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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 16, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This correspondence is in response to amendments filed on April 16, 2026. Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15 are amended. Claims 5 and 14 are filed as previously presented. Response to arguments are included below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the communication analysed by the malfunction detecting unit 264 of Tsuboi is generated after the motion of each individual joint of the plurality of joints is determined (by control device 20) in the signal path (Remarks Page 10). Examiner partially agrees with this assertion. By the previous interpretation in which the drive control unit 111 was considered as the main controller, Examiner would ascertain that such communications are generated after the motion of each individual joint is determined. However, the current interpretation renders the control unit 230 as the main controller. With this interpretation, commands issued by the ideal joint control unit are issued before the drive control unit can determine the motion of each joint, wherein the motion is the driving of the joint. As indicated in [0093], when communication fails, the intended command may not be received by a joint, and therefore no such motion of the joint occurs even though the communication is determined by the control unit. For further clarity, Merriam Webster defines motion as “an act, process, or instance of changing place.” The joint itself cannot act to change place until said currents are received from the drive control unit based on the theoretical command value sent via communications from the ideal joint control unit.
Thus, Examiner considers the argument to be persuasive only in light of the prior interpretation which the rejection no longer relies upon. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the order in which communications are received in the signal process have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references and citations for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuboi et al. (US 2017/0007336 A1; hereinafter “Tsuboi”) in view of White et al. (US 2022/0192770 A1; hereinafter “White”).
Regarding claim 1, Tsuboi teaches a control system for controlling a surgical robot system (“An exemplary configuration of the robot arm control system according to an embodiment of the present disclosure will be described with reference to FIG. 16” [0335].), the surgical robot system comprising a surgical robot (“Referring to FIG. 16, a robot arm control system 1 according to an embodiment of the present disclosure includes a robot arm apparatus 10” [0336].), the surgical robot comprising a base, and an arm extending from the base to an attachment for an instrument (“Referring to FIG. 19, a robot arm apparatus 450 according to the present modified example includes a base unit 460 and an arm unit 470” [0407]. “Note that the front edge unit provided on the front edge of the arm unit 120 is not limited to being the imaging unit 140. In the present embodiment, various kinds of medical apparatuses may be connected to the front edge of the arm unit 120 as the front edge unit” [0348]. Thus, there is a base unit and an arm which extends from the base to the front edge of the arm which connects to a medical apparatus, i.e., instrument.), the arm comprising a plurality of joints whereby a configuration of the arm can be altered (“The robot arm apparatus 450 according to the present embodiment includes the 7 joint units 471a to 471g, and 7 degrees of freedom are implemented with regard to driving of the arm unit 470” [0408]. Thus, the arm comprises a plurality of joints which changes the configuration of the arm over 7 degrees of freedom.), the control system comprising:
a main controller (“control unit 230”; Fig. 1 and 16) configured to:
receive communications from a device of an operator console identifying inputs from an operator of the surgical robot (“As will be described later, the input unit 210 is an input interface through which the user inputs, for example, information or a command related to driving control of the robot arm apparatus 10 to the control device 20, and in the present embodiment, the purpose of motion may be set based on an operation input from the input unit 210 by the user” [0364]. As can be seen in Fig. 16, communications from the input unit are received by the control unit, i.e., main controller, via the operation condition setting unit.);
generate control signals for controlling movement of the surgical robot arm based on the inputs (“The command value calculating unit 252 calculates the torque command value τ serving as the command value indicating torque that is generated by the arm unit 120 and finally transmitted to the robot arm apparatus 10 using the disturbance estimation value τ.sub.d calculated by the disturbance estimating unit 251” [0372]. Thus, as shown in Fig. 16, the inputs are distributed through the whole body cooperative control unit to the ideal joint control unit, wherein the ideal joint control unit of the control unit, i.e., main controller, determines command values, i.e., control signals, for controlling the movement of the surgical robot arm via the command value calculating unit.); and
send communications to the surgical robot identifying the control signals (“The ideal joint control unit 250 transmits the calculated torque command value τ to the drive control unit 111 of the robot arm apparatus 10” [0373]. Thus, communications identifying the command value, i.e., control signals, are transmitted, i.e., sent, to the surgical robot.); and
a safety monitor (“malfunction detection unit 260” inclusive of “communication malfunction detecting unit 264” shown in Fig. 1.) configured to:
analyse …
(ii) communications from the main controller to the surgical robot, each communication being generated before the motion of each individual joint of the plurality of joints is determined (“The communication malfunction detecting unit 264 detects a malfunction of the joint unit 130 based on the communication state between the joint unit 130 and the control device 20” [0093]. Thus, communications from the control device, i.e., main controller, to the joint unit, i.e., surgical robot, are analyzed. Paragraph [0093] describes that when the communication units are not operating correctly, the control quantity computed by the control device might not be received by the joint unit and thus indicates an analysis of communication generated before the motion of the joint of the plurality of joints is determined.),
to independently verify that each of one or more of the main controller, the device of the operator console and the surgical robot are operating as expected (“Consequently, the communication malfunction detecting unit 264 is able to detect a joint unit 130 for which the communication unit is not operating correctly and for which the control quantity computed by the control device 20 cannot be received as a joint unit 130 in which a malfunction is occurring” [0093]. Thus, the communication malfunction unit independently verifies which of the one or more of the surgical robot joints, i.e., surgical robot, is operating as expected or is in malfunction.);
determine, based on the analysis, whether the surgical robot system is in a fault state (As identified above, the analysis determines whether the joint unit(s) are malfunctioning, i.e., the surgical system is in a fault state.); and
in response to determining that the surgical robot system is in a fault state, cause the device of the operator console and the surgical robot to transition to a safe state (Paragraphs [0065-0067] describe “malfunction avoidance operation”, “partial function suspension operation”, and “function suspension operation”. Each varies the level at which communications are altered between the arm unit and control device in order to avoid dangerous positions, i.e., a transition to a safe state, in response to malfunction.).
However, Tsuboi does not explicitly teach …analyse (i) communications from the device of the operator console to the main controller, each communication being generated before the motion of each individual joint of the plurality of joints is determined…
White, pertinent to the problem at hand, teaches a control system for a surgical robot system (The disclosure includes information related to control over the surgical robot system 10 as shown in Fig. 1.), the surgical robot system comprising a surgical robot (“surgical robot arms 40” of Fig. 1), the surgical robot comprising a base (“moveable cart 60” coupled to “surgical robot arms 40” as shown in Fig. 1), and an arm extending from the base to an attachment for an instrument (“Each of the robotic arms 40 includes a surgical instrument 50 removably coupled thereto” [0023].), the arm comprising a plurality of joints whereby a configuration of the arm can be altered (“With reference to FIG. 2, each of the robotic arms 40 may include of a plurality of links 42a, 42b, 42c, which are interconnected at rotational joints 44a, 44b, 44c, respectively” [0029]. “The joints 44a and 44b include an electrical actuator 48a and 48b configured to drive the joints 44a, 44b, 44c relative to each other through a series of belts 45a and 45b or other mechanical linkages such as a drive rod, a cable, or a lever and the like” [0032]. Thus, the arm comprises a plurality of joints which alter the configuration of the arm via actuators.), the control system comprising:
a main controller (“controller 21a” of Fig. 4) configured to:
receive communications from a device of an operator console identifying inputs from an operator of the surgical robot (“The controller 21a receives data from the computer 31 of the surgeon console 30 about the current position and/or orientation of the handle controllers 38a and 38b and the state of the foot pedals 36 and other buttons” [0033]. Thus, the main controller receives communications from the handle controllers, foot pedals, and other buttons of the operator console identifying input from the operator of the surgical robot.);
generate control signals for controlling movement of the surgical robot arm based on the inputs (“The controller 21a processes these input positions to determine desired drive commands for each joint of the robotic arm 40 and/or the instrument drive unit 52 and communicates these to the computer 41 of the robotic arm 40” [0033]. Thus, from the input positions, there are drive commands generated by the main controller for moving each joint of the robotic arm.); and
send communications to the surgical robot identifying the control signals (As additionally identified above, the commands are communicated to the surgical robot arm by the main controller.); and
a safety monitor (“safety observer 21b”; Fig. 4) configured to:
analyse (i) communications from the device of the operator console to the main controller, each communication being generated before the motion of each individual joint of the plurality of joints is determined, and(ii) communications from the main controller to the surgical robot, each communication being generated before the motion of each individual joint of the plurality of joints is determined, to independently verify that each of one or more of the main controller, the device of the operator console and the surgical robot are operating as expected (“The safety observer 21b performs validity checks on the data going into and out of the controller 21a and notifies a system fault handler if errors in the data transmission are detected to place the computer 21 and/or the surgical system 10 into a safe state” [0033]. Thus, there is a safety observer which analyzes communications into and out of the main controller, i.e., from the device of the operator console and to the surgical robot, each of which is generated before the motion of the joints is determined, and further verifies that each aspect of the data transmission is free of errors, i.e., operating as expected.)…
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the safety monitor of Tsuboi to further include the analysis of communications from the device of the operator console to the main controller as taught by White with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the safety observer of White additionally identifies faults of input transmission, which is pertinent to the problem at hand (White, [0033]). Such a modification would be a mere combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143.I(A)).
Regarding claim 2, Tsuboi as modified by White teaches the control system of claim 1,
with Tsuboi further teaching wherein the safety monitor is configured to cause the device of the operator console and the surgical robot to transition to a safe state by causing communications between the device of the operator console and the surgical robot and the main controller to be blocked (“In the function suspension operation according to the present embodiment, the motion of all joint units 130 constituting the arm unit 120 may be locked…The locking of each joint unit 130 may be realized by controllably locking the rotational angle, … may be realized by an electric mechanism that acts to cut off the current supplied to the motor” [0206]. By cutting off the current supplied to the motor, the communications which render the command signals to move said joints are blocked.).
Regarding claim 3, Tsuboi as modified by White teaches the control system of claim 1,
with Tsuboi further teaching wherein the safety monitor is configured to cause the device of the operator console and the surgical robot to transition to a safe state by causing a safety device to filter communications between (i) the device of the operator console and the surgical robot, and (ii) the main controller (“The operation condition setting unit 242 sets an operation condition for the computation of the control quantity conducted by the whole body cooperative control unit 240 and the ideal joint control unit 250. In the present embodiment, the operation condition setting unit 242 sets the operation condition according to the type of malfunction of the joint unit 130 detected by the malfunction detecting unit 260” [0097]. “In the partial function suspension operation, the driving of the joint units 130 other than the joint unit 130 where the malfunction was detected is controlled, and the arm unit 120 is driven in a state of lowered degrees of freedom compared to the original degrees of freedom” [0151]. Thus, in a partial function suspension operation, only those drive signals which correspond to the joints which are not malfunctioning pass through to the controller while the currents for controlling the malfunctioning joint are filtered out by the communication passed from the malfunction detection unit, i.e., safety device, to the operation condition setting unit.).
Regarding claim 5, Tsuboi as modified by White teaches the control system of claim 3,
with Tsuboi further teaching the control system … further comprising the safety device (The malfunction detection unit (safety device) which feeds information for filtering the condition settings is a part of the control system of Fig. 16.).
Regarding claim 6, Tsuboi as modified by White teaches the control system of claim 5,
wherein the safety device is configured to receive communications to and from the main controller and provide a copy of the communications to and from the main controller to the safety monitor (In the combination of Tsuboi in view of White, the safety device (malfunction detection unit) of Tsuboi comprising a plurality of modules interpreted as the safety monitors (actuator, driving control, communication, and command value malfunction detecting units). Such a device is modified to further include the functions of the safety observer of White which includes receiving copies of communications to and from the main controller. Thus, in combination, such copies of communications are provided to the communication malfunction detecting unit, i.e., safety monitor, to detect such communication faults in the data transmission through the system.).
Regarding claim 7, Tsuboi as modified by White teaches the control system of claim 1,
with Tsuboi further teaching wherein the device of the operator console and the surgical robot are transitioned to a safe state based on a type of fault state determined (“In the present embodiment, the operation condition setting unit 242 sets the operation condition according to the type of malfunction of the joint unit 130 detected by the malfunction detecting unit 260. Specifically, the operation condition setting unit 242 is able to determine the operation to be performed by the arm unit 120 according to the type of the detected malfunction of the joint unit 130, and set an operation condition corresponding to that operation. Herein, the operation to be performed by the arm unit 120 may be any of the malfunction avoidance operation, the partial function suspension operation, and the function suspension operation discussed earlier. For example, a table associating the type of malfunction, the operation that may be executed when that malfunction occurs, and the operation condition for executing that operation is stored in the storage unit 220, and the operation condition setting unit 242 is able to determine the operation to be performed by the arm unit 120 and also set the operation condition according to that operation, based on the malfunction detection result from the malfunction detecting unit 260 and the table” [0097-0098]. Thus, transition to a safe state, i.e., operation condition in response to a malfunction, is based on the type of malfunction determined by the malfunction detecting unit.).
Regarding claim 8, Tsuboi as modified by White teaches the control system of claim 1,
with Tsuboi further teaching wherein the safety monitor is configured to determine that the surgical robot system is in a fault state when the safety monitor detects, from the communications to and/or from the main controller, that the control signals for controlling movement of the surgical robot arm cause that surgical robot arm to move to a position that is inconsistent with a current state of that surgical robot arm and/or the inputs from the operator (“The command value malfunction detecting unit 263 detects a malfunction of the joint unit 130 based on a command value transmitted from the control device 20 to the joint unit 130. Herein, the command value is a value computed by the ideal joint control unit 250, and is a control quantity for ultimately controlling the driving of the joint unit 130 transmitted from the control device 20 to the drive control unit 111 of the joint unit 130. For example, the command value malfunction detecting unit 263 is able to detect a malfunction of the joint unit 130 when the command value transmitted to the drive control unit 111, and the driving of the joint unit 130 driven based on that command value, diverge from each other” [0092]. Thus, it is determined there is a malfunction when the joint unit, i.e., robot arm, transmits a position that diverges from the desired position transmitted by the control device which is determined via the operator input.).
Regarding claim 12, Tsuboi as modified by White teaches the control system of claim 1.
Tsuboi as currently modified does not explicitly teach …wherein the surgical robot system comprises a plurality of surgical robots, and for each surgical robot of the plurality of surgical robots that surgical robot is allocated an identifier and the allocated identifier is displayed on a display of the operator console, and the safety monitor is configured to determine that the surgical robot system is in a fault state when the safety monitor detects, from the communications to and/or from the main controller, that surgical robot of the plurality of surgical robots is reporting an identifier that does not match the identifier displayed on the display for that surgical robot of the plurality of surgical robots.
However, White further teaches …wherein the surgical robot system comprises a plurality of surgical robots, and for each surgical robot of the plurality of surgical robots that surgical robot is allocated an identifier (“In embodiments, once the cable 70 is coupled to the connectors 72 and 74 of both the tower 20 and the movable cart 60, respectively, the tower 20 assigns the unique identification number (Component ID) and transmits identification number to the movable cart 60 (assigning the movable cart 60 a Component ID). In response, or upon subsequent connection, a predetermined amount of contacts may be energized by the main controller 41a of the movable cart 60 to enable the tower 20 to identify the movable cart 60 (e.g., a first and third pin of a four plus pin connector (“0101”)). The amount of contacts reserved and set to either high “1” or low “0” may be any suitable number, depending on the amount of available components (e.g., movable carts 60) included in the surgical robotic system 100, number of conductors in the cable 70, etc. If the system 10 includes four movable carts 60, each movable cart 60 may receive a unique identification signal from the tower 20 transmitted during initialization (e.g., Component ID 1=“1100”; Component ID 2=“1010”; Component ID 3=“0101”; Component ID 4=“0011”; etc.)” [0040]. Thus, there is an identification system which assigns a unique identifier to each moveable cart connected to the system. Each moveable cart has a robotic arm and thus the example of four moveable carts indicates the existence of a plurality of surgical robots each with a unique identifier.) and the allocated identifier is displayed on a display of the operator console (Claim 10 is directed to “a method of identifying device mismatches in a surgical robotic system”. According to claim 12, “The method of claim 10, further comprising transmitting an indication signal from the control tower to an operating console having a display, the indication signal causing the display to indicate a match or a mismatch based on determining whether the identification signal matches the identification number.” Further, according to claim 16, “The method of claim 12, wherein causing an indication to be output includes displaying at least one of a serial number, model number, or connector number associated with the movable robotic arm cart via a display device of the operating console.” Thus, the allocated identifier inclusive of information regarding the specific moveable cart is displayed on a display of the operator console.), and the safety monitor is configured to determine that the surgical robot system is in a fault state when the safety monitor detects, from the communications to and/or from the main controller, that surgical robot of the plurality of surgical robots is reporting an identifier that does not match the identifier displayed on the display for that surgical robot of the plurality of surgical robots (“Alternatively, if the identification information signal is not matched with the identification number information signal (e.g., where a device mismatch exists), the tower 20 may take no action or cause an error warning to be output by either the tower 20, the movable cart 60, or the surgical console 30” [0043]. Thus, there is an error warning, i.e., a fault state, when the identification number stored by the controller for the surgical robot does not match the identification signal reported by the surgical robot.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the surgical system of Tsuboi to further include the plurality of surgical robots and identification system as further taught by White with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the identification of each robot arm allows subsequent movements of the arm and the instrument to properly correlate the location of the patient (White, [0002]) while also allowing a verification of compatibility of the robotic arm with the devices which the robotic arm is connected to (White, [0003]).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the surgical robot system of Tsuboi to indicate a fault state as a result of mismatched identifications as taught by White with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because “mismatches and unintended connections may be identified early in the configuration process, thereby reducing setup time necessary to prepare the surgical robotic system 10 and/or swap out moveable carts 60 during surgical procedures” (White, [0043]).
Regarding claim 13, Tsuboi as modified by White teaches the control system of claim 1,
with Tsuboi further teaching wherein the safety monitor is configured to determine that the surgical robot system is in a fault state when the safety monitor detects, from the communications to and/or from the main controller, that control signals for controlling movement of surgical robot cause an arm of the surgical robot to move between a first position and a second position, wherein moving between the first and second position would cause the arm of that surgical robot to exceed a maximum speed (“On the other hand, in step S205, if it is determined that the detected angular velocity is not less than or equal to the first threshold value, it is determined whether or not the threshold value exceeding time exceeds the second threshold value (step S209). … In step S209, if it is determined that the threshold value exceeding time exceeds the second threshold value, this means that the time over which the angular velocity has indicated an abnormal value greater than the first threshold value has continued for a fixed time or more. Consequently, it is determined that the detection value of the angular velocity is abnormal (step S211), and it is determined that a malfunction is occurring in the joint unit 130” [0163]. Thus, if the movement from the time of a first threshold detection continues to exceed the first threshold value, i.e., angular velocity, at a designated time before the operation motion is complete, a malfunction is determined in the motion based on exceeding the maximum speed.).
Regarding claim 14, Tusboi as modified by White teaches the control system of claim 1,
with Tsuboi further teaching wherein the safety monitor is configured to determine, based on the analysis, whether the surgical robot system is in a fault state of a plurality of different types of fault states (“In the present embodiment, the operation condition setting unit 242 sets the operation condition according to the type of malfunction of the joint unit 130 detected by the malfunction detecting unit 260. Specifically, the operation condition setting unit 242 is able to determine the operation to be performed by the arm unit 120 according to the type of the detected malfunction of the joint unit 130, and set an operation condition corresponding to that operation. Herein, the operation to be performed by the arm unit 120 may be any of the malfunction avoidance operation, the partial function suspension operation, and the function suspension operation discussed earlier” [0097]. Thus, the fault state is determined as a fault state of a plurality of different types of fault states, namely the malfunction avoidance state (i.e., an avoidable malfunction), the partial function suspension state (i.e., a malfunction which can be overcome by reduced operation), and the function suspension state (i.e., a malfunction which requires a full suspension of the system functions to overcome the malfunction).).
Regarding claim 15, Tsuboi teaches a method of determining a surgical robot system is in a fault state (Fig. 7 shows a method for detecting a malfunction, i.e., fault state, of a surgical robotic system.), the surgical robot system comprising a surgical robot (“Referring to FIG. 16, a robot arm control system 1 according to an embodiment of the present disclosure includes a robot arm apparatus 10” [0336].), the surgical robot comprising a base, and an arm extending from the base to an attachment for an instrument (“Referring to FIG. 19, a robot arm apparatus 450 according to the present modified example includes a base unit 460 and an arm unit 470” [0407]. “Note that the front edge unit provided on the front edge of the arm unit 120 is not limited to being the imaging unit 140. In the present embodiment, various kinds of medical apparatuses may be connected to the front edge of the arm unit 120 as the front edge unit” [0348]. Thus, there is a base unit and an arm which extends from the base to the front edge of the arm which connects to a medical apparatus, i.e., instrument.), the arm comprising a plurality of joints whereby a configuration of the arm can be altered (“The robot arm apparatus 450 according to the present embodiment includes the 7 joint units 471a to 471g, and 7 degrees of freedom are implemented with regard to driving of the arm unit 470” [0408]. Thus, the arm comprises a plurality of joints which changes the configuration of the arm over 7 degrees of freedom.), the method comprising:
receiving, at a safety monitor (“malfunction detection unit 260” inclusive of “communication malfunction detecting unit 264” shown in Fig. 1.), (i) communications from a device of an operator console to a main controller of the surgical robot system identifying inputs from an operator of the surgical robot, each communication being generated before the motion of each individual joint of the plurality of joints is determined (“As will be described later, the input unit 210 is an input interface through which the user inputs, for example, information or a command related to driving control of the robot arm apparatus 10 to the control device 20, and in the present embodiment, the purpose of motion may be set based on an operation input from the input unit 210 by the user” [0364]. As can be seen in Fig. 16, communications from the input unit are received by the control unit, i.e., main controller, via the operation condition setting unit before the motion of the individual joints are determined by the drive control unit of the robot arm.), and (ii) communications sent from the main controller to the surgical robot identifying control signals for controlling movement of thearm, each communication being generated before the motion of each individual joint of the plurality of joints is determined, the control signals being based on the inputs from the operator (“The command value calculating unit 252 calculates the torque command value τ serving as the command value indicating torque that is generated by the arm unit 120 and finally transmitted to the robot arm apparatus 10 using the disturbance estimation value τ.sub.d calculated by the disturbance estimating unit 251” [0372]. Thus, as shown in Fig. 16, the inputs are distributed through the whole body cooperative control unit to the ideal joint control unit, wherein the ideal joint control unit of the control unit, i.e., main controller, determines command values, i.e., control signals, for controlling the movement of the surgical robot arm via the command value calculating unit. The command value is communicated before the drive control unit determines the motion of each individual joint.);
analysing, at the safety monitor, … (ii) the communications from the main controller to the surgical robot (“The communication malfunction detecting unit 264 detects a malfunction of the joint unit 130 based on the communication state between the joint unit 130 and the control device 20” [0093]. Thus, communications from the control device, i.e., main controller, to the joint unit, i.e., surgical robot, are analyzed.), to independently verify that each of the main controller, the device of the operator console and the surgical robot is operating as expected (“Consequently, the communication malfunction detecting unit 264 is able to detect a joint unit 130 for which the communication unit is not operating correctly and for which the control quantity computed by the control device 20 cannot be received as a joint unit 130 in which a malfunction is occurring” [0093]. Thus, the communication malfunction unit independently verifies which of the one or more of the surgical robot joints, i.e., surgical robot, is operating as expected or is in malfunction.);
determining, at the safety monitor, if the surgical robot system is in a fault state based on the analysis (As identified above, the analysis determines whether the joint unit(s) are malfunctioning, i.e., the surgical system is in a fault state.); and
in response to determining that the surgical robot system is in a fault state, causing the device of the operator console and the surgical robot to transition to a safe state (Paragraphs [0065-0067] describe “malfunction avoidance operation”, “partial function suspension operation”, and “function suspension operation”. Each varies the level at which communications are altered between the arm unit and control device in order to avoid dangerous positions, i.e., a transition to a safe state, in response to malfunction.).
However, Tsuboi does not explicitly teach … analysing, at the safety monitor, (i) the communications from the device of the operator console…
White, pertinent to the problem at hand, teaches … the surgical robot system comprising a surgical robot (“surgical robot system 10” with “surgical robot arms 40” of Fig. 1), the surgical robot comprising a base (“moveable cart 60” coupled to “surgical robot arms 40” as shown in Fig. 1), and an arm extending from the base to an attachment for an instrument (“Each of the robotic arms 40 includes a surgical instrument 50 removably coupled thereto” [0023].), the arm comprising a plurality of joints whereby a configuration of the arm can be altered (“With reference to FIG. 2, each of the robotic arms 40 may include of a plurality of links 42a, 42b, 42c, which are interconnected at rotational joints 44a, 44b, 44c, respectively” [0029]. “The joints 44a and 44b include an electrical actuator 48a and 48b configured to drive the joints 44a, 44b, 44c relative to each other through a series of belts 45a and 45b or other mechanical linkages such as a drive rod, a cable, or a lever and the like” [0032]. Thus, the arm comprises a plurality of joints which alter the configuration of the arm via actuators.), the method comprising:
receiving, at a safety monitor (“safety observer 21b” of Fig. 4), (i) communications from a of an operator console to a main controller of the surgical robot system identifying inputs from an operator of the surgical robot, each communication being generated before the motion of each individual joint of the plurality of joints is determined (“The controller 21a receives data from the computer 31 of the surgeon console 30 about the current position and/or orientation of the handle controllers 38a and 38b and the state of the foot pedals 36 and other buttons” [0033]. Thus, communications from the operator console to the controller 21a which identify the inputs of handle controllers and foot pedals from an operator of the surgical robot are additionally received at the safety observer as exemplified in Fig. 4. Input values are generated before the motion of the joints are determined by the SRA controller of the arm cart.), and (ii) communications sent from the main controller to the surgical robot identifying control signals for controlling movement of the surgical robot arm, each communication being generated before the motion of each individual joint of the plurality of joints is determined, the control signals being based on the inputs from the operator (“The controller 21a processes these input positions to determine desired drive commands for each joint of the robotic arm 40 and/or the instrument drive unit 52 and communicates these to the computer 41 of the robotic arm 40” [0033]. Thus, communications sent from controller 21a to the robot arm in the form of desired drive commands, i.e., control signals, for controlling the movement of the surgical robot arm are additionally received by the safety observer as shown in Fig. 4. These communications are generated before the motion of the joints are determined by the SRA controller of the arm cart based on the desired commands.);
analysing, at the safety monitor, (i) the communications from the device of the operator console and (ii) the communications from the main controller to the surgical robot, to independently verify that each of the main controller, the device of the operator console and the surgical robot is operating as expected (“The safety observer 21b performs validity checks on the data going into and out of the controller 21a and notifies a system fault handler if errors in the data transmission are detected to place the computer 21 and/or the surgical system 10 into a safe state” [0033]. The safety observer further analyzes these communications going into and out of the controller 21a to independently verify that all data transmissions between the main controller, device of the operator console, and surgical robot are free of errors, i.e., operating as expected.)…
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the safety monitor of Tsuboi to further include the analysis of communications from the device of the operator console to the main controller as taught by White with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the safety observer of White additionally identifies faults of input transmission, which is pertinent to the problem at hand (White, [0033]). Such a modification would be a mere combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143.I(A)).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuboi in view of White and further in view of Chizeck et al. (US 2015/0295949 A1; hereinafter “Chizeck”).
Regarding claim 4, Tsuboi as modified by White teaches the control system of claim 3,
with Tsuboi further teaching wherein the safety monitor is configured to cause the safety device to filter communications between (i) the device of the operator console and the surgical robot, and (ii) the main controller by writing information … that indicates to the safety device that the communications between (i) the device of the operator console and the surgical robot, and (ii) the main controller is to be filtered (See the rejection of claim 3 wherein the communication is filtered by writing information to the operation condition setting unit.).
However, Tsuboi as modified does not teach … by writing information to at least one register of a set of registers …
Chizeck, in the same field of endeavor, teaches … by writing information to at least one register (The computer readable medium may also include non-transitory computer readable media such as computer-readable media that stores data for short periods of time like register memory, processor cache, and random access memory (RAM)” [0169]. Thus, short term data is written to a register.)…
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the information written to the operation condition setting unit as taught by Tsuboi to include a set of registers as taught by Chizeck with a reasonable expectation for success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because by using registers, it is possible to issue a rapid recall of those operation conditions set by the malfunction detection unit with regard to the operation type for transitioning to a safe state, therefore making the transition efficient.
Chizeck does not explicitly disclose a set of registers but modifying the system to include a set of registers would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a mere duplication of parts (see MPEP 2144.04.VI(B)).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuboi in view of White and further in view of Desai (US 2022/0039889 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Tsuboi as modified by White teaches the control system of claim 1.
However, Tsuboi as modified does not teach …wherein the safety monitor is configured to determine that the surgical robot system is in a fault state when the safety monitor detects, from the communication to and/or from the main controller, that a frequency of communications from the device of an operator console and the surgical robot to the main controller is below a predetermined threshold or that a frequency of communication from the main controller to the device of an operator console and the surgical robot is below a predetermined threshold.
Desai, in the same field of endeavor, teaches …wherein the safety monitor is configured to determine that the surgical robot system is in a fault state when the safety monitor detects, from the communication to and/or from the main controller, that a frequency of communications from the device of an operator console and the surgical robot to the main controller is below a predetermined threshold or that a frequency of communication from the main controller to the device of an operator console and the surgical robot is below a predetermined threshold (“In some embodiments, the arms 622s may send an error message if they do not receive communication from the control PC 631 in an expected amount of time” [0039]. Thus, the control PC transfers directions from the control tower to the arms through a base controller and if the frequency of those communications do not meet a predetermined threshold, then an error is determined.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fault state detections of Tsuboi to include the frequency detections of Desai with a reasonable expectation for success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Tsuboi teaches determining a fault state but simply does not include the specific fault state regarding communication frequencies as taught by Desai. Thus, the modification is merely a combination of known methods for detecting faults in a surgical robotic system which yields predictable results (see MPEP 2143.I(A)). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a fault state when the robot is not receiving the appropriate communications from the controller in order to efficiently inform the user of inaccurate system outputs.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuboi in view of White and further in view of Shelton, IV et al. (US 2016/0256184 A1; hereinafter “Shelton”).
Regarding claim 10, Tsuboi as modified by White teaches the control system of claim 1.
However, Tsuboi as modified does not explicitly teach …wherein the safety monitor is configured to determine that the surgical robot system is in a fault state when the safety monitor detects, from the communications to and/or from the main controller, that the device of the operator console and the surgical robot is running software that is not compatible with the main controller.
Shelton, in the same field of endeavor, teaches …wherein the safety monitor is configured to determine that the surgical robot system is in a fault state when the safety monitor detects, from the communications to and/or from the main controller, that the device of the operator console and the surgical robot is running software that is not compatible with the main controller (“During normal operation, the safety processor 11104 monitors for hardware faults or program errors of the primary processor 11104 and to initiate corrective action or actions. The corrective actions may include placing the primary processor 2006 in a safe state and restoring normal system operation” [0421]. Thus, when program errors occur, i.e., there is an incompatibility with the software, the system is deemed to have an abnormal state, i.e., fault, which requires corrective action/transition to a safe state.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fault state detections of Tsuboi to include the incompatible software detections of Shelton with a reasonable expectation for success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Tsuboi teaches determining a fault state but simply does not include the specific fault state regarding incompatible software as taught by Shelton. Thus, the modification is merely a combination of known methods for detecting faults in a surgical robotic system which yields predictable results (see MPEP 2143.I(A)). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to determine a fault state for the system when incompatible software is present, because such incompatibility would cause processing issues which would render inaccuracies or even failure in the system output.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuboi in view of White and further in view of Gunther (Answer to “Node Name Collision with Multiple Talker Node Instances” on ROS Answers).
Regarding claim 11, Tsuboi, as modified by White teaches the control system of claim 1.
Tsuboi, as currently modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the surgical robot system comprises a plurality of surgical robots and each of the plurality of surgical robots is allocated an identifier, and the safety monitor is configured to determine that the surgical robot system is in a fault state when the safety monitor detects, from the communications to and/or from the main controller, that at least two of the surgical robots send communications indicating that they are allocated the same identifier.
However, White further teaches wherein the surgical robot system comprises a plurality of surgical robots and each of the plurality of surgical robots is allocated an identifier (“In embodiments, once the cable 70 is coupled to the connectors 72 and 74 of both the tower 20 and the movable cart 60, respectively, the tower 20 assigns the unique identification number (Component ID) and transmits identification number to the movable cart 60 (assigning the movable cart 60 a Component ID). In response, or upon subsequent connection, a predetermined amount of contacts may be energized by the main controller 41a of the movable cart 60 to enable the tower 20 to identify the movable cart 60 (e.g., a first and third pin of a four plus pin connector (“0101”)). The amount of contacts reserved and set to either high “1” or low “0” may be any suitable number, depending on the amount of available components (e.g., movable carts 60) included in the surgical robotic system 100, number of conductors in the cable 70, etc. If the system 10 includes four movable carts 60, each movable cart 60 may receive a unique identification signal from the tower 20 transmitted during initialization (e.g., Component ID 1=“1100”; Component ID 2=“1010”; Component ID 3=“0101”; Component ID 4=“0011”; etc.)” [0040]. Thus, there is an identification system which assigns a unique identifier to each moveable cart connected to the system. Each moveable cart has a robotic arm and thus the example of four moveable carts indicates the existence of a plurality of surgical robots each with a unique identifier.)…
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the surgical system of Tsuboi to further include the plurality of surgical robots and identification system as further taught by White with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the identification of each robot arm allows subsequent movements of the arm and the instrument to properly correlate the location of the patient (White, [0002]) while also allowing a verification of compatibility of the robotic arm with the devices which the robotic arm is connected to (White, [0003]).
However, Tsuboi as now modified by White does not explicitly teach …the safety monitor is configured to determine that the surgical robot system is in a fault state when the safety monitor detects, from the communications to and/or from the main controller, that at least two of the surgical robots send communications indicating that they are allocated the same identifier.
Gunther, pertinent to the problem at hand, teaches …the safety monitor is configured to determine that the surgical robot system is in a fault state when the safety monitor detects, from the communications to and/or from the main controller, that at least two of the surgical robots send communications indicating that they are allocated the same identifier (According to the blog post, a warning (fault) is issued when two ROS nodes, i.e., means of transferring communications in a robotic system, share names, i.e., identifiers.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the detection of fault states as taught by Tsuboi to include the detection of like names in a multi-faceted robotic system as taught by Gunther with a reasonable expectation for success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because robotic system parts/nodes which share identifiers confuse system communications by sending like signal commands to each part identified under the same convention, therefore causing errors in the intended outcome of the procedure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Examiner found US 2025/0241717 A1 to be particularly relevant with respect to the claimed invention. However, the earliest relevant filing date for this document did not meet priority and therefore the disclosure was not relied upon.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIDNEY L MOLNAR whose telephone number is (571)272-2276. The examiner can normally be reached 9 A.M. to 4 P.M. EST Monday-Friday.
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, Jonathan (Wade) Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/S.L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights