DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant the independent claims substantially as discussed in the telephone interview. However, as indicated by Examiner during the interview, Yanagihara still teaches these limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation. New claim 22 appears to contain minor informalities, but appears to claim allowable subject matter.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 22 appears to contain a typographical error. Examiner believes the claim should read, in relevant part, “ … (iv) a fourth damping region responsive to the speed or velocity being greater than the third threshold, the variable damping coefficient having a fourth non-zero value greater than the second non-zero value in the fourth damping region.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-10, 12-15, 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henrywood (US 20210315652 A1) in view of Yanagihara ((US 20140135795 A1).
Claim 1
Henrywood teaches
a robotic user interface comprising
one or more links and one or more joints that cooperate to facilitate remote manipulation of a medical tool;
(Henrywood - [0002] FIG. 1 illustrates surgical robots 101, 102, 103 performing an operation on a person 104. Each robot comprises a base connected to a surgical instrument via a flexible arm. The robots are controlled remotely by a surgeon. The surgeon is located at a surgeon console 200, shown in FIG. 2. The surgeon manipulates hand controllers 201, 202. A control system converts the movement of the hand controllers into control signals to move the arm joints and/or instrument end effector of a surgical robot.
[0039] Figure 5 illustrates a hand controller of the surgeon console and its connection to the base of the surgeon console. The hand controller 501 is connected to the base of the surgeon console 503 by an articulated linkage 502. The linkage 502 is articulated by means of multiple flexible joints 504 along its length. In between the joints are rigid links 505. Thus, the configuration of the linkage 502 can be altered by manipulating the joints. The linkage comprises a set of drivers 506. Each driver 506 drives one or more joints 504.)
and a control unit configured to:
receive motion information from the one or more joints;
(Henrywood - [0040] The surgeon console comprises a series of sensors. These sensors comprise, for each joint, one or both of a position sensor 507 for sensing the position of the joint, and a torque sensor 508 for sensing the applied torque about the joint's rotation axis. One or both of the position and torque sensors for a joint may be integrated with the motor for that joint. The outputs of the sensors are passed to the control unit 303 where they form inputs to the processor 312.)
determine a damping modifier from a plurality of different damping modifiers based on the received motion information;
(Henrywood - [0062] In the case of position sensors, the control unit receives a set of joint positions of the linkage joints from the position sensors. From this and the stored geometry of the linkage, the control unit determines the configuration of the linkage for that set of joint positions. The control unit receives subsequent sets of joint positions at subsequent times. The control unit determines the configuration of the linkage at each of those subsequent times. The control unit thus determines the displacement of the linkage over time, i.e. the velocity of the linkage. The control unit determines that an external force additional to gravity is acting on the hand controller if the velocity of the linkage is non-zero after gravity has been accounted for.
[0065] The control unit may choose the value of B2 so as to provide any one of the following responses to the detection of the external force: a heavily damped motion in the direction of the external force, a lightly damped motion in the direction of the external force, or a wholly damped motion in the direction of the external force such that the hand controller is prevented from moving at all. The control unit may choose to provide a non-linear damping motion in the direction of the external force. This damping motion may be spring-like.)
and apply the determined damping modifier to at least one joint of the one or more joints to modify a force or torque of the at least one joint during the remote manipulation of the medical tool.
(Henrywood- [0064] … The control unit then controls the drivers to apply a resistive torque to the joints of the linkage according to equation 1. Although the control unit causes the drivers to drive the linkage in the direction of the external force, that driven motion is heavily damped because of the coefficient B2 of the velocity component of the force.)
and determine a velocity vector for the robotic user interface based on the motion information,
(Henrywood - [0055] The following describes examples in which the control unit 303 utilises sensory data received from the surgeon console 304 to detect when a gravity compensated hand controller has been moved by a force other than that applied by a surgeon's hand during a surgical procedure. The control unit 303 responds by controlling the drivers of the linkage to drive the joints of the linkage so as to provide a resistive response in the direction of the external force. The force applied to each joint by the control system (excluding the force applied to counteract gravitational torque acting on the joint) is given by (a vector version of):
PNG
media_image1.png
35
485
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the damping modifier being a damping coefficient determined based on the velocity vector,
(Henrywood - [0062] In the case of position sensors, the control unit receives a set of joint positions of the linkage joints from the position sensors. From this and the stored geometry of the linkage, the control unit determines the configuration of the linkage for that set of joint positions. The control unit receives subsequent sets of joint positions at subsequent times. The control unit determines the configuration of the linkage at each of those subsequent times. The control unit thus determines the displacement of the linkage over time, i.e. the velocity of the linkage. The control unit determines that an external force additional to gravity is acting on the hand controller if the velocity of the linkage is non-zero after gravity has been accounted for.)
EXAMINER NOTE: An external force is detected when the velocity is non-zero. In response, a damping coefficient is generated as outlined above to provide the proper resistive force.
Henrywood may not explicitly teach the following limitations in combination. However, Yanagihara teaches
the damping coefficient being selected from a plurality of non-zero values based on the velocity vector.
EXAMINER NOTE: See Fig. 3B. The damping coefficient varies with velocity, and is selected from non-zero values in each damping region
PNG
media_image2.png
186
195
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Henrywood’s control by implementing Yanagihara’s suggestion to vary proportionality of resistance with velocity in order to increase stability and reduce stress on the operator.
(Yanagihara - [0055] The driving force f is set in a state as the graph shown in FIG. 3A. For this reason, for example, like the motion of applying the needle, in a case in which the first master arm 21 is gradually moved at the rotational angular speed having a small absolute value, the manipulation resistance is set so as to increase with a relatively great level and the manipulation resistance is stabilized. Meanwhile, like a treatment that stops bleeding, when the first master arm 21 is moved at the rotational angular speed of a large absolute value, the manipulation resistance is set to a relatively small level, which prevents the rapid operation of the operator from being disturbed. That is, depending on the operation input to the master arm 2, the manipulation resistance is suitably adjusted in conjunction with the contents of the operation. For this reason, an appropriate manipulation resistance is constantly generated in the master arm 2. As a result, stress of the operator is reduced, and thus the operator can easily and suitably perform various operations.
[0056] In this embodiment, the driving force setting pattern is not limited to that shown in FIG. 3A. Thus, as shown on FIG. 3B, when the absolute value of the rotational angular speed .omega. is within a predetermined range R1, that is, the amount of motion of the master arm is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold value, the value of the driving force f may be fixed to a predetermined value that is relatively larger than the predetermined range R1.)
Claim 3
The combination of Henrywood and Yanagihara teaches the limitations of claim 1. The cited combination also teaches
wherein the damping coefficient is selected based on a damping function comprising
(i) a first damping region responsive to the velocity vector satisfying a first threshold and
(ii) a second damping region responsive to the velocity vector satisfying a second threshold.
EXAMINER NOTE: See Yanagihara, Fig. 3B, cited with respect to the rejection of claim 1. The function comprises at least four damping regions corresponding to the velocity being within our outside of the range R1.
Claim 4
The combination of Henrywood and Yanagihara teaches the limitations of claim 1. The cited combination also teaches
wherein the damping modifier comprises a continuous non-constant relationship in response to the velocity vector.
EXAMINER NOTE: See Yanagihara, Fig. 3B, cited with respect to the rejection of claim 1. The damping function is continuous and varies with velocity.
Claim 6
The combination of Henrywood and Yanagihara teaches the limitations of claim 1. The cited combination also teaches
wherein the motion information comprises
a magnitude of a force applied to the robotic user interface
(Henrywood - [0062] In the case of position sensors, the control unit receives a set of joint positions of the linkage joints from the position sensors. From this and the stored geometry of the linkage, the control unit determines the configuration of the linkage for that set of joint positions. The control unit receives subsequent sets of joint positions at subsequent times. The control unit determines the configuration of the linkage at each of those subsequent times. The control unit thus determines the displacement of the linkage over time, i.e. the velocity of the linkage. The control unit determines that an external force additional to gravity is acting on the hand controller if the velocity of the linkage is non-zero after gravity has been accounted for.)
Claim 7
The combination of Henrywood and Yanagihara teaches the limitations of claim 1. The cited combination also teaches
wherein the motion information comprises a current position of the robotic user interface.
(Henrywood - [0062] In the case of position sensors, the control unit receives a set of joint positions of the linkage joints from the position sensors. From this and the stored geometry of the linkage, the control unit determines the configuration of the linkage for that set of joint positions. The control unit receives subsequent sets of joint positions at subsequent times. The control unit determines the configuration of the linkage at each of those subsequent times. The control unit thus determines the displacement of the linkage over time, i.e. the velocity of the linkage. The control unit determines that an external force additional to gravity is acting on the hand controller if the velocity of the linkage is non-zero after gravity has been accounted for.)
Claim 8
The combination of Henrywood and Yanagihara teaches the limitations of claim 1. The cited combination also teaches
wherein determining the damping modifier comprises:
indexing a plurality of damping modifiers by a speed or velocity of at least a portion of the robotic user interface,
the determined damping modifier corresponding to the speed or velocity.
EXAMINER NOTE: See Fig. 3B. The force increases as soon as velocity is above zero, and decreases when velocity increases beyond the range R1. Each value of velocity is mapped (indexed) to a corresponding force value.
Claim 9
The combination of Henrywood and Yanagihara teaches the limitations of claim 1. The cited combination also teaches
wherein the applied damping modifier causes the force or torque of the at least one joint to
change proportional to a current speed or velocity of a portion of the robotic user interface when the current speed or velocity is within a first range,
and to change inversely proportional to the current speed or velocity when the current speed or velocity is within a second range.
EXAMINER NOTE: See Fig. 3B. The force increases as soon as velocity is above zero, and decreases when velocity increases beyond the range R1.
Claim 10
The combination of Henrywood and Yanagihara teaches the limitations of claim 1. The cited combination also teaches
wherein the applied damping modifier causes the force or torque of the at least one joint to remain fixed when within a third range.
EXAMINER NOTE: See Fig. 3B. The force remains constant while velocity within the range R1.
Claim 12
The combination of Henrywood and Yanagihara teaches the limitations of claim 10. The cited combination also teaches
wherein the applied damping modifier modifies the force or torque according to a logarithmic decay when the current speed or velocity is within a fourth range.
(Yanagihara - [0055] The driving force f is set in a state as the graph shown in FIG. 3A. For this reason, for example, like the motion of applying the needle, in a case in which the first master arm 21 is gradually moved at the rotational angular speed having a small absolute value, the manipulation resistance is set so as to increase with a relatively great level and the manipulation resistance is stabilized. Meanwhile, like a treatment that stops bleeding, when the first master arm 21 is moved at the rotational angular speed of a large absolute value, the manipulation resistance is set to a relatively small level, which prevents the rapid operation of the operator from being disturbed. That is, depending on the operation input to the master arm 2, the manipulation resistance is suitably adjusted in conjunction with the contents of the operation. For this reason, an appropriate manipulation resistance is constantly generated in the master arm 2. As a result, stress of the operator is reduced, and thus the operator can easily and suitably perform various operations.
EXAMINER NOTE: See driving force setting patterns shown in 3A and 3B. The force appears to decrease logarithmically.
(Yanagihara - [0056] In this embodiment, the driving force setting pattern is not limited to that shown in FIG. 3A. Thus, as shown on FIG. 3B, when the absolute value of the rotational angular speed .omega. is within a predetermined range R1, that is, the amount of motion of the master arm is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold value, the value of the driving force f may be fixed to a predetermined value that is relatively larger than the predetermined range R1.)
EXAMINER NOTE: Setting pattern may also take the form of 3B, which has four distinct zones (inside R1 and positive, outside R1 and positive, inside R1 and negative, outsize R1 and negative).
PNG
media_image3.png
469
335
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Henrywood’s control with Yanagihara’s suggestion to vary feedback with velocity in order to reduce stress of the operator, adjust feedback to suit the operation at hand, and stabilize feedback at small velocities (see [0055] of Yanagihara, cited above). Additionally, in the discussion from paragraphs 55-60, Yanagihara discusses additional possible force setting patterns, which appear to indicate that the particular function used to modulate force (such as logarithmic decay) is a choice left to the designer to suite a given application.
Claim 13
The combination of Henrywood and Yanagihara teaches the limitations of claim 1. The cited combination also teaches
wherein the determined damping modifier modifies an angular speed of the at least one joint.
EXAMINER NOTE: See Fig. 5. Due to the structure of the input device, the joint angular velocities must necessarily be modified to change the haptic feedback.
PNG
media_image4.png
320
316
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 14
The combination of Henrywood and Yanagihara teaches the limitations of claim 1. The cited combination also teaches
wherein the control unit is configured to continuously repeat determining and applying the damping modifier during a movement of at least a portion of the robotic user interface.
EXAMINER NOTE: See Fig. 7 illustrating the calculation of damping parameter B. The process is repeated continuously.
Claim 15
Henrywood teaches
robotically facilitating movement of a medical tool based on a manipulation of a robotic user interface comprising one or more links and one or more joints that cooperate to facilitate remote manipulation of the medical tool;
(Henrywood - [0002] FIG. 1 illustrates surgical robots 101, 102, 103 performing an operation on a person 104. Each robot comprises a base connected to a surgical instrument via a flexible arm. The robots are controlled remotely by a surgeon. The surgeon is located at a surgeon console 200, shown in FIG. 2. The surgeon manipulates hand controllers 201, 202. A control system converts the movement of the hand controllers into control signals to move the arm joints and/or instrument end effector of a surgical robot.
[0039] Figure 5 illustrates a hand controller of the surgeon console and its connection to the base of the surgeon console. The hand controller 501 is connected to the base of the surgeon console 503 by an articulated linkage 502. The linkage 502 is articulated by means of multiple flexible joints 504 along its length. In between the joints are rigid links 505. Thus, the configuration of the linkage 502 can be altered by manipulating the joints. The linkage comprises a set of drivers 506. Each driver 506 drives one or more joints 504.)
receiving motion information from the one or more joints;
(Henrywood - [0040] The surgeon console comprises a series of sensors. These sensors comprise, for each joint, one or both of a position sensor 507 for sensing the position of the joint, and a torque sensor 508 for sensing the applied torque about the joint's rotation axis. One or both of the position and torque sensors for a joint may be integrated with the motor for that joint. The outputs of the sensors are passed to the control unit 303 where they form inputs to the processor 312.)
determining a damping modifier from a plurality of different damping modifiers based on the received motion information;
(Henrywood - [0062] In the case of position sensors, the control unit receives a set of joint positions of the linkage joints from the position sensors. From this and the stored geometry of the linkage, the control unit determines the configuration of the linkage for that set of joint positions. The control unit receives subsequent sets of joint positions at subsequent times. The control unit determines the configuration of the linkage at each of those subsequent times. The control unit thus determines the displacement of the linkage over time, i.e. the velocity of the linkage. The control unit determines that an external force additional to gravity is acting on the hand controller if the velocity of the linkage is non-zero after gravity has been accounted for.
[0065] The control unit may choose the value of B2 so as to provide any one of the following responses to the detection of the external force: a heavily damped motion in the direction of the external force, a lightly damped motion in the direction of the external force, or a wholly damped motion in the direction of the external force such that the hand controller is prevented from moving at all. The control unit may choose to provide a non-linear damping motion in the direction of the external force. This damping motion may be spring-like.)
and applying the determined damping modifier to at least one joint of the one or more joints to modify a force or torque of the at least one joint during the remote manipulation of the medical tool.
(Henrywood- [0064] … The control unit then controls the drivers to apply a resistive torque to the joints of the linkage according to equation 1. Although the control unit causes the drivers to drive the linkage in the direction of the external force, that driven motion is heavily damped because of the coefficient B2 of the velocity component of the force.)
and determining a speed or velocity for the robotic user interface based on the motion information,
(Henrywood - [0055] The following describes examples in which the control unit 303 utilises sensory data received from the surgeon console 304 to detect when a gravity compensated hand controller has been moved by a force other than that applied by a surgeon's hand during a surgical procedure. The control unit 303 responds by controlling the drivers of the linkage to drive the joints of the linkage so as to provide a resistive response in the direction of the external force. The force applied to each joint by the control system (excluding the force applied to counteract gravitational torque acting on the joint) is given by (a vector version of):
PNG
media_image1.png
35
485
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the damping modifier being a damping coefficient determined based on the speed or velocity,
(Henrywood - [0062] In the case of position sensors, the control unit receives a set of joint positions of the linkage joints from the position sensors. From this and the stored geometry of the linkage, the control unit determines the configuration of the linkage for that set of joint positions. The control unit receives subsequent sets of joint positions at subsequent times. The control unit determines the configuration of the linkage at each of those subsequent times. The control unit thus determines the displacement of the linkage over time, i.e. the velocity of the linkage. The control unit determines that an external force additional to gravity is acting on the hand controller if the velocity of the linkage is non-zero after gravity has been accounted for.)
EXAMINER NOTE: An external force is detected when the velocity is non-zero. In response, a damping coefficient is generated as outlined above to provide the proper resistive force.
Henrywood may not explicitly teach the following limitations in combination. However, Yanagihara teaches
Determining the damping modifier including selecting the damping coefficient from a plurality of non-zero values based on the speed or velocity
EXAMINER NOTE: See Fig. 3B. The damping coefficient is selected from non-zero values in each region
PNG
media_image2.png
186
195
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Henrywood’s control by implementing Yanagihara’s suggestion to vary proportionality of resistance with velocity in order to increase stability and reduce stress on the operator.
(Yanagihara - [0055] The driving force f is set in a state as the graph shown in FIG. 3A. For this reason, for example, like the motion of applying the needle, in a case in which the first master arm 21 is gradually moved at the rotational angular speed having a small absolute value, the manipulation resistance is set so as to increase with a relatively great level and the manipulation resistance is stabilized. Meanwhile, like a treatment that stops bleeding, when the first master arm 21 is moved at the rotational angular speed of a large absolute value, the manipulation resistance is set to a relatively small level, which prevents the rapid operation of the operator from being disturbed. That is, depending on the operation input to the master arm 2, the manipulation resistance is suitably adjusted in conjunction with the contents of the operation. For this reason, an appropriate manipulation resistance is constantly generated in the master arm 2. As a result, stress of the operator is reduced, and thus the operator can easily and suitably perform various operations.
[0056] In this embodiment, the driving force setting pattern is not limited to that shown in FIG. 3A. Thus, as shown on FIG. 3B, when the absolute value of the rotational angular speed .omega. is within a predetermined range R1, that is, the amount of motion of the master arm is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold value, the value of the driving force f may be fixed to a predetermined value that is relatively larger than the predetermined range R1.)
Claim 17
Henrywood teaches
one or more links and joints to enable manipulation of the medical tool;
(Henrywood - [0002] FIG. 1 illustrates surgical robots 101, 102, 103 performing an operation on a person 104. Each robot comprises a base connected to a surgical instrument via a flexible arm. The robots are controlled remotely by a surgeon. The surgeon is located at a surgeon console 200, shown in FIG. 2. The surgeon manipulates hand controllers 201, 202. A control system converts the movement of the hand controllers into control signals to move the arm joints and/or instrument end effector of a surgical robot.
[0039] Figure 5 illustrates a hand controller of the surgeon console and its connection to the base of the surgeon console. The hand controller 501 is connected to the base of the surgeon console 503 by an articulated linkage 502. The linkage 502 is articulated by means of multiple flexible joints 504 along its length. In between the joints are rigid links 505. Thus, the configuration of the linkage 502 can be altered by manipulating the joints. The linkage comprises a set of drivers 506. Each driver 506 drives one or more joints 504.)
and one or more sensors positioned on the one or more links and joints to transmit information corresponding to a speed or velocity and/or position to a control unit,
(Henrywood - [0037] … The sensory inputs may also include sensory data from position sensors and/or torque sensors sensing joints of the linkages connecting the hand controller to the base of the surgeon console. One or more of the position sensors and/or torque sensors may be located on the joints themselves. For example, a position/torque sensor may be located on the actuator of the joint it is sensing, that actuator being co-located with the joint.)
wherein the control unit is configured to:
apply, based on the transmitted information, a variable damping function to modify a force or torque of one or more of the links and joints.
(Henrywood- [0064] … The control unit then controls the drivers to apply a resistive torque to the joints of the linkage according to equation 1. Although the control unit causes the drivers to drive the linkage in the direction of the external force, that driven motion is heavily damped because of the coefficient B2 of the velocity component of the force.)
Henrywood may not explicitly teach the following limitations in combination. However, Yanagihara teaches
The variable damping function applying a variable damping coefficient that varies between a plurality of values based on the speed or velocity
EXAMINER NOTE: See Fig. 3B. The damping coefficient is selected from non-zero values in each region
PNG
media_image2.png
186
195
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Henrywood’s control by implementing Yanagihara’s suggestion to vary proportionality of resistance with velocity in order to increase stability and reduce stress on the operator.
(Yanagihara - [0055] The driving force f is set in a state as the graph shown in FIG. 3A. For this reason, for example, like the motion of applying the needle, in a case in which the first master arm 21 is gradually moved at the rotational angular speed having a small absolute value, the manipulation resistance is set so as to increase with a relatively great level and the manipulation resistance is stabilized. Meanwhile, like a treatment that stops bleeding, when the first master arm 21 is moved at the rotational angular speed of a large absolute value, the manipulation resistance is set to a relatively small level, which prevents the rapid operation of the operator from being disturbed. That is, depending on the operation input to the master arm 2, the manipulation resistance is suitably adjusted in conjunction with the contents of the operation. For this reason, an appropriate manipulation resistance is constantly generated in the master arm 2. As a result, stress of the operator is reduced, and thus the operator can easily and suitably perform various operations.
[0056] In this embodiment, the driving force setting pattern is not limited to that shown in FIG. 3A. Thus, as shown on FIG. 3B, when the absolute value of the rotational angular speed .omega. is within a predetermined range R1, that is, the amount of motion of the master arm is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold value, the value of the driving force f may be fixed to a predetermined value that is relatively larger than the predetermined range R1.)
Claim 18
The combination of Henrywood and Yanagihara teaches the limitations of claim 17 as outlined above. The cited combination also teaches
wherein the variable damping function comprises
(i) a first damping region responsive to the speed or velocity satisfying a first threshold and
(ii) a second damping region responsive to the speed or velocity satisfying a second threshold.
EXAMINER NOTE: See Yanagihara, Fig. 3B, cited with respect to the rejection of claim 1. The function comprises at least four damping regions corresponding to the velocity being within our outside of the range R1.
Claim 19
The combination of Henrywood and Yanagihara teaches the limitations of claim 18 as outlined above. The cited combination also teaches
wherein in the first damping region, the variable damping function comprises a constant damping coefficient, and wherein in the second damping region, the variable damping function comprises a non-constant damping coefficient.
EXAMINER NOTE: See Yanagihara, Fig. 3B, cited with respect to the rejection of claim 1. The function comprises a constant damping region and a non-constant damping region
Claim 20
The combination of Henrywood and Yanagihara teaches the limitations of claim 17 as outlined above. The cited combination also teaches
wherein the variable damping function comprises a continuous non-constant relationship responsive to the speed or velocity.
EXAMINER NOTE: See Yanagihara, Fig. 3B, cited with respect to the rejection of claim 1. The damping function is continuous and varies with velocity.
Claim 21
The combination of Henrywood and Yanagihara teaches the limitations of claim 17 as outlined above. The cited combination also teaches
the plurality of values excluding zero
EXAMINER NOTE: See Fig. 3B. The damping coefficient is selected from non-zero values in each region
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henrywood and Yanagihara as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang (US-20190350662-A1).
Claim 5
Henrywood and Yanagihara teaches the limitations of claim 2 as outlined above. Regarding the limitations of claim 5,
wherein receiving the motion information comprises receiving a force vector for each of a plurality of joints,
Henrywood discloses detecting the load on each joint of the input device.
(Henrywood - [0055] The following describes examples in which the control unit 303 utilises sensory data received from the surgeon console 304 to detect when a gravity compensated hand controller has been moved by a force other than that applied by a surgeon's hand during a surgical procedure. The control unit 303 responds by controlling the drivers of the linkage to drive the joints of the linkage so as to provide a resistive response in the direction of the external force. The force applied to each joint by the control system (excluding the force applied to counteract gravitational torque acting on the joint) is given by (a vector version of):
PNG
media_image5.png
30
419
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[0061] At step 705, the control unit assesses whether there is an external force acting on the hand controller. The control unit determines whether there is an external force acting on the hand controller using sensory data from either or both of position sensors and torques sensors sensing the joints 504 of linkage 502. As explained above, this external force is additional to the gravitational force acting on the hand controller.)
EXAMINER NOTE: The contribution of force is detected in each joint. Paragraph 55 and equation 1 indicate that a vector is detected in each joint.
Henrywood may not explicitly disclose that the velocity vector is determined based on received force vectors. However, Huang discusses the advantages provided by admittance control, and thus teaches
wherein the velocity vector is determined based on the received force vectors.
(Huang - [0120] … For example, under admittance control, when a user imparts a force on the controller, the system can measure the force and assist the user in moving the controller by driving one or more motors associated with the controller, thereby resulting in desired velocities and/or positions of the controller. Stated another way, for admittance control, a force sensor or load cell measures the force that the operator is applying to the controller and moves the controller as well as the coupled robotically-enabled medical instrument 310 in a way that feels light. Admittance control may feel lighter than impedance control because, under admittance control, one can hide the perceived inertia of the controller because motors in the controller can help to accelerate the mass.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Henrywood's control with Huang's suggestion to implement admittance control in order to reduce fatigue on the operator.
(Huang - [0116] In many instances, it is desired that the controller 102 be easily manipulated by the operator such that the operator has fine and precise control over the medical tool 312 and can use the controller 102 without becoming over-tired. One metric for measuring the ease of manipulation of a controller is the perceived inertia and/or perceived mass of the system. )
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henrywood and Yanagihara as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Azizian (US 20170172681 A1).
Claim 11
Henrywood and Yanagihara teach the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. The cited combination may not explicitly teach the following limitations in combination, but Azizian teaches
wherein the applied damping modifier modifies the force or torque of the at least one joint by a variable amount when a current speed or velocity of a portion of the robotic user interface is within a first range, and by a fixed amount when within a second range greater than the first range.
(Azizian - [0038] The virtual feedback models may be non-linear as well, such as is shown in a non-linear feedback model 430. Non-linear feedback model 430 includes three zones of general feedback operation. In a start-up zone 432, little or no feedback is applied until the displacement exceeds a start-up threshold. In some examples, start-up zone 432 may reduce undesirable vibrations in the input control due to the applied feedback and/or provide a start-up region with no feedback. In a primary operational zone 434, the amount of feedback may be approximately proportional to the amount of displacement. And, in a saturation zone 436, the amount of feedback provided may reach a pre-assigned maximum value. In some examples, the pre-assigned maximum value may be based on a maximum amount of feedback that may be supplied by the one or more haptic actuators, a physical strength of a user, and/or the like.
[0039] The virtual feedback models may also include hysteresis and/or hysteresis-like effects, as is shown in a hysteresis feedback model 440. Like non-linear feedback model 430, hysteresis feedback model 440 includes a start-up zone 442, a ramp-up operational zone 444, and a saturation zone 446. Hysteresis feedback model 440 further includes a ramp-down operational zone 448 that is different from ramp-up operational zone 444. In some examples, hysteresis feedback model 440 provides the advantages of non-linear feedback model 430, but may also provide a better return to reference point characteristic as feedback may be applied up to the point where the input control is returned to the reference point.
[0040] Although not shown in FIG. 4, other variations in the virtual feedback models are possible. According to some embodiments, the virtual feedback models may represent other physical components. In some examples, the horizontal axis may represent position and/or velocity rather than displacement. In some examples, the vertical axis may represent force, friction, and/or the like. According to some embodiments, more complex virtual feedback models may be used. In some examples, the virtual feedback model may approximate a piece-wise linear behavior. In some examples, other non-linear models may be used.)
EXAMINER NOTE: See model 440 of Fig. 4, annotated below.
PNG
media_image6.png
468
389
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Henrywood and Yanagihara with Azizian's suggestion to implement a hysteresis feedback model as shown in 440 in order to provide a better return to reference point. Note that this model also satisfies the limitations of claim 1 and may also be used in lieu of Yanagihara's model.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but appears to be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the minor informalities (mentioned above) were corrected.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art teaches a plethora of variable damping strategies, but none of the prior art uncovered during Examiner’s search reasonably teach or suggest
wherein the variable damping function comprises:
(i) a first damping region responsive to the speed or velocity being between zero and a first threshold, the variable damping coefficient having a first non-zero value in the first damping region
(ii) a second damping region responsive ot the speed or velocity being between a first threshold and a second threshold greater than the first threshold, the variable damping coefficient having a second non-zero value greater than the first non-zero value in the second damping region
(iii) a third damping region responsive to the speed or velocity being between the second threshold and a third threshold greater than the second threshold, the variable damping coefficient having a third non-zero value less than the second non-zero value in the third damping region
(iv) a fourth damping region responsive to the speed or velocity being greater than the third threshold, the variable coefficient having a fourth non-zero value greater than the second non-zero value in the fourth damping region.
(iv) a fourth damping region responsive to the speed or velocity being greater than the third threshold, the variable [damping] coefficient having a fourth non-zero value greater than the second non-zero value in the fourth damping region.
Examiner uncovered no suggestion to arrange a variable damping function in the specific combination of regions and non-zero values claimed in claim 22. The prior art tends to teach damping regions that trend towards increasing with increasing velocity (see at least Azizian) or decreasing with increasing velocity (see at least Yanagihara). Mallet (US-6292174-B1) and Rosenberg (US 6252579 B1, US 6219032 B1), for example, also teach variable damping functions, but they suffer from the same deficiencies as Azizian and Yanagihara. Examiner is unable to find an explicit teaching in the prior art which causes damping to increase with velocity from a first range to a second range, decrease with velocity in a third range after a second range, and increase again in a fourth range to a level higher than the damping in the second range, where each range contains at least one non-zero value. The claimed invention results in a thoughtful method of adapting damping to a user such that ergonomics and safety are achieved in a balanced manner.
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 JAMES MILLER WATTS whose telephone number is (703)756-1249. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-TH.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 571-270-5376. 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.
/JAMES MILLER WATTS III/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657