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 .
Remarks
This final office action is a response to the reply received 08/07/2026. Claims 1-2, 4-9, 21-24, 26-31, and 33-34 are pending. Claims 3, 10-20, 25, and 32 were cancelled. Claim 34 has been newly added. Claims 1, 7, 24, 28, 30-31, and 33 have been amended.
Claims 10-20 were withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/16/2025.
Response to Arguments
The arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. The applicant argues that "Neither Sugiura or Koenig, taken alone or in combination, teach anything about prioritizing collision or joint limit handling over motion toward a preferred joint position in connection with coordinated table motion" and then argues that Sugiura does not disclose the prioritization of "collision or joint limit handling task over a preferred joint position task in accordance with a determination that the current state is in coordinated table motion.
However, Sugiura is not being relied upon to individually disclose the entire limitation, and more specifically, Sugiura is not being relied upon for the determination of the current state being in a coordinated table motion.
Additionally, the applicant argues that Koenig does not disclose "how tasks associated with null space motion of the robotic arm are prioritized when the patient table is tilted, let alone prioritizing a collision or joint limit handling task over a preferred joint position task in accordance with a determination that the current state is in coordinated table motion".
However, Koenig is not being relied upon to individually disclose the entire limitation, and more specifically, Koenig is not being relied upon for the prioritization of one task over the other.
Hourtash discloses the robotic control architecture which includes a redundant robotic arm that utilizes weighting, scaling, and saturation levels of multiple null-space objectives, which illustrate a type of prioritization of the tasks. However, Hourtash's prioritization is not based on the current robotic operation state. Furthermore, Hourtash discloses the third task of collision or joint limit handling (See Hourtash ¶0066 as previously cited) and fifth task of motion toward a preferred joint position (See Hourtash ¶0045).
Furthermore, Sugiura discloses the dynamically varying of prioritization of one or more tasks based on the current state of operation (See Sugiura, at least ¶0028, ¶0021, ¶0052, and ¶0073). Sugiura teaches that the relative priority between collision avoidance and another motion objective should be changed based on the robots circumstances: "The collision avoidance module calculates a collision avoidance control signal based on the closest points of the segment of the robot and the virtual object…The weight of the collision avoidance control signal assigned a higher value when the risk of collision is higher" [Sugiura ¶0028] -- The closer the closest points of the segment of the robot are to the virtual object, the higher the risk of collision (which is interpreted under BRI as an operating state, the robot operating at a state of a higher collision risk). Sugiura explicitly states that the weight of the collision avoidance control signal is assigned a higher value in this scenario/operating state, which reads upon the dynamic prioritization of the third task over the fifth task based on the current operating state. Furthermore, Sugiura also teaches that the fifth task is prioritized over the third task in the state when the collision risk is lower (¶0028).
Sugiura also discloses that it is important to dynamically prioritize the third and fifth tasks based on an operating state (how much of a risk of potential collision there is) in real time: "the direction of avoidance and how to switch the priority between target reaching motions and collision avoidance motions depending on the magnitude of danger of collisions in real-time must be decided. For instance, if the distance between segments is large enough, target reaching motions should have higher priority than collision avoidance motions." [Sugiura ¶0012], and provides the example of when there is enough distance between segments (corresponding to a lower collision risk), the collision avoidance does not need to be prioritized. One of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that in the opposite situation (when the segments are not large enough and collision risk is higher) collision avoidance should be prioritized).
Although Sugiura is directed towards a humanoid robot, Sugiura is not being relied upon for the robot structure, and the concept of varying the prioritization and prioritizing collision avoidance when in certain states (such as when there is a higher risk of collision as compared to when there is a lower risk of collision) can be applied to robotic manipulators who are also known to have to consider collision risks while executing have motion tasks.
Although Sugiura discloses varying/prioritizing the tasks different based on the operating states (whether there is lower or higher collision risk), Sugiura does not explicitly disclose the state of operation being a coordinated table motion, which is why Koenig is brought in.
Koenig discloses "The compliant virtual RCM mode" which "may also be useful during cases in which the patient table is tilted during the procedure, as it would allow the arm to compliantly follow any shifts in patient tissue that result from the shift of the table" (See Koenig ¶0122). Koenig teaches that a shift in in the table may cause shifts of the patient tissue, and that the RCM mode allows the robotic arm to follow the shifts. Koenig is not relied upon for any other part of the limitation beyond the distinct operating state of coordinated table motion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Sugiura's dynamic variation of tasks based on operation conditions/states to the collision/joint limit handling and the preferred joint position tasks of Hourtash during the coordinated table motion state of Koenig because as the patient table is moving and there are shifts in the patient tissue, the spatial relationship is being changed which is relevant to the consideration of collision risk. Thus, prioritizing the collision avoidance over the preferred joint position under this condition is obvious because ensuring collision is avoided when the spatial relationship between the robot arm and to patient tissue has changed can reduce the risk of collision; as, if the collision risk increases, the risk to patient safety increases, and colliding with patient tissue could cause damage or harm to the patient.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 34 is rejected under 112(b) as it recites the specific tasks: “…kinematic collision avoidance and joint limit avoidance tasks than a preferred joint position task.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as Claim 34 depends on Claim 28. It is believed that Claim 34 should be dependent on Claim 29.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 1-2, 5-9, 21-24, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hourtash et. al. (US 20180243906 A1) in view of Kasai (US 20190365489 A1) and Sugiura (US 20080312771 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hourtash discloses:
A robotic system, comprising: (See at least Figure 1A-1B) a user console; (See at least Figure 2) a robotic arm having a plurality of joints, each of the joints including one or more degrees of freedom; (See at least Figure 4) an arm support coupled to the robotic arm; (See at least Figure 5A via Joint 1: 'J1' and also ¶0059 via "a proximal revolute joint J1 that rotates about a first joint axis so as to revolve the manipulator arm distal of the joint about the joint axis")
one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: (See at least Claim 22 via "A non-transitory recording unit storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations…")
during various states of operation of the robotic system, control null space motion of the robotic arm based on inputs from two or more tasks of a plurality of tasks for execution by the robotic system, (See at least ¶0011, ¶0046 via " In one aspect, calculated null-space movement relating to various other objectives, such as an avoidance movements, commanded reconfiguration, desired manipulator poses or joint behaviors, may overlay the calculated joint velocities to achieve commanded end effector movement concurrent with achieving various other objectives.", also see at least ¶0101 via "From the calculated dq.sub.perp/dt and dq.sub.null/dt the system then calculates dq/dt and q using Equations (4) and (3), respectively, thereby providing the calculated movement by which the controller can effect the desired reconfiguration of the manipulator while maintaining the desired state of the end effector (and/or location of the remote center)." *Wherein the end effector in a particular configuration is interpreted as a "state" of the system)
the plurality of joints providing the robotic arm with a greater number of degrees of freedom than a minimum number of degrees of freedom required for performing at least one task of the plurality of tasks, (See at least ¶0031 via "In one aspect of the present invention, a redundant degrees of freedom (RDOF) surgical robotic system with manipulate input is provided")
each task of the plurality of tasks being a set of operations that requires a respective null space motion of the robotic arm, the plurality of tasks including: (See at least Figure 5A which shows revolute joint J1 that supports the robot arm and can be mounted to the base per ¶0059, as well as ¶0066 via "In one aspect, the proximal revolute J1 is used solely to change the mounting angle of the manipulator with respect to the floor. This angle is important in order to 1) avoid collisions with external patient anatomy and 2) reach anatomy inside the body. Typically, the angle a between the proximal link of the manipulator attached to the proximal revolute joint J1 and the axis of the proximal revolute is about 15 degrees". Additionally, see at least ¶0071 via "In some embodiments, the manipulator arm 500 may include any or all of the proximal and distal revolute joint, a proximal translatable joint and a parallelogram configuration of the distal linkages. Use of any or all of these features provide additional redundant degrees of freedom and facilitate reconfiguration in accordance with the present invention so as to provide for a better “conditioned” manipulator assembly by increasing the angles between linkages thereby improving the dexterity and motion of the manipulator. The increased flexibility of this exemplary manipulator can also be used to optimize the kinematics of the manipulator linkage so as to avoid joint limits, singularities, and the like")
a third task comprising collision or joint limit handling via kinematics, (See at least ¶0066 via "The axis of joint J1 is coupled to a proximal portion of the arm so it can be used to change the position and orientation of the back of the arm. In general, redundant axes, such as this, allow the instrument tip to follow the surgeon's commands while simultaneously avoiding collisions with other arms or patient anatomy.")
a fourth task comprising null space jogging, and (See at least ¶0064 via "In one aspect, the present invention allows a user to avoid movement of the instrument shaft near the above described conical portions by simply entering a command to reconfigure the manipulator as desired, even during movement of the end effector in a surgical procedure.")
a fifth task comprising motion toward a preferred joint position (See at least ¶0045 via "The present invention provides a desired movement, such as a combination of joints states or other such movement described herein, for the one or more joints during commanded end effector movement.").
However, Hourtash does not explicitly disclose the contact detection task.
Nevertheless, Kasai--who is directed towards a robot arm--discloses: a first task comprising contact detection of the robotic arm, (See at least ¶0243 via "More specifically, according to the technology of the present embodiment, there are effects such as “(2-1) the observation point is placed on the camera head, and the external force can be perceived as human operation force”, “(2-2) the observation point is placed at the distal end of the hard endoscope, and a contact collision of the distal end of the hard endoscope can be detected”, “(2-3) the observation point is placed at the trocar point, and the force acting from the trocar can be perceived”, and “(2-4) in above (2-1) to (2-3), “(A) by placing restrictions on the perceived disturbance”, “(B) or by giving redundancy to arm degrees of freedom”, “(C) or by installing a force sensor at a specific part of the distal end”, the operation force and the contact and collision can be detected in a complex manner”.")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Hourtash in view of Kasai's contact detection of the robotic arm in order to ensure that if there is an undesired contact detected, the robot can react appropriately to attempt to avoid causing injury/damage: "With the control, even in a case where the hard endoscope is mistakenly operated and the distal end of the hard endoscope is brought in contact with the tissue 72 to harm the patient, the external force acting on the distal end of the hard endoscope is recognized, and the arm unit 120 is stopped or avoided to a safe direction, for example, whereby the safety at the time of surgery can be increased." [Kasai ¶0270].
However, although Hourtash discloses a desired particular end effector configuration, which is considered a state of the system, and Hourtash discloses using weighting, scaling, and saturation levels which indicate that prioritization exists; However, Hourtash does not explicitly disclose the dynamic prioritization of tasks based on the states.
Nevertheless, Sugiura--who is directed towards robotic control--discloses: determine a current state of operation of the robotic system among the various states of operation; and (See at least ¶0052 via " computation of distances and closest points between a segment of the robot (for example, an arm) and the virtual object is also performed" and also ¶0065 via " If the distance d between the closest points is shorter than a threshold distance d.sub.a set for activating/deactivating the collision avoidance, the virtual force value and the avoidance velocity is greater than zero. The virtual force and the avoidance velocity increase proportional (e.g., linearly) to the difference between d and d.sub.a. Thus the collision avoidance is activated as soon as the closest point distance d is smaller than the preset threshold value d.sub.a. (In the example of FIG. 2, the distance d between the closest points of the robot is indicated as the distance between the right arm and the front of the body of the humanoid robot). **Wherein the distance being shorter or longer than a threshold corresponding to whether there is lower or higher collision risks are considered various states of operation - a lower collision risk operating state and a higher collision risk operating state)
dynamically vary prioritization of one or more tasks of the plurality of tasks based on the current state of operation of the robotic system, (See at least ¶0028 via "The collision avoidance module calculates a collision avoidance control signal based on the closest points of the segment of the robot and the virtual object. The blending control unit assigns weights to the motion control signal and the collision avoidance control signal to generate weighted motion control signal and weighted collision avoidance signal. The weight of the motion control signal is assigned a higher value when the risk of collision is lower. The weight of the collision avoidance control signal assigned a higher value when the risk of collision is higher. The blending control unit also combines the weighted motion control signal and the weighted collision avoidance control signal to generate a combined weighted signal according to which a motion of the robot is controlled." **Wherein the state of operation is interpreted as the collision risk/the magnitude of danger of collisions. Furthermore, see ¶0021 via " the weights can be changed gradually in order to perform a soft task switching between target reaching by motion and collision avoidance". Additionally, see at least ¶0073 via "f(d) is a gain factor which can assume values between 0 and 1 to represent the magnitude of danger of collisions, for example, as a function of the shortest distance between segments. If f(d) is equal to "1", the collision avoidance entirely takes over control. If f(d) is equal to "0", the robot controller entirely takes over control")
the dynamically varying the prioritization of the one or more tasks of the plurality of tasks based on the current state of operation of the robotic system comprises prioritizing the (See at least ¶0028 via "The collision avoidance module calculates a collision avoidance control signal based on the closest points of the segment of the robot and the virtual object. The blending control unit assigns weights to the motion control signal and the collision avoidance control signal to generate weighted motion control signal and weighted collision avoidance signal. The weight of the motion control signal is assigned a higher value when the risk of collision is lower. The weight of the collision avoidance control signal assigned a higher value when the risk of collision is higher.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Hourtash in view of Sugiura's switching/varying prioritization of tasks: " the direction of avoidance and how to switch the priority between target reaching motions and collision avoidance motions depending on the magnitude of danger of collisions in real-time must be decided. For instance, if the distance between segments is large enough, target reaching motions should have higher priority than collision avoidance motions." [Sugiura ¶0012] in order to consider the robots current situation and changing conditions in real-time, whilst improving the safety of the robotic system by avoiding collisions.
However, Modified Hourtash does not explicitly disclose the operation state of coordinated table motion.
Nevertheless, Koenig discloses: state of operation is in coordinated table motion (See at least ¶0122 via "The compliant virtual RCM mode may be used in conjunction with teleoperation mode or it may be engaged by the user selectively and intermittently. This mode may also be useful during cases in which the patient table is tilted during the procedure, as it would allow the arm to compliantly follow any shifts in patient tissue that result from the shift of the table (e.g., from Trendelenburg to reverse Trendelenburg position).")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Hourtash in view of Koenig's specific coordinated table motion for a surgical robotic system because Koenig discloses modes supporting differing controls/operational needs, and thus are obvious to include into the differing prioritization of controls/tasks that are required for the differing states of operation. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill recognizes that safety should be prioritized when the spatial relationship between the robot and the patient tissue is shifted during the table motion, as the potential risk for collision increases, and thus it is obvious to apply Sugiura's prioritization of avoiding collision to increase safety during the state of Koenig's coordinated table motion.
Regarding Claim 2, Modified Hourtash discloses the robotic system of Claim 1.
Furthermore, Kasai discloses: further comprising one or more force sensors that are positioned on the robotic arm, wherein the first task further includes using the one or more force sensors to detect contact on the robotic arm, wherein the one or more force sensors include a contact sensor that is positioned on a link of the robotic arm or on a joint or distal end of the robotic arm (See at least ¶0243 via "More specifically, according to the technology of the present embodiment, there are effects such as “(2-1) the observation point is placed on the camera head, and the external force can be perceived as human operation force”, “(2-2) the observation point is placed at the distal end of the hard endoscope, and a contact collision of the distal end of the hard endoscope can be detected”, “(2-3) the observation point is placed at the trocar point, and the force acting from the trocar can be perceived”, and “(2-4) in above (2-1) to (2-3), “(A) by placing restrictions on the perceived disturbance”, “(B) or by giving redundancy to arm degrees of freedom”, “(C) or by installing a force sensor at a specific part of the distal end”, the operation force and the contact and collision can be detected in a complex manner”.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Hourtash in view of Kasai's contact detection of the robotic arm in order to ensure that if there is an undesired contact detected, the robot can react appropriately to attempt to avoid causing injury/damage: "With the control, even in a case where the hard endoscope is mistakenly operated and the distal end of the hard endoscope is brought in contact with the tissue 72 to harm the patient, the external force acting on the distal end of the hard endoscope is recognized, and the arm unit 120 is stopped or avoided to a safe direction, for example, whereby the safety at the time of surgery can be increased." [Kasai ¶0270].
Regarding Claim 5, Modified Hourtash discloses the robotic system of Claim 1.
Furthermore, Hourtash discloses: wherein the memory further includes instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (See at least Claim 22 via "A non-transitory recording unit storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations…")
prioritize one or more tasks of the plurality of tasks based on preset mutual exclusivity between tasks in the plurality of tasks (See at least Figure 14B and ¶0085-¶0086 via "(b) Saturation Level: This attribute allows for management between multiple null-space objectives that may conflict or cancel one another other out. As noted above, the number of objective functions may be larger than the dimension of the null-space. In these cases (and sometimes in less dimensionally stringent cases too), multiple objective functions can produce null-space outputs which directly oppose each other. An example of this aspect is shown in FIG. 14B, which shows null-space coefficient vectors, α.sub.1u, and α.sub.2u, that are directly opposed. If these objective functions are summed without intervention, their result becomes zero which results in no beneficial action taken for either objective function. By using saturation limits, the objective function with the highest saturation limit can overpower the one with the lower limit. For example, a user may desire that an arm-to-patient collision avoidance must always override arm-to-arm collision avoidance functions for clinical reasons.")
PNG
media_image1.png
360
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, Modified Hourtash discloses the robotic system of Claim 1.
Furthermore, Hourtash discloses: wherein the memory further includes instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: (See at least Claim 22 via "A non-transitory recording unit storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations…")
assign a respective weight to each of the plurality of tasks; and prioritize one or more tasks of the plurality of tasks based on relative magnitudes of the respective weights of the plurality of tasks (See at least Figure 14A and ¶0083-¶0084 via "(a) Weighting: This attribute is used in a weighted summing paradigm, which allows a scaled blending of multiple features or objectives. For example, if a user desires an emphasis of the null-space usage for an extended pitch-back objective to be twice as much as that for arm-to-arm collision avoidance objective, then the weight of the former would be set to be twice that of the latter.").
PNG
media_image2.png
397
427
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, Modified Hourtash discloses the robotic system of Claim 1.
Furthermore, Hourtash discloses: wherein the memory further includes instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (See at least Claim 22 via "A non-transitory recording unit storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations…")
switch between distinct sets of one or more tasks in the plurality of tasks (See at least ¶0085-¶0086 via "(b) Saturation Level: This attribute allows for management between multiple null-space objectives that may conflict or cancel one another other out…" *Wherein, the higher saturation limits corresponding to an objective function overpower that of a lower saturation limit. "…For example, a user may desire that an arm-to-patient collision avoidance must always override arm-to-arm collision avoidance functions for clinical reasons. In such cases, the null-space manager would allow the arm-to-patient avoidance to win a tiebreaker, and in response, when in a direct conflict, the manipulator would drive itself into a neighboring manipulator before penetrating the patient's body surface.". Also see at least ¶0087 via " Thus, if it is desired that a secondary objective, such as manipulator-to-manipulator collision avoidance, should not cancel a primary objective, such as patient-to-manipulator collision avoidance, appropriate saturation levels can be applied when combining objectives so that the primary objective overpowers any secondary objectives that conflict with or cancel the primary objective.").
However, Hourtash does not explicitly disclose the tasks being switched in response to a change between distinct operating modes.
Nevertheless, Sugiura discloses switching priority based on the operating conditions, and thus discloses: in response to a change between distinct operating modes (See at least ¶0028 via "The collision avoidance module calculates a collision avoidance control signal based on the closest points of the segment of the robot and the virtual object. The blending control unit assigns weights to the motion control signal and the collision avoidance control signal to generate weighted motion control signal and weighted collision avoidance signal. The weight of the motion control signal is assigned a higher value when the risk of collision is lower. The weight of the collision avoidance control signal assigned a higher value when the risk of collision is higher. The blending control unit also combines the weighted motion control signal and the weighted collision avoidance control signal to generate a combined weighted signal according to which a motion of the robot is controlled." **Wherein the distinct operating modes are interpreted as the collision risk/the magnitude of danger of collisions - a lower collision risk operating mode and a higher collision risk operating mode. Furthermore, see ¶0021 via " the weights can be changed gradually in order to perform a soft task switching between target reaching by motion and collision avoidance". Additionally, see at least ¶0073 via "f(d) is a gain factor which can assume values between 0 and 1 to represent the magnitude of danger of collisions, for example, as a function of the shortest distance between segments. If f(d) is equal to "1", the collision avoidance entirely takes over control. If f(d) is equal to "0", the robot controller entirely takes over control").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Hourtash in view of Sugiura's switching/varying prioritization of tasks: " the direction of avoidance and how to switch the priority between target reaching motions and collision avoidance motions depending on the magnitude of danger of collisions in real-time must be decided. For instance, if the distance between segments is large enough, target reaching motions should have higher priority than collision avoidance motions." [Sugiura ¶0012] in order to consider the robots current situation and changing conditions in real-time, whilst improving the safety of the robotic system by avoiding collisions.
Regarding Claim 8, Modified Hourtash discloses the robotic system of Claim 1.
Furthermore, Hourtash discloses: wherein controlling the null space motion of the robotic arm includes moving one or more joints of the robotic arm to a desired pose at an optimum null space joint velocity (See at least ¶0012 via "In certain aspects, the desired movement of the one or more joints provided by the null-space objectives may include a joint state, a combination of joint states, a relative joint state, a range of joints states, a profile of joint states, or any combination thereof. For example, the desired movement may include maintaining relatively uniform joint velocities between joints of the first set of joints, limiting joint velocities within a desired range or at joint limits, and/or maintaining a combination of joints states corresponding to a desired pose or collision-inhibiting configuration of the manipulator.")
Regarding Claim 9, Modified Hourtash discloses the robotic system of Claim 1.
Furthermore, Hourtash discloses: wherein the memory further includes instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (See at least Claim 22 via "A non-transitory recording unit storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations…")
execute the null space motion of the robotic arm while allowing an end effector of the robotic arm to follow a command (See at least ¶0059 via "For example, the manipulator arm of FIGS. 5A-5D may be maneuvered into differing configurations while the distal member 511 supported within the instrument holder 510 maintains a particular state and may include a given position or velocity of the end effector.")
Regarding Claim 21, Modified Hourtash discloses the robotic system of Claim 6.
Furthermore, Hourtash discloses: (See at least Figure 14A and ¶0083-¶0084 via "(a) Weighting: This attribute is used in a weighted summing paradigm, which allows a scaled blending of multiple features or objectives. For example, if a user desires an emphasis of the null-space usage for an extended pitch-back objective to be twice as much as that for arm-to-arm collision avoidance objective, then the weight of the former would be set to be twice that of the latter.")
However, Hourtash does not explicitly disclose that the weights/magnitudes are dynamically adjusted when dynamically varying the prioritization.
Nevertheless, Sugiura discloses: wherein dynamically varying the prioritization comprises dynamically adjusting (See at least ¶0028 via "The collision avoidance module calculates a collision avoidance control signal based on the closest points of the segment of the robot and the virtual object. The blending control unit assigns weights to the motion control signal and the collision avoidance control signal to generate weighted motion control signal and weighted collision avoidance signal. The weight of the motion control signal is assigned a higher value when the risk of collision is lower. The weight of the collision avoidance control signal assigned a higher value when the risk of collision is higher. The blending control unit also combines the weighted motion control signal and the weighted collision avoidance control signal to generate a combined weighted signal according to which a motion of the robot is controlled." **Wherein the state of operation is interpreted as the collision risk/the magnitude of danger of collisions. Furthermore, see ¶0021 via " the weights can be changed gradually in order to perform a soft task switching between target reaching by motion and collision avoidance". Additionally, see at least ¶0073 via "f(d) is a gain factor which can assume values between 0 and 1 to represent the magnitude of danger of collisions, for example, as a function of the shortest distance between segments. If f(d) is equal to "1", the collision avoidance entirely takes over control. If f(d) is equal to "0", the robot controller entirely takes over control")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Hourtash in view of Sugiura's weighting/prioritization of tasks: " the direction of avoidance and how to switch the priority between target reaching motions and collision avoidance motions depending on the magnitude of danger of collisions in real-time must be decided. For instance, if the distance between segments is large enough, target reaching motions should have higher priority than collision avoidance motions." [Sugiura ¶0012] in order to consider the robots current situation and changing conditions in real-time, whilst improving the safety of the robotic system by avoiding collisions.
Regarding Claim 22, Modified Hourtash discloses the robotic system of Claim 1.
Furthermore, Sugiura discloses: wherein the various states of operation comprise a (See at least ¶0028 via "The collision avoidance module calculates a collision avoidance control signal based on the closest points of the segment of the robot and the virtual object. The blending control unit assigns weights to the motion control signal and the collision avoidance control signal to generate weighted motion control signal and weighted collision avoidance signal. The weight of the motion control signal is assigned a higher value when the risk of collision is lower. The weight of the collision avoidance control signal assigned a higher value when the risk of collision is higher…" **Wherein the state of operation is interpreted as the collision risk/the magnitude of danger of collisions. Furthermore, see ¶0021, ¶0073, ¶0052, and ¶0065 via " If the distance d between the closest points is shorter than a threshold distance d.sub.a set for activating/deactivating the collision avoidance, the virtual force value and the avoidance velocity is greater than zero. The virtual force and the avoidance velocity increase proportional (e.g., linearly) to the difference between d and d.sub.a. Thus the collision avoidance is activated as soon as the closest point distance d is smaller than the preset threshold value d.sub.a. (In the example of FIG. 2, the distance d between the closest points of the robot is indicated as the distance between the right arm and the front of the body of the humanoid robot). **Wherein the distance being shorter or longer than a threshold is considered various states of operation)
However, although Sugiura describes dynamically varying the prioritization depending on what the current state is (being shorter or longer than a threshold, corresponding to magnitude of danger of collision), Sugiura does not explicitly disclose the operation states being specifically "surgery" or "set-up".
Nevertheless, Koenig--who is directed towards robotic arms in a surgical system--discloses: a surgery state and a set-up state (See at least ¶0115 via " As shown in FIG. 19, another example of a user mode is a setup mode, in which robotic arm may transition from a first pose (e.g., folded configuration for storage and transport) to a default pose (e.g., at least partially extended) such as a default setup pose or a predetermined template pose for a particular type of surgical procedure." and also ¶0119 via "As shown in FIG. 19, another example of a user mode is a teleoperation mode, in which the robotic arm is remotely controlled by a user interface device during the surgical procedure.")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Hourtash in view of Koenig's specific surgery or set-up states for a surgical robotic system because Koenig discloses that these modes support differing controls/operational needs, and thus are obvious to include into the differing prioritization of controls/tasks that are required for the differing states of operation.
Regarding Claim 23, Modified Hourtash discloses the robotic system of Claim 1.
Furthermore, Sugiura discloses: wherein the prioritization of the one or more tasks is varied based on whether the current state corresponds to the (See at least ¶0028 via "The collision avoidance module calculates a collision avoidance control signal based on the closest points of the segment of the robot and the virtual object. The blending control unit assigns weights to the motion control signal and the collision avoidance control signal to generate weighted motion control signal and weighted collision avoidance signal. The weight of the motion control signal is assigned a higher value when the risk of collision is lower. The weight of the collision avoidance control signal assigned a higher value when the risk of collision is higher…" **Wherein the state of operation is interpreted as the collision risk/the magnitude of danger of collisions. Furthermore, see ¶0021, ¶0073, ¶0052, and ¶0065 via " If the distance d between the closest points is shorter than a threshold distance d.sub.a set for activating/deactivating the collision avoidance, the virtual force value and the avoidance velocity is greater than zero. The virtual force and the avoidance velocity increase proportional (e.g., linearly) to the difference between d and d.sub.a. Thus the collision avoidance is activated as soon as the closest point distance d is smaller than the preset threshold value d.sub.a. (In the example of FIG. 2, the distance d between the closest points of the robot is indicated as the distance between the right arm and the front of the body of the humanoid robot). **Wherein the distance being shorter or longer than a threshold is considered various states of operation)
However, Sugiura does not explicitly disclose the specific "teleoperation" or "manual manipulation" modes.
Nevertheless, Koenig discloses: wherein the robotic arm is operable in a teleoperation mode, in which the robotic arm is controlled based on input to the user console, and (See at least ¶0119 via As shown in FIG. 19, another example of a user mode is a teleoperation mode, in which the robotic arm is remotely controlled by a user interface device during the surgical procedure.")
a manual manipulation mode, in which the robotic arm is manipulated manually, and (See at least ¶0109 via "As shown in FIG. 19, another example of a primitive control mode is friction compensation mode, or active back-drive mode. Often, a user may want to directly manipulate (e.g., pull or push) one or more of the arm links to arrange the robotic arm in a particular pose. These actions back-drive the actuators of the robotic arm. However, due to friction caused by mechanical aspects such as high gear ratios in the joint modules, the user must apply a significant amount of force in order to overcome the friction and successfully move the robotic arm. To address this, the friction compensation mode enables the robotic arm to assist a user in moving at least a portion of the robotic arm, by actively back-driving appropriate joint modules in the direction needed to achieve the pose desired by the user. As a result, the user may manually manipulate the robotic arm with less perceived friction or with an apparent “lightweight” feel.")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Hourtash in view of Koenig's specific teleoperation or manual manipulation modes for a surgical robotic system because Koenig discloses that these modes support differing controls/operational needs, and thus are obvious to include into the differing prioritization of controls/tasks that are required for the differing states of operation.
Regarding Claim 24, Hourtash discloses:
A robotic system, comprising: (See at least Figure 1A-1B)
a robotic arm having a plurality of joints, each of the joints including one or more degrees of freedom; (See at least Figure 4)
one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: (See at least Claim 22 via "A non-transitory recording unit storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations…")
during various states of operation of the robotic system, control null space motion of the robotic arm based on inputs from two or more tasks of a plurality of tasks for execution by the robotic system, (See at least ¶0011, ¶0046 via " In one aspect, calculated null-space movement relating to various other objectives, such as an avoidance movements, commanded reconfiguration, desired manipulator poses or joint behaviors, may overlay the calculated joint velocities to achieve commanded end effector movement concurrent with achieving various other objectives.", also see at least ¶0101 via "From the calculated dq.sub.perp/dt and dq.sub.null/dt the system then calculates dq/dt and q using Equations (4) and (3), respectively, thereby providing the calculated movement by which the controller can effect the desired reconfiguration of the manipulator while maintaining the desired state of the end effector (and/or location of the remote center)." *Wherein the end effector in a particular configuration is interpreted as a "state" of the system)
the plurality of joints providing the robotic arm with a greater number of degrees of freedom than a minimum number of degrees of freedom required for performing at least one task of the plurality of tasks, (See at least ¶0031 via "In one aspect of the present invention, a redundant degrees of freedom (RDOF) surgical robotic system with manipulate input is provided")
each task of the plurality of tasks being a set of operations that requires a respective null space motion of the robotic arm, the plurality of tasks including: (See at least ¶0066 via "The axis of joint J1 is coupled to a proximal portion of the arm so it can be used to change the position and orientation of the back of the arm. In general, redundant axes, such as this, allow the instrument tip to follow the surgeon's commands while simultaneously avoiding collisions with other arms or patient anatomy.")
a third task comprising null space jogging, and (See at least ¶0064 via "In one aspect, the present invention allows a user to avoid movement of the instrument shaft near the above described conical portions by simply entering a command to reconfigure the manipulator as desired, even during movement of the end effector in a surgical procedure.")
a fourth task comprising motion toward a preferred joint position; (See at least ¶0045 via "The present invention provides a desired movement, such as a combination of joints states or other such movement described herein, for the one or more joints during commanded end effector movement.").
However, Hourtash does not explicitly disclose the contact detection task.
Nevertheless, Kasai--who is directed towards a robot arm--discloses: a first task comprising contact detection of the robotic arm, (See at least ¶0243 via "More specifically, according to the technology of the present embodiment, there are effects such as “(2-1) the observation point is placed on the camera head, and the external force can be perceived as human operation force”, “(2-2) the observation point is placed at the distal end of the hard endoscope, and a contact collision of the distal end of the hard endoscope can be detected”, “(2-3) the observation point is placed at the trocar point, and the force acting from the trocar can be perceived”, and “(2-4) in above (2-1) to (2-3), “(A) by placing restrictions on the perceived disturbance”, “(B) or by giving redundancy to arm degrees of freedom”, “(C) or by installing a force sensor at a specific part of the distal end”, the operation force and the contact and collision can be detected in a complex manner”.")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Hourtash in view of Kasai's contact detection of the robotic arm in order to ensure that if there is an undesired contact detected, the robot can react appropriately to attempt to avoid causing injury/damage: "With the control, even in a case where the hard endoscope is mistakenly operated and the distal end of the hard endoscope is brought in contact with the tissue 72 to harm the patient, the external force acting on the distal end of the hard endoscope is recognized, and the arm unit 120 is stopped or avoided to a safe direction, for example, whereby the safety at the time of surgery can be increased." [Kasai ¶0270].
However, although Hourtash discloses a desired particular end effector configuration, which is considered a state of the system, and Hourtash discloses using weighting, scaling, and saturation levels which indicate that prioritization exists; However, Hourtash does not explicitly disclose the dynamic prioritization of tasks based on the states.
Nevertheless, Sugiura--who is directed towards robotic control--discloses: determine a current state of operation of the robotic system among the various states of operation; and (See at least ¶0052 via " computation of distances and closest points between a segment of the robot (for example, an arm) and the virtual object is also performed" and also ¶0065 via " If the distance d between the closest points is shorter than a threshold distance d.sub.a set for activating/deactivating the collision avoidance, the virtual force value and the avoidance velocity is greater than zero. The virtual force and the avoidance velocity increase proportional (e.g., linearly) to the difference between d and d.sub.a. Thus the collision avoidance is activated as soon as the closest point distance d is smaller than the preset threshold value d.sub.a. (In the example of FIG. 2, the distance d between the closest points of the robot is indicated as the distance between the right arm and the front of the body of the humanoid robot). **Wherein the distance being shorter or longer than a threshold is considered various states of operation)
dynamically vary prioritization of one or more tasks of the plurality of tasks based on the current state of operation of the robotic system, (See at least ¶0028 via "The collision avoidance module calculates a collision avoidance control signal based on the closest points of the segment of the robot and the virtual object. The blending control unit assigns weights to the motion control signal and the collision avoidance control signal to generate weighted motion control signal and weighted collision avoidance signal. The weight of the motion control signal is assigned a higher value when the risk of collision is lower. The weight of the collision avoidance control signal assigned a higher value when the risk of collision is higher. The blending control unit also combines the weighted motion control signal and the weighted collision avoidance control signal to generate a combined weighted signal according to which a motion of the robot is controlled." **Wherein the state of operation is interpreted as the collision risk/the magnitude of danger of collisions. Furthermore, see ¶0021 via " the weights can be changed gradually in order to perform a soft task switching between target reaching by motion and collision avoidance". Additionally, see at least ¶0073 via "f(d) is a gain factor which can assume values between 0 and 1 to represent the magnitude of danger of collisions, for example, as a function of the shortest distance between segments. If f(d) is equal to "1", the collision avoidance entirely takes over control. If f(d) is equal to "0", the robot controller entirely takes over control")
the dynamically varying the prioritization of the one or more tasks of the plurality of tasks based on the current state of operation of the robotic system comprising assigning a higher weight to the (See at least ¶0028 via "The collision avoidance module calculates a collision avoidance control signal based on the closest points of the segment of the robot and the virtual object. The blending control unit assigns weights to the motion control signal and the collision avoidance control signal to generate weighted motion control signal and weighted collision avoidance signal. The weight of the motion control signal is assigned a higher value when the risk of collision is lower. The weight of the collision avoidance control signal assigned a higher value when the risk of collision is higher.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Hourtash in view of Sugiura's switching/varying prioritization of tasks: " the direction of avoidance and how to switch the priority between target reaching motions and collision avoidance motions depending on the magnitude of danger of collisions in real-time must be decided. For instance, if the distance between segments is large enough, target reaching motions should have higher priority than collision avoidance motions." [Sugiura ¶0012] in order to consider the robots current situation and changing conditions in real-time, whilst improving the safety of the robotic system by avoiding collisions.
However, Modified Hourtash does not explicitly disclose the operation state of coordinated table motion.
Nevertheless, Koenig discloses: state of operation is in coordinated table motion (See at least ¶0122 via "The compliant virtual RCM mode may be used in conjunction with teleoperation mode or it may be engaged by the user selectively and intermittently. This mode may also be useful during cases in which the patient table is tilted during the procedure, as it would allow the arm to compliantly follow any shifts in patient tissue that result from the shift of the table (e.g., from Trendelenburg to reverse Trendelenburg position).")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Hourtash in view of Koenig's specific coordinated table motion for a surgical robotic system because Koenig discloses modes supporting differing controls/operational needs, and thus are obvious to include into the differing prioritization of controls/tasks that are required for the differing states of operation. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill recognizes that safety should be prioritized when the spatial relationship between the robot and the patient tissue is shifted during the table motion, as the potential risk for collision increases, and thus it is obvious to apply Sugiura's prioritization of avoiding collision to increase safety during the state of Koenig's coordinated table motion.
Regarding Claim 26, Modified Hourtash discloses the robotic system of Claim 24.
Furthermore, Sugiura discloses: wherein the various states of operation comprise a (See at least ¶0028 via "The collision avoidance module calculates a collision avoidance control signal based on the closest points of the segment of the robot and the virtual object. The blending control unit assigns weights to the motion control signal and the collision avoidance control signal to generate weighted motion control signal and weighted collision avoidance signal. The weight of the motion control signal is assigned a higher value when the risk of collision is lower. The weight of the collision avoidance control signal assigned a higher value when the risk of collision is higher…" **Wherein the state of operation is interpreted as the collision risk/the magnitude of danger of collisions. Furthermore, see ¶0021, ¶0073, ¶0052, and ¶0065 via " If the distance d between the closest points is shorter than a threshold distance d.sub.a set for activating/deactivating the collision avoidance, the virtual force value and the avoidance velocity is greater than zero. The virtual force and the avoidance velocity increase proportional (e.g., linearly) to the difference between d and d.sub.a. Thus the collision avoidance is activated as soon as the closest point distance d is smaller than the preset threshold value d.sub.a. (In the example of FIG. 2, the distance d between the closest points of the robot is indicated as the distance between the right arm and the front of the body of the humanoid robot). **Wherein the distance being shorter or longer than a threshold is considered various states of operation)
However, although Sugiura describes dynamically varying the prioritization depending on what the current state is (being shorter or longer than a threshold, corresponding to magnitude of danger of collision), Sugiura does not explicitly disclose the operation states being specifically "surgery" or "set-up".
Nevertheless, Koenig--who ids directed towards robotic arms in a surgical system--discloses: a surgery state and a set-up state (See at least ¶0115 via " As shown in FIG. 19, another example of a user mode is a setup mode, in which robotic arm may transition from a first pose (e.g., folded configuration for storage and transport) to a default pose (e.g., at least partially extended) such as a default setup pose or a predetermined template pose for a particular type of surgical procedure." and also ¶0119 via "As shown in FIG. 19, another example of a user mode is a teleoperation mode, in which the robotic arm is remotely controlled by a user interface device during the surgical procedure.")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Hourtash in view of Koenig's specific surgery or set-up states for a surgical robotic system because Koenig discloses that these modes support differing controls/operational needs, and thus are obvious to include into the differing prioritization of controls/tasks that are required for the differing states of operation.
Regarding Claim 27, Modified Hourtash discloses the robotic system of Claim 24.
Furthermore, Sugiura discloses: wherein the prioritization of the one or more tasks is varied based on whether the current state corresponds to the (See at least ¶0028 via "The collision avoidance module calculates a collision avoidance control signal based on the closest points of the segment of the robot and the virtual object. The blending control unit assigns weights to the motion control signal and the collision avoidance control signal to generate weighted motion control signal and weighted collision avoidance signal. The weight of the motion control signal is assigned a higher value when the risk of collision is lower. The weight of the collision avoidance control signal assigned a higher value when the risk of collision is higher…" **Wherein the state of operation is interpreted as the collision risk/the magnitude of danger of collisions. Furthermore, see ¶0021, ¶0073, ¶0052, and ¶0065 via " If the distance d between the closest points is shorter than a threshold distance d.sub.a set for activating/deactivating the collision avoidance, the virtual force value and the avoidance velocity is greater than zero. The virtual force and the avoidance velocity increase proportional (e.g., linearly) to the difference between d and d.sub.a. Thus the collision avoidance is activated as soon as the closest point distance d is smaller than the preset threshold value d.sub.a. (In the example of FIG. 2, the distance d between the closest points of the robot is indicated as the distance between the right arm and the front of the body of the humanoid robot). **Wherein the distance being shorter or longer than a threshold is considered various states of operation)
However, Sugiura does not explicitly disclose the specific "teleoperation" or "manual manipulation" modes.
Nevertheless, Koenig discloses: wherein the robotic arm is operable in a teleoperation mode, in which the robotic arm is controlled based on input to the user console, and (See at least ¶0119 via As shown in FIG. 19, another example of a user mode is a teleoperation mode, in which the robotic arm is remotely controlled by a user interface device during the surgical procedure.")
a manual manipulation mode, in which the robotic arm is manipulated manually, and (See at least ¶0109 via "As shown in FIG. 19, another example of a primitive control mode is friction compensation mode, or active back-drive mode. Often, a user may want to directly manipulate (e.g., pull or push) one or more of the arm links to arrange the robotic arm in a particular pose. These actions back-drive the actuators of the robotic arm. However, due to friction caused by mechanical aspects such as high gear ratios in the joint modules, the user must apply a significant amount of force in order to overcome the friction and successfully move the robotic arm. To address this, the friction compensation mode enables the robotic arm to assist a user in moving at least a portion of the robotic arm, by actively back-driving appropriate joint modules in the direction needed to achieve the pose desired by the user. As a result, the user may manually manipulate the robotic arm with less perceived friction or with an apparent “lightweight” feel.")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Hourtash in view of Koenig's specific teleoperation or manual manipulation modes for a surgical robotic system because Koenig discloses that these modes support differing controls/operational needs, and thus are obvious to include into the differing prioritization of controls/tasks that are required for the differing states of operation.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hourtash et. al. (US 20180243906 A1), Kasai (US 20190365489 A1), Sugiura (US 20080312771 A1), and Koenig et. al. (US 20180079090 A1) in view of Richmond et. al. (US 20170143429 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Modified Hourtash discloses the robotic system of Claim 1.
Furthermore, Hourtash discloses the third task (See at least ¶0066)
However, although Koenig and Kasai disclose encoders, Modified Hourtash does not explicitly disclose encoders on the joints of the robotic arms used to detect and mitigate collisions.
Nevertheless, Richmond--who is directed towards an intelligent positioning system for medical devices--discloses: further comprising one or more encoders positioned on a joint of the robotic arm, wherein the third task includes using the one or more encoders to detect collision and mitigate the collision via kinematics control (See at least ¶0075 via "The self-collision avoidance can be implemented given the kinematics and sizes of the arm and payload are known to the intelligent positioning system. Therefore it can monitor the joint level encoders to determine if the arm is about to collide with itself. If a collision is imminent, then intelligent positioning system implements a movement restriction on the automated arm and all non-inertial motion is ceased").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Hourtash in view of the collision detection by the encoders of Richmond to account for being able to avoid and appropriately react to potential self-collision such as in Richmond [¶0075], in addition to collision with other external obstacles.
Claims 28-31 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hourtash et. al. (US 20180243906 A1) in view of Sugiura (US 20080312771 A1) and Koenig et. al. (US 20180079090 A1).
Regarding Claim 28, Hourtash discloses:
A robotic system, comprising: (See at least Figure 1A-1B)
a user console; (See at least Figure 2)
a robotic arm having a plurality of joints, each of the joints including one or more degrees of freedom; (See at least Figure 4)
an arm support coupled to the robotic arm; (See at least Figure 5A via Joint 1: 'J1' and also ¶0059 via "a proximal revolute joint J1 that rotates about a first joint axis so as to revolve the manipulator arm distal of the joint about the joint axis")
one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: (See at least Claim 22 via "A non-transitory recording unit storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations…")
(See at least ¶0046 via " In one aspect, calculated null-space movement relating to various other objectives, such as an avoidance movements, commanded reconfiguration, desired manipulator poses or joint behaviors, may overlay the calculated joint velocities to achieve commanded end effector movement concurrent with achieving various other objectives.", also see at least ¶0101 via "From the calculated dq.sub.perp/dt and dq.sub.null/dt the system then calculates dq/dt and q using Equations (4) and (3), respectively, thereby providing the calculated movement by which the controller can effect the desired reconfiguration of the manipulator while maintaining the desired state of the end effector (and/or location of the remote center).")
the plurality of joints providing the robotic arm with a greater number of degrees of freedom than a minimum number of degrees of freedom required for performing at least one task of the plurality of tasks, (See at least ¶0031 via "In one aspect of the present invention, a redundant degrees of freedom (RDOF) surgical robotic system with manipulate input is provided")
each task of the plurality of tasks being a set of operations that requires a respective null space motion of the robotic arm, (See at least ¶0059, ¶0066, ¶0071, ¶0064, ¶0045)
, (See at least ¶0045 via "The present invention provides a desired movement, such as a combination of joints states or other such movement described herein, for the one or more joints during commanded end effector movement" and also ¶0085 via "…management between multiple null-space objectives that may conflict or cancel one another other out…In such cases, the null-space manager would allow the arm-to-patient avoidance to win a tiebreaker, and in response, when in a direct conflict, the manipulator would drive itself into a neighboring manipulator before penetrating the patient's body surface.")
However, although Hourtash discloses different configurations of the end effector, Hourtash does not explicitly disclose the "first" or "second" mode.
Nevertheless, Sugiura--who is directed towards robotic control--discloses: during a first mode of operation of the robotic system …
during a second mode of operation of the robotic system (See at least ¶0065 via " If the distance d between the closest points is shorter than a threshold distance d.sub.a set for activating/deactivating the collision avoidance, the virtual force value and the avoidance velocity is greater than zero. The virtual force and the avoidance velocity increase proportional (e.g., linearly) to the difference between d and d.sub.a. Thus the collision avoidance is activated as soon as the closest point distance d is smaller than the preset threshold value d.sub.a. (In the example of FIG. 2, the distance d between the closest points of the robot is indicated as the distance between the right arm and the front of the body of the humanoid robot). **Wherein the distance being shorter or longer than a threshold corresponding to whether there is lower or higher collision risks are considered first and second modes of operation- a lower collision risk operating mode and a higher collision risk operating mode )
vary a prioritization of one or more tasks in the second (See at least ¶0065 which illustrates the switch between prioritizing collision avoidance when the distance is less than a threshold (one of the states the robot is operating in) versus the alternative, where the collision avoidance is not activated, and other task(s) can be prioritized; for example, motion control: ¶0028: "The weight of the motion control signal is assigned a higher value when the risk of collision is lower. The weight of the collision avoidance control signal assigned a higher value when the risk of collision is higher.")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Hourtash in view of Sugiura's switching/varying prioritization of tasks: " the direction of avoidance and how to switch the priority between target reaching motions and collision avoidance motions depending on the magnitude of danger of collisions in real-time must be decided. For instance, if the distance between segments is large enough, target reaching motions should have higher priority than collision avoidance motions." [Sugiura ¶0012] in order to consider the robots current situation and changing conditions in real-time, whilst improving the safety of the robotic system by avoiding collisions.
However, Modified Hourtash does not explicitly disclose the first mode corresponding to a manual manipulation mode, or the second mode corresponding to a teleoperation mode.
Nevertheless, Koenig--who is directed towards robotic arms in a surgical system--discloses: the first mode of operation being a manual manipulation mode in which the robotic arm follows commands generated via manual manipulation of the robotic arm; (See at least ¶0109 via "As shown in FIG. 19, another example of a primitive control mode is friction compensation mode, or active back-drive mode. Often, a user may want to directly manipulate (e.g., pull or push) one or more of the arm links to arrange the robotic arm in a particular pose. These actions back-drive the actuators of the robotic arm. However, due to friction caused by mechanical aspects such as high gear ratios in the joint modules, the user must apply a significant amount of force in order to overcome the friction and successfully move the robotic arm. To address this, the friction compensation mode enables the robotic arm to assist a user in moving at least a portion of the robotic arm, by actively back-driving appropriate joint modules in the direction needed to achieve the pose desired by the user. As a result, the user may manually manipulate the robotic arm with less perceived friction or with an apparent “lightweight” feel.")
the second mode of operation being a teleoperation mode in which the robotic arm follows commands generated via user control of the user console; and (See at least ¶0119 via As shown in FIG. 19, another example of a user mode is a teleoperation mode, in which the robotic arm is remotely controlled by a user interface device during the surgical procedure.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Hourtash in view of Koenig's specific teleoperation or manual manipulation modes for a surgical robotic system because Koenig discloses that these modes support differing controls/operational needs, and thus are obvious to include into the differing prioritization of controls/tasks that are required for the differing operation modes. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Sugiura's varying of task prioritization of Hourtash's specific tasks during a teleoperation mode of Koenig, because Koenig recognizes that manual and teleoperation modes support different operation needs, and also that certain tasks may be focused on in the teleoperation mode, such as collision avoidance: " The teleoperation mode may incorporate the gravity compensation mode, the trajectory following mode, and/or impedance control mode described above. In some variations, the trajectory following mode and/or the impedance control mode may focus on collision avoidance (e.g., with other robotic arms) while the robotic arm is in teleoperation mode." [Koenig ¶0119].
Regarding Claim 29, Modified Hourtash discloses the robotic system of Claim 28.
Furthermore, Hourtash discloses: wherein the plurality of tasks include: a first task comprising kinematic collision avoidance, (See at least ¶0066 via "The axis of joint J1 is coupled to a proximal portion of the arm so it can be used to change the position and orientation of the back of the arm. In general, redundant axes, such as this, allow the instrument tip to follow the surgeon's commands while simultaneously avoiding collisions with other arms or patient anatomy.")
a second task comprising joint limit avoidance,(See at least ¶0071 via " The increased flexibility of this exemplary manipulator can also be used to optimize the kinematics of the manipulator linkage so as to avoid joint limits, singularities, and the like.")
a third task comprising admittance null space motion (See at least ¶0064 via "In one aspect, the present invention allows a user to avoid movement of the instrument shaft near the above described conical portions by simply entering a command to reconfigure the manipulator as desired, even during movement of the end effector in a surgical procedure.")
a fourth task comprising motion toward a preferred joint position (See at least ¶0045 via "The present invention provides a desired movement, such as a combination of joints states or other such movement described herein, for the one or more joints during commanded end effector movement.").
Regarding Claim 30, Modified Hourtash discloses the robotic system of Claim 28.
Furthermore, Sugiura discloses the "first" and "second" modes (See at least ¶0065)
However, Sugiura does not explicitly disclose the operation modes being specifically “set-up” or "in surgery".
Nevertheless, Koenig discloses: wherein the first mode is in set-up and the second mode is in surgery (See at least ¶0115 via " As shown in FIG. 19, another example of a user mode is a setup mode, in which robotic arm may transition from a first pose (e.g., folded configuration for storage and transport) to a default pose (e.g., at least partially extended) such as a default setup pose or a predetermined template pose for a particular type of surgical procedure." and also ¶0119 via "As shown in FIG. 19, another example of a user mode is a teleoperation mode, in which the robotic arm is remotely controlled by a user interface device during the surgical procedure.")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Hourtash in view of Koenig's specific surgery or set-up modes for a surgical robotic system because Koenig discloses that these modes support differing controls/operational needs, and thus are obvious to include into the differing prioritization of controls/tasks that are required for the differing states of operation.
Regarding Claim 31, Modified Hourtash discloses the robotic system of Claim 28.
Furthermore, although Hourtash discloses adjusting weights based on a robot state, and the sets of tasks: the second set of one or more tasks being distinct from the first set of one or more tasks (See at least ¶0046 via " In one aspect, calculated null-space movement relating to various other objectives, such as an avoidance movements, commanded reconfiguration, desired manipulator poses or joint behaviors, may overlay the calculated joint velocities to achieve commanded end effector movement concurrent with achieving various other objectives.", also see at least ¶0101 via "From the calculated dq.sub.perp/dt and dq.sub.null/dt the system then calculates dq/dt and q using Equations (4) and (3), respectively, thereby providing the calculated movement by which the controller can effect the desired reconfiguration of the manipulator while maintaining the desired state of the end effector (and/or location of the remote center)." and ¶0045 via "The present invention provides a desired movement, such as a combination of joints states or other such movement described herein, for the one or more joints during commanded end effector movement" and also ¶0085 via "…management between multiple null-space objectives that may conflict or cancel one another other out…In such cases, the null-space manager would allow the arm-to-patient avoidance to win a tiebreaker, and in response, when in a direct conflict, the manipulator would drive itself into a neighboring manipulator before penetrating the patient's body surface.")
However, Hourtash does not explicitly disclose, but Sugiura discloses: wherein varying the prioritization of the one or more tasks in the second (See at least ¶0065 which illustrates the switch between prioritizing collision avoidance when the distance is less than a threshold (corresponding to the higher collision risk, as one of the modes the robot is operating in) versus the alternative, where the collision avoidance is not activated, and other task(s) can be prioritized; for example, motion control: ¶0028: "The weight of the motion control signal is assigned a higher value when the risk of collision is lower. The weight of the collision avoidance control signal assigned a higher value when the risk of collision is higher.")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Hourtash in view of Koenig's specific teleoperation or manual manipulation modes for a surgical robotic system because Koenig discloses that these modes support differing controls/operational needs, and thus are obvious to include into the differing prioritization of controls/tasks that are required for the differing operation modes. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Sugiura's varying of task prioritization of Hourtash's specific tasks during the switch to a teleoperation mode of Koenig, because Koenig recognizes that manual and teleoperation modes support different operation needs, and also that certain tasks may be focused on in the teleoperation mode, such as collision avoidance: " The teleoperation mode may incorporate the gravity compensation mode, the trajectory following mode, and/or impedance control mode described above. In some variations, the trajectory following mode and/or the impedance control mode may focus on collision avoidance (e.g., with other robotic arms) while the robotic arm is in teleoperation mode." [Koenig ¶0119].
Regarding Claim 34, Modified Hourtash discloses the robotic system of Claim 28.
Furthermore, Hourtash discloses: wherein the memory further includes instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: (See at least ¶0046 via " calculated null-space movement relating to various other objectives, such as an avoidance movements, commanded reconfiguration, desired manipulator poses or joint behaviors, may overlay the calculated joint velocities to achieve commanded end effector movement concurrent with achieving various other objectives" and ¶0011 via "perform a number of different null-space objectives and, often, a user may desire the manipulator to perform null-space movements that achieve multiple null-space objectives concurrently. For example, in a manipulator configured to effect four different objectives by null-space movements, a user may desire two or more of the objectives be achieved concurrently with commanded movement of the distal end effector." as well as Figure 1B).
Hourtash also discloses: kinematic collision avoidance and joint limit avoidance tasks (See at least ¶0066 via "The axis of joint J1 is coupled to a proximal portion of the arm so it can be used to change the position and orientation of the back of the arm. In general, redundant axes, such as this, allow the instrument tip to follow the surgeon's commands while simultaneously avoiding collisions with other arms or patient anatomy." and ¶0071 via " The increased flexibility of this exemplary manipulator can also be used to optimize the kinematics of the manipulator linkage so as to avoid joint limits, singularities, and the like.") and also
preferred joint position task (See at least ¶0045 via "The present invention provides a desired movement, such as a combination of joints states or other such movement described herein, for the one or more joints during commanded end effector movement.").
However, although Hourtash discloses the multiple null space objectives/tasks, Hourtash does not explicitly disclose the varying of the weighting.
Nevertheless, Sugiura discloses the varying of weighting to differing tasks, thus disclosing: vary a prioritization of one or more tasks in the third (See at least ¶0028 via "The collision avoidance module calculates a collision avoidance control signal based on the closest points of the segment of the robot and the virtual object. The blending control unit assigns weights to the motion control signal and the collision avoidance control signal to generate weighted motion control signal and weighted collision avoidance signal. The weight of the motion control signal is assigned a higher value when the risk of collision is lower. The weight of the collision avoidance control signal assigned a higher value when the risk of collision is higher. The blending control unit also combines the weighted motion control signal and the weighted collision avoidance control signal to generate a combined weighted signal according to which a motion of the robot is controlled.". Furthermore, Sugiura explicitly discloses assigning a higher weight to the collision avoidance over other objectives/tasks when collision risk is higher: ¶0073 via "f(d) is a gain factor which can assume values between 0 and 1 to represent the magnitude of danger of collisions, for example, as a function of the shortest distance between segments. If f(d) is equal to "1", the collision avoidance entirely takes over control. If f(d) is equal to "0", the robot controller entirely takes over control". Also see ¶0052 and ¶0077, and further see ¶0081 via "…collision avoidance control allocates higher priority to the collision avoidance task compared to the target reaching task").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Hourtash--who discloses joint limit avoidance and collision avoidance as well as consolidating multiple null space objectives--in view of Sugiura's switching/varying prioritization of tasks: " the direction of avoidance and how to switch the priority between target reaching motions and collision avoidance motions depending on the magnitude of danger of collisions in real-time must be decided. For instance, if the distance between segments is large enough, target reaching motions should have higher priority than collision avoidance motions." [Sugiura ¶0012] in order to consider the robots current situation and changing conditions in real-time, whilst improving the safety of the robotic system by avoiding collisions, and "enabl[ing] a smooth task priority switching" [Sugiura ¶0077].
However, although Sugiura discloses different modes of operation, Modified Hourtash does not explicitly disclose the third mode of operation being a coordinated table motion mode.
Nevertheless, Koenig discloses: during a third mode of operation of the robotic system and the third mode of operation being a coordinated table motion mode; (See at least ¶0122 via "The compliant virtual RCM mode may be used in conjunction with teleoperation mode or it may be engaged by the user selectively and intermittently. This mode may also be useful during cases in which the patient table is tilted during the procedure, as it would allow the arm to compliantly follow any shifts in patient tissue that result from the shift of the table (e.g., from Trendelenburg to reverse Trendelenburg position)."
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Hourtash to implement Sugiura's task prioritization during Koenig's specific coordinated table motion for a surgical robotic system because Koenig discloses modes supporting differing controls/operational needs, and thus are obvious to include into the differing prioritization of controls/tasks that are required for the differing states of operation. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill recognizes that safety should be prioritized when the spatial relationship between the robot and the patient tissue is shifted during the table motion, as the potential risk for collision increases, and thus it is obvious to apply Sugiura's prioritization of avoiding collision, in addition to Hourtash's joint limit avoidance to increase safety during the state of Koenig's coordinated table motion.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hourtash et. al. (US 20180243906 A1), Sugiura (US 20080312771 A1), and Koenig et. al. (US 20180079090 A1) in view of Bowling et. al. (US 20200030046 A1).
Regarding Claim 33, Modified Hourtash discloses the robotic system of Claim 29.
Furthermore, Hourtash discloses: at least one of the first, second, or fourth tasks and the first, second, and fourth tasks (See at least ¶0066 via "The axis of joint J1 is coupled to a proximal portion of the arm so it can be used to change the position and orientation of the back of the arm. In general, redundant axes, such as this, allow the instrument tip to follow the surgeon's commands while simultaneously avoiding collisions with other arms or patient anatomy." ; least ¶0071 via " The increased flexibility of this exemplary manipulator can also be used to optimize the kinematics of the manipulator linkage so as to avoid joint limits, singularities, and the like." ; and least ¶0045 via "The present invention provides a desired movement, such as a combination of joints states or other such movement described herein, for the one or more joints during commanded end effector movement.").
However, Hourtash does not explicitly disclose the assigning of a zero or non-zero weight in the prioritization.
Nevertheless, Sugiura discloses: wherein the memory further includes instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: during the first state of operation, assign a non-zero weight to at least one of the first, second, or fourth tasks; and, during the second state of operation, assign a zero weight to each of the first, second, and fourth tasks (See at least ¶0075 via " If d is larger than d.sub.a, the collision avoidance control is deactivated and the robot tracks the trajectory which is generated by the whole body motion control. However, trajectories computed by the whole body motion take into account collision avoidance in null space. If d is smaller than d.sub.a, the collision avoidance is activated. The ratio between them depends on the shortest distance between the closest segments." **Wherein activating corresponds to assigning a non-zero weight, and deactivating corresponds to assigning a zero weight, and wherein, these weights are triggered by the various states (distance being less than or more than a threshold which corresponds to danger of collision). Also see ¶0023 via "…the weight of the collision avoidance output signal can be zero as long as the distance between the closest points is larger than a preset avoidance threshold distance…" and ¶0028 via "The weight of the motion control signal is assigned a higher value when the risk of collision is lower. The weight of the collision avoidance control signal assigned a higher value when the risk of collision is higher. The blending control unit also combines the weighted motion control signal and the weighted collision avoidance control signal to generate a combined weighted signal according to which a motion of the robot is controlled.")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Hourtash in view of Sugiura's weighting of tasks based on the states in order to improve safety of the system by considering the robot's current situation and changing conditions in real-time. For example, by ensuring the robot can avoid collision in a state where it is close to an obstacle, and deactivating the avoidance in order to accomplish other tasks when the robot is far enough away from obstacles: " the direction of avoidance and how to switch the priority between target reaching motions and collision avoidance motions depending on the magnitude of danger of collisions in real-time must be decided. For instance, if the distance between segments is large enough, target reaching motions should have higher priority than collision avoidance motions." [Sugiura ¶0012].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA RENEE DOROS whose telephone number is (703)756-1415. The examiner can normally be reached Generally: M-F (8-5) EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached on (571) 270-3976. 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.
/K.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3657 /ABBY LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
