and detecting by the sensor a fluorescent signal emitted by the biological landmark in response to the illuminating , a s the longer wavelengths penetrate deeper into the biological tissues or other media, longer wavelength reflectance image data carries more information about the target object 324 in its deeper layers than the short wavelength reflectance image data , as evidence by Liu [par. 222 ]. Regarding claim 4, Liu further teaches a probe [par. 215] Regarding claim 5, Liu further teaches the probe is a Raman probe [par. 215] Regarding claim 6, Liu further teaches the biological landmark is one or more features of the biological landmark [par. 215] Regarding claim 7, Liu further teaches continuously tracking the position of the features throughout the medical procedure to obtain its current position further comprises: capturing, by the sensor, images of the patient; extracting the one or more features of the biological landmark from the images; determining a correspondence between the one or more features across consecutive frames of the images; estimating motion of the one or more features across consecutive frames of the images by using a transformation matrix [par. 209, 215] Regar ding claim 8, Liu further teaches estimating motion of the one or more features across consecutive frames of images by using a transformation matrix further comprises: applying a rigid or non-rigid registration [par. 218] . Regarding claim 9, another embodiment of Liu teaches one or more features of the biological landmark comprise edges or points of intersection of the biological landmark [par. 243] . Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Liu , to incorporate one or more features of the biological landmark comprise edges or points of intersection of the biological landmark , for obtaining transformation matrices at various distances , as evidence by Liu [par. 243 ]. Regarding claim 10, another embodiment of Liu teaches the biological landmark comprises at least one of blood vessels of the patient, Lymph nodes of the patient, nervous systems of the patient, organ surfaces of the patient [par. 142] Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Liu , to incorporate the biological landmark comprises at least one of blood vessels of the patient, Lymph nodes of the patient, nervous systems of the patient, organ surfaces of the patient , for aiding in brain surgery , as evidence by Liu [par. 142 ]. Regarding claim 11, Liu teaches wherein the step of tracking the probe's position comprises: detecting, via the sensor, a marker on the probe and calculating a position of a tip of the probe representing the position at which the measurement is collected; or detecting a change in magnetic field caused by the movement of a magnetic marker on the probe, wherein the change in magnetic field identifies the position of the probe [par. 214, 215] Regarding claim 12, another embodiment of Liu teaches wherein the relationship between the position of the biological landmark and the position at which the measurements are collected is determined by transforming the position of the biological landmark and the position at which the measurements are collected into a common coordinate system [par. 162, 166] Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Liu , to incorporate wherein the relationship between the position of the biological landmark and the position at which the measurements are collected is determined by transforming the position of the biological landmark and the position at which the measurements are collected into a common coordinate system , that the image registration may be either surface based or point based , as evidence by Liu [par. 163 ]. Regarding claim 15, Liu teaches a computer program product [par. ] comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the steps of: (a) receiving measurements collected from a patient's tissue, wherein the measurements are collected by a probe being positioned adjacent to various regions of the patient's tissue [par. 215] ; (b) tracking, the probe's position whilst the probe is collecting measurements to determine a position at which the measurements are collected [par. 215] ; (d) displaying on a near eye display of an AR headset worn by the surgeon the measurements at a position, such that the measurements are aligned in the surgeon's view of the patient's tissue at the position with respect to the patient to which they were collected, throughout the medical procedure, by: continuously tracking the position of the biological landmark throughout the medical procedure to obtain its current position; updating the position of the measurements on the near eye display based on the position of the biological landmark's current position [par. 215] Another embodiment of Liu teaches (c) simultaneously to performing steps (a) and (b): tracking, using the at least one sensor, a position of a biological landmark on the patient such that a relationship can be determined between the position of the biological landmark and the position at which the measurements are collected [par. 16 6 ] Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu and in further view of Lang (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021 / 0137634 ). Regarding claim 13, Liu teaches an augmented reality (AR) system and method of using an AR system for obtaining and displaying measurements from a patient during a medical procedure , as disclosed above. However, Liu does not teach wherein displaying on the near eye display the measurements at a position, such that the measurements are aligned in the surgeon's view of the patient's tissue at the position with respect to the patient to which they were collected, throughout the medical procedure, further comprises: tracking a position of the surgeon's eyes and adjusting the position of the measurements on the near eye display based on the current position of the surgeon's eyes Lang teaches wherein displaying on the near eye display the measurements at a position, such that the measurements are aligned in the surgeon's view of the patient's tissue at the position with respect to the patient to which they were collected, throughout the medical procedure, further comprises: tracking a position of the surgeon's eyes and adjusting the position of the measurements on the near eye display based on the current position of the surgeon's eyes [par. 717, 758] Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Liu , to incorporate wherein displaying on the near eye display the measurements at a position, such that the measurements are aligned in the surgeon's view of the patient's tissue at the position with respect to the patient to which they were collected, throughout the medical procedure, further comprises: tracking a position of the surgeon's eyes and adjusting the position of the measurements on the near eye display based on the current position of the surgeon's eyes , so that it is reflective of or corresponds to the distance of the OHMD or the surgeon or interventionalist's eyes to the patient's surgical site, or is smaller or larger than that , as evidence by Lang [par. 758 ]. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Enter examiner's name" \* MERGEFORMAT GRACE L ROZANSKI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7067 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8:30am-5pm, alt F 8:30am-5pm . 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, Alexander Valvis can be reached on (571)272-4233. 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. /GRACE L ROZANSKI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /AURELIE H TU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 379 1