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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/03/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/03/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, “…Hariri merely discloses that each jaw is actuated by an independent pair of antagonistic cables in which one cable maintains tension while the opposing cable applies a pulling force to open or close that same jaw (see e.g., Hariri at 11[0005], [0007]-[0008], [0046], [0071]-[0072]). The cited passages describe only the passive mechanical result of pulling one wire while releasing its paired wire (see Hariri at 1[0023]), not an active computation by a controller to redistribute torque across all four motors of the differential drive. Hariri therefore lacks any disclosure, teaching or suggestion "the workload is computed by the secondary controller to actively redistribute torque among the first and second motors," as now recited in the amended independent claims 1, 19, and 20”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hariri discloses wherein the workload is computed by the secondary controller (can be either grip force controller 508 which generates additional current commands to achieve a desired grip force [0055] or slack controller 514 which prevents the tensions in the cables from falling below zero [0060]) to actively redistribute torque among the first and second motors ([0080]: secondary controller must generate commands to achieve the desired grip force, which means that the torque for all the motors must be determined, i.e. the torques for each motor will be redistributed; [0023]: forces of the four wires may be used to determine the grip force and current to the motors is modulated to achieve the desired grip force; [0046, 0057-0058]).
Claim Interpretation
The terms "primary controller" and "secondary controller" are interpreted as not requiring different hardware components, as confirmed by Applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) / 103 as being unpatentable over Hariri et al. (WO 2019/221754) in view of Brisson et al. (US 2020/0275984).
In re claim 1, Hariri discloses a method of controlling an end effector (fig. 4A: 220) of a surgical robot (Fig. 9: 900; [0083]: shows method for controlling end effector based on desired grip force and providing tension to cables; end effector shown in Fig. 4A-4B), the method comprising:
receiving, in a primary controller (Fig. 5B: combination of 502 and 506; [0049]), a desired pose of an end effector in three degrees-of- freedom (DOF) (Fig. 8B: input angles 801-803; [0063]: input processing unit 502 receives desired jaw angle 802);
generating, in the primary controller, a motor torque* ([0056-0057]: first part of current commands are outputted by the primary controller which drive the motors and influence the motor torques) for each motor ([0046]: wires may each by driven by an independent actuator or a motor; [0075]: current commands are sent to each motor) of four motors ([0062]: four actuator units includes four motors; [0055-0056]: there are four cables and each cable is actuated by an independent motor) of an instrument drive unit (IDU) (actuator units 510 are IDUs) in response to receiving the desired pose ([0077]; Fig. 8A: 811, 812, 813 are the generated current commands that drive the motors);
transmitting, from the primary controller, the motor torques for each motor of the IDU ([0049]: actuator position commands and grip force commands are outputted to position controller 506 and grip force controller 508);
receiving, in a secondary controller (can be either grip force controller 508 which generates additional current commands to achieve a desired grip force [0055] or slack controller 514 which prevents the tensions in the cables from falling below zero [0060]),
the motor torques for each motor of the IDU ([0064]: grip force controller receives grip force 804 which is based on jaw angle 803); [0049]: primary controller sends desired positions into a corresponding grip force command; [0075]: each of the motors part of IDU 510 may receive commands from the secondary controller) and
a motor position for each motor of the IDU ([0082]: grip force control algorithm may use a model to project the grip force based on known parameters such as motor position and current, which will adjust the generated additional current commands driving actuator units 510; [0059]);
generating based on the motor position for each motor of the IDU ([0082]: motor positions used to project the grip force; [0059]), in the secondary controller, a null torque*
(as best understood, the recited “null torque” is an added torque which results in the net torque in a system being equal to zero. Hariri’s additional currents outputted from the grip force controller and/or the output from the slack controller to ensure the tension in the cables never falls below zero are equivalent to the recited “null torque”; [0055]: grip force controller 508 outputs additional current commands such as second current 815 to achieve desired grip force [0078]; [0073-0074]: sack controller 514 outputs 514B which is also referred to as null(B); Fig. 5B)
for each motor of the IDU
to maintain tension ([0085]: minimum tensioning force maintained; [0072]) in cables (Fig. 4A: any one of cables 405A-D) of a differential drive mechanism of the IDU ([0046]: differential drive mechanism of the IDU is the combination of the cables being driven by independent actuators/motors; [0078]: current command 815 may be generated to achieve desired grip force) and
to apply a clamping force between jaws (fig. 4A: 401A and 401B; [0084]) of the end effector (fig. 4A; [0084]) in response to a negative commanded jaw angle
([0049]: a threshold can be zero and when a desired jaw angle is less than the threshold, then the desired jaw angle may be translated to a desired grip force command and forwarded to the grip force controller 508, which generates a current command to achieve the desired grip force; [0009]: the desired grip force generates a command to tension a pair of cables for each grip member to effect the desired grip force i.e. applies a clamping force; [0055]);
wherein maintaining the tension in the cables includes a first two motors ([0006]: motors of a pair of antagonistic cables which maintain minimum tension [0072]) of the four motors maintaining minimum tension in respective cables ([0006-0007]: minimum tensioning force is maintained on each pair of antagonistic cables to prevent slack; [0072, 0085]) while a second two motors of the four motors taking on a workload from the first two motors
([0009]: other two motors are used to effect the desired jaw angle based on determined displacement; [0008]: jaws include one actuator that maintains tension while the other actuator imparts forces; [0023]: in wire pairs, pulling on one wire imparts force on the other wire i.e. for each jaw, one motor maintains tension while the other motor takes on the load; [0046]: actuation of the antagonistic wires moves the jaws between an open and closed position);
wherein the workload is computed by the secondary controller to actively redistribute torque among the first and second motors ([0080]: secondary controller must generate commands to achieve the desired grip force, which means that the torque for all the motors must be determined, i.e. the torques for each motor will be redistributed; [0023]: forces of the four wires may be used to determine the grip force and current to the motors is modulated to achieve the desired grip force; [0046, 0057-0058]);
generating a desired torque for each motor of the IDU which includes a sum of the motor torques and the null torques ([0080]: desired grip force is equal to the input grip force and the second current grip force); and
transmitting the desired torques to the IDU such that the IDU moves the end effector to the desired pose ([0090]: desired grip force is used to control the desired state of the tool, which includes the end effector being at a desired position based on pitch angle, yaw angle, and jaw angle).
*Regarding the limitations directed to torque, per se (e.g. “motor torque”, “null torque”), it is noted that Hariri discloses features that serve essentially identical functions as these limitations but are defined in the domain of current, as opposed to torque. In other words, Hariri’s controllers calculate and send current commands as opposed to torque commands in order to get the motors to operate as desired, which includes getting the motors to reach necessary torques. Notably, the parameters of current and torque are inextricably linked. In dictating a current value, such a system inherently dictates a torque value (all else being equal). Additionally, the broadest reasonable interpretation of torque is a twisting force that causes rotation, and similarly, the current commands cause rotation to occur when the necessary torques needed to operate the motors as desired are inherently dictated. Accordingly, under the guidelines of broadest reasonable interpretation, Hariri does generate/transmit/etc. torques, and thus discloses the limitations at issue.
However, insofar as the claim may require performing calculations, sending commands, etc. specifically in the torque domain, claim 1 is additionally rejected under 35 USC 103, as follows:
Brisson discloses an analogous system wherein analogous calculations/commands are performed in a torque domain. That is, Brisson discloses an analogous surgical robot [0003] wherein a primary controller (Fig. 6: 650) generates a motor torque ([0065]: motor torque is determined) for each motor ([0057]: end effector is controlled using motors 342 and 344; Fig. 3A: 342, 344) of an instrument drive unit ([0011]: transmission systems coupled to actuators) in response to receiving the desired pose ([0065]: motor torque is based on desired position). Brisson further teaches that generating torque based on desired position allows surgeons to be able to control instruments as needed [0065], and that a desired configuration of joints can be determined based on the desired pose [0083]. Regarding “null torque” in particular, Brisson teaches wherein a desired net torque [0112] at a joint (Fig. 6: 610-1) is equal to the sum of baseline torques ([0112]: torques applied to actuators 640) and null torques ([0112]: bias torques are null torques since applying them result in a zero net torque at joints 610). Brisson further teaches that offset tensions ensure that applied tensions are no less than a minimum tension required to inhibit slack in transmission systems during surgical procedures and improve responsiveness [0107].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant application was filed to modify the surgical robot of Hariri by providing wherein the calculations/commands performed in a current domain are performed in a torque domain instead (e.g. generating, in the primary controller, a motor torque for each motor of an instrument drive unit (IDU) in response to receiving the desired pose; generating null torques that can be summed with applied torques to determine a desired torque), as taught by Brisson, as it is a known and functionally equivalent way to allow surgeons to be able to control instruments on a surgical robot to a desired position and configuration and to prevent slack during surgical procedures and improve responsiveness by ensuring that tension is above a minimum tension.
Note: Even if Hariri’s operation discussed above regarding additional currents outputted from the grip force controller and/or the output from the slack controller is not equivalent to the recited features directed to “null torque”, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant application was filed to include such features as they are independently taught and motivated by Brisson, as discussed above.
In re claim 4, Hariri discloses further comprising verifying a position of the jaws of the end effector is less than a clamping threshold before generating the clamping force ([0049]: any desired jaw angle less than a threshold is translated to a desired grip force command; [0006]: threshold is a contact jaw angle which is determined based on an estimation of the current grip force).
In re claim 7, Hariri discloses wherein generating the null torque for each motor includes receiving, in the secondary controller, a sensed torque from the IDU ([0055]: grip force controller 508 may consider feedback from motor currents or even from torque sensors on the cables), the sensed torque from the IDU affecting the null torque for each motor of the IDU ([0055]: this feedback can be used to estimate the grip force between the jaws which are used to generate additional current commands (i.e. null torques) to achieve the desired grip force).
In re claim 8, Hariri discloses wherein generating the null torque for each motor includes adjusting the null torque for each motor in response to a sensed torque of the respective motor ([0055]: null torques are adjusted based on feedback from the motor currents (i.e. sensed torque of the motor)).
In re claim 9, Hariri discloses wherein adjusting the null torque for each motor includes applying a gain to the motor torque of each motor ([0080-0081]: proportional and integral gains are added to the second current command 815 which is then applied to the motors 510).
In re claim 10, Hariri discloses wherein generating the null torque for each motor includes adjusting the null torque for a puller motor ([0023, 0057]: motors are used to achieve desired grip force; [0032-0035]: jaws of the end effector are movable using pulleys, therefore the motors enable pulling motion to control the jaws of the end effector) for each pair of motors of the IDU in response to the sensed torques ([0055]: sensed motor currents are used to adjust the null torques).
In re claim 11, Hariri discloses wherein generating a desired torque for each motor includes: receiving the motor torques and null torques in a tertiary controller ([0084-0088]: tertiary controller is part of tool control system 500 which receives the first current command and the second current command so a composite command can be generated to drive the end effector to its desired state; [0048]); and combining the motor torques and the null torques into desired torques including the sum of the motor and null torques ([0088]: combination of current commands generate the composite command to achieve the desired torques; Fig. 5B; [0057]: tool control system combines the current commands to drive the motors as desired).
In re claim 12, Hariri discloses wherein transmitting the desired torques to the IDU includes the tertiary controller transmitting the desired torques to the IDU (Fig. 5B: control system 500 transmits desired torques to actuator units 510).
In re claim 13, Hariri discloses wherein combining the motor torques and the null torques includes receiving sensed torques from the IDU and applying a gain to the sum of the motor and null torques to determine the desired torques such that the sensed torques approach the sum of the motor and null torques ([0081]: current commands 815 may pass through gain amplifiers and then added to current commands (i.e. the motor torques) which will then be applied to IDU 510; [0055]: the motor currents can also be used as feedback to produce additional grip force).
In re claim 15, Hariri discloses wherein the motor position received by the secondary controller is in a joint space ([0066]: desired angles are calculated in a joint space which can be converted to the desired grip force and send to grip force controller 508).
In re claim 16, Hariri discloses further comprising converting a motor position from a motor space ([0066-0067]: motor positions are in motor space) to the joint space ([0066-0067]: desired angles can be determined in the joint space resulting in joint angles, which can be estimated from motor positions) in a converter ([0067-0068]: converter is combination of position estimator 522 and actuator command generator 504 which monitor and determine joint angles from measured motor positions) positioned between the IDU and the secondary controller (Fig. 5B: converter 522/504 are between the IDU and the secondary controller).
In re claim 17, Hariri discloses wherein generating the motor torque for each motor includes calculating the motor torques in a joint space ([0064-0066]: the motor torques control the position of the joint angles in the joint space) and compensating for friction ([0054]: estimated position from position estimator 522 includes an estimation of friction; Fig. 8B: output from position estimator 522 goes to actuator command generator 504 which then goes to position controller 506 which outputs the motor torques).
In re claim 18, Hariri discloses further comprising distributing the motor torques in the joint space to each motor ([0088]: first current command is generated to drive the end effector) before receiving, in the secondary controller, the motor torques for each motor ([0055]: secondary controller receives motor currents as feedback to determine if additional current commands are needed).
In re claim 19, Hariri discloses a controller (Fig. 5B: control system 500) for an end effector [0048], the end effector controlled by four cables (Fig. 4A: cables 405A-D; [0084]) of an open loop differential drive mechanism ([0046]: differential drive mechanism of the IDU is the combination of the cables being driven by independent actuators/motor; [0068]: open-loop control can be used for the displacement of the motors).
Regarding the limitations “the controller comprising:
primary controller configured to receive a desired pose for the end effector in yaw, pitch, and jaw degrees-of-freedom (DOF),
to generate a motor torque for each motor of four motors of an instrument drive unit (IDU) to position the end effector in the desired pose, and
to transmit the motor torques;
a secondary controller configured to receive the motor torques from the primary controller and a motor position for each motor of the IDU, to generate, based on the motor position for each motor of the IDU, null torques for each of the motors of the IDU
to maintain tension in the cables of the differential drive mechanism and
to apply a clamping force between jaws in response to a negative commanded jaw angle,
wherein maintaining the tension in the cables includes a first two motors of the four motors maintaining minimum tension in respective cables while a second two motors of the four motors taking on a workload from the first two motors,
wherein the workload is computed by the secondary controller to actively redistribute torque among the four motors; and
an IDU configured to receive desired torques which include a sum of the motor torques and the null torques and to manipulate the end effector to the desired pose in response to receiving the desired torques”, see in re claim 1 above.
In re claim 20, Hariri discloses an instrument drive unit (IDU) ([0047]: actuator units 510) for controlling an end effector ([0057]: actuator units may drive motors to effect desired movement and or grip force of an end effector) controlled by four cables (Fig. 4A: cables 405A-D; [0084]) of an open loop differential drive mechanism ([0046]: differential drive mechanism of the IDU is the combination of the cables being driven by independent actuators/motor; [0068]: open-loop control can be used for the displacement of the motors).
Regarding the limitations “the IDU comprising:
four motors configured to receive desired torques and to manipulate the end effector to a desired pose in response to receiving the desired torques;
primary controller configured to receive the desired pose for the end effector in yaw, pitch, and jaw degrees-of-freedom (DOF), to generate a motor torque for the motors to position the end effector in the desired pose, and to transmit the motor torques; and
a secondary controller configured
to receive the motor torques from the primary controller and a motor position for each motor of the IDU, and
to generate, based on the motor position for each motor of the IDU, null torques for the motors to maintain tension in the cables of the differential drive mechanism,
wherein the desired torques include a sum of the motor torques and the null torques and to apply a clamping force between jaws in response to a negative commanded jaw angle,
wherein maintaining the tension in the cables includes a first two motors of the four motors maintaining minimum tension in respective cables while a second two motors of the four motors taking on a workload from the first two motors,
wherein the workload is computed by the secondary controller to actively redistribute torque among the four motors”,
see in re claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hariri et al. (WO 2019/221754) [in view of Brisson et al. (US 2020/0275984)] in view of Weir et al. (US 2012/0209314).
In re claim 5, Hariri fails to disclose further comprising releasing the clamping force when the jaws have a position greater than a releasing threshold.
Weir teaches an analogous robotic surgery system (Fig. 1) generating a clamping force [0048] between jaws (Fig. 12: 194; [0063]) of an end effector ([0063); 188), wherein the clamping force is released ([0012]: clamping force is released) when the jaws have a position ([0016]: position is interpreted as a separation parameter (angle between tips of jaw members) which is a threshold having a range of 1 to 10 degrees) greater than a releasing threshold ([0012]: releasing threshold occurs when there is an indication of clamping failure; [0082]: clamping failure can occur when jaws have a position indicating clamping failure such as when a separation parameter is outside the range).
Weir further teaches that there is a desired separation range for the angle between the tips of the jaws [0016], and that clamping success is indicated when the measured angle is within that range [0016]. Weir further teaches that successful clamping is needed for certain therapies, such as firing a stable through a clamped tissue [0049].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the surgical robot taught by Hariri, to comprise releasing the clamping force when the jaws have a position greater than a releasing threshold, as taught by Weir, because doing so will allow for successful clamping that is within a desired range as needed for various therapies.
In re claim 6, the proposed combination yields wherein the releasing threshold is greater than the clamping threshold (as explained in re claim 4 above, the clamping threshold is met when the angle between the jaws is less than a threshold so that clamping can occur, and as explained in re claim 5 above, the releasing threshold is met when the angle between the jaws is greater than the threshold so that the jaws will be released; therefore, the releasing threshold will be greater than the clamping threshold).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Zhang et al. (US 2022/0105639) discloses a torque control algorithm [0104] with a feedback loop [0104] to maintain an even distribution of torque on motors [0104] along a null space direction [0104].
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUMAISA R BAIG whose telephone number is (571)270-0175. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8am- 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, David Hamaoui can be reached on (571) 270-5625. 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.
/RUMAISA RASHID BAIG/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/William J Levicky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796