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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of priority document KR10-2021-0063507 has been received.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a manipulation unit” in Claim 1, “a hysteresis compensation drive control unit” in Claim 1, “a mode switching unit” in Claim 4, “a forward direction compensation mode control unit” in Claims 4-8, “a reverse direction compensation mode control unit” in Claims 4-8, “an operation mode control unit” in Claim 4, “a motor initial position value calculation unit” in Claim 6, “a motor electric current change check unit” in Claim 6, “a motor final position value calculation unit” in Claim 6, “a compensation value calculation unit” in Claim 6, “motor initial position value calculation unit” in Claim 8, “a camera pixel change check unit” in Claim 8, “a motor final position value calculation unit” in Claim 8, and “a compensation value calculation unit” in Claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
More specifically, the unit element specified above either are not shown in the figures, or else are described merely as boxes without any structural features.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show, or fail to show structural detail, of “a manipulation unit”, “a hysteresis compensation drive control unit”, “a mode switching unit”, “a forward direction compensation mode control unit”, “a reverse direction compensation mode control unit”, “an operation mode control unit”, “a motor initial position value calculation unit”, “a motor electric current change check unit”, “a motor final position value calculation unit”, “a compensation value calculation unit”, “motor initial position value calculation unit”, “a camera pixel change check unit”, “a motor final position value calculation unit”, and/or “a compensation value calculation unit”, as described in the specification.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
More specifically, the “a manipulation unit”, “a hysteresis compensation drive control unit”, “a mode switching unit”, “a forward direction compensation mode control unit”, “a reverse direction compensation mode control unit”, “an operation mode control unit”, “a motor initial position value calculation unit”, “a motor electric current change check unit”, “a motor final position value calculation unit”, “a compensation value calculation unit”, “motor initial position value calculation unit”, “a camera pixel change check unit”, “a motor final position value calculation unit”, and “a compensation value calculation unit” are not provided with any structural features in the specification, figures, or claims.
For purposes of examination, Examiner interprets these elements as computer processors.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Root et al. (US PGPUB 2004/0193016 – “Root”) in view of Iida et al. (US PGPUB 2016/0360947 – “Iida”).
PNG
media_image1.png
514
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Root discloses:
A surgical tool device (endoscope shown in Examiner-annotated Root FIG. 12 above) having a wire hysteresis compensation function, the surgical tool device comprising:
a flexible tube part (Root FIG. 12, insertion portion/shaft 10) having a surgical tool disposed in a channel that is positioned inside the flexible tube part (Root FIG. 12, working channel 37; Root paragraph [0049], “This working channel is used to guide NDT probes and remediation tools down the scope to the remote area of interest.”), the flexible tube part being configured such that a position and an orientation of the flexible tube part are changed according to a traction of a traction wire (Root FIG. 12, control wires 41; Root paragraph [0049]);
a manipulation unit (Root FIG. 12B, articulation mechanism) to which a manipulation command is input so as to control the position and the orientation of the flexible tube part or to control a position and an orientation of the surgical tool (Root paragraph [0049], “The articulation mechanism uses control wires 41 to cause the bending section 33 at the distal tip to articulate.”).
Root does not explicitly disclose a hysteresis compensation drive control unit provided with a plurality of modes so as to change the position and the orientation of the flexible tube part or the position and the orientation of the surgical tool according to the manipulation command of the manipulation unit by using the traction wire, and so as to control hysteresis compensation by, in an idle state, calibrating hysteresis of the wire that is stretched according to use.
Iida teaches a hysteresis compensation drive control unit (Iida FIG. 3 and FIG. 4, motor 35 and control unit 50) provided with a plurality of modes so as to change the position and the orientation of the flexible tube part or the position and the orientation of the surgical tool according to the manipulation command of the manipulation unit by using the traction wire (Iida FIG. 4; Iida paragraphs [0055] – [0063], “compensation value calculating unit 55 detects displacement of the joint portion 22 based on at least one of the position and the orientation of the joint portion 22 which is calculated by the image processing unit 54, generates a compensation value for compensating for a difference between the input (command) 58 and the displacement of the joint portion 22, and incorporates the compensation value into the parameter”), and so as to control hysteresis compensation by, in an idle state, calibrating hysteresis of the wire that is stretched according to use (Iida paragraph [0061]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Iida’s hysteresis compensation drive control unit with the endoscope/surgical tool device disclosed by Root. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an endoscope that compensates for instrument movement lag in order to efficiently know the position and movement of the instrument (see Iida paragraph [0061]).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Root et al. (US PGPUB 2004/0193016 – “Root”) in view of Iida et al. (US PGPUB 2016/0360947 – “Iida”) and Nimkar et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0228636 – “Nimkar”).
Regarding Claim 2, Root in view of Iida teach the features of Claim 1, as described above.
Root further discloses a camera part (Root FIG. 12A, showing image guide 38 next to working channel 37).
Iida further teaches a motor part (Iida FIG. 3, motor 35) configured to provide a traction drive force so that the wire is towed according to the manipulation command (see Iida paragraph [0047]).
Root does not explicitly disclose a camera part disposed within a channel that holds a surgical tool (e.g., a working channel).
Nimkar teaches a camera (Nimkar FIG. 1, camera 200) within a working channel (Nimkar FIG. 1, working channel 21 within endoscope 20; Nimkar paragraph [0029]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nimkar’s camera within a working channel with the endoscope/surgical tool device taught by Root in view of Iida. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a camera that is slidable within a working channel in order to “position a lens of camera 200 as desired by a medical practitioner” (see Nimkar paragraph [0029]).
Regarding Claim 3, Root in view of Iida and Nimkar teach the features of Claim 2, as described above.
Iida further teaches wherein the plurality of modes comprises:
a calibration mode in which a forward direction hysteresis and a reverse direction hysteresis of the wire are calibrated in the idle state (Iida FIG. 6, flowchart for calibrating and endoscope according to measured hysteresis; Iida paragraphs [0068] – [0069]); and
an operation mode in which an initial drive performed so as to leave the idle state of the surgical tool or the flexible tube part is controlled by using a calibration compensation value calculated in the idle state according to drive of the calibration mode, thereby compensating and controlling the hysteresis of the wire (Iida FIG. 7, flowchart of motor control and hysteresis measurement for calibration; Iida paragraphs [0073] – [0081]).
Claims 4-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Root et al. (US PGPUB 2004/0193016 – “Root”) in view of Iida et al. (US PGPUB 2016/0360947 – “Iida”), Nimkar et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0228636 – “Nimkar”), and Agrawal et al. (US PGPUB 2016/0374541 – “Agrawal”).
Regarding Claim 4, Root in view of Iida and Nimkar teach the features of Claim 3, as described above.
Iida further teaches:
a mode switching unit (Iida FIG. 4, control unit 50) configured to switch the plurality of modes;
a forward direction compensation mode control unit configured to control the motor part such that the motor part is driven in a first direction in the calibration mode, thereby calculating a forward direction calibration compensation value in the idle state; a reverse direction compensation mode control unit configured to control the motor part such that the motor part is driven in a second direction in the calibration mode, thereby calculating a reverse direction calibration compensation value in the idle state (Iida FIG. 4, control unit 50; Iida FIGs. 6 and 10-12, showing flowcharts for calibrating movement of an endoscope/treatment tool; Iida paragraphs [0068] – [0069]); and
an operation mode control unit configured to compensate and control the hysteresis of the wire in an initial drive state by, in the operation mode, applying a total calibration compensation value calculated by using the forward direction calibration compensation value and the reverse direction calibration compensation value in the idle state, thereby controlling the initial drive that is performed so as to leave the idle state (Iida FIG. 7, showing calculation of hysteresis width for calibrating treatment tool motion; Iida paragraphs [0073] – [0081]).
Iida does not explicitly teach forward and reverse hysteresis compensation.
Agrawal teaches forward and reverse hysteresis compensation (Agrawal FIG. 5B, positive (forward) and negative (backward) pitch of endoscope tip; Agrawal FIG. 6A, calibration curves 602 and 603, and hysteresis 606; Agrawal paragraph [0091], “the forward portion 604 of the curve 602 and backward portion 605 of the curve 602 is offset by hysteresis 606. Likewise, the forward and backward portions of the curve 603 are also offset by a hysteresis.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Agrawal’s forward and backward hysteresis compensation with the control unit taught by Root in view of Iida and Nimkar. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a system that compensates for hysteresis in a moving tip (see Agrawal paragraphs [0090] – [0094], “calibration module 125 generates a fit to account for the endoscope's nonlinear behavior”).
Regarding Claim 5, Root in view of Iida, Nimkar, and Agrawal teach the features of Claim 4, as described above.
Agrawal further teaches wherein each of the forward direction compensation mode control unit and the reverse direction compensation mode control unit is configured to receive a motor position value in the idle state and a motor position value in a loading state at a time when load is applied by the wire that is stretched and pulled according to the drive of the calibration mode, thereby respectively calculating the forward direction calibration compensation value and the reverse direction calibration compensation value (Agrawal FIG. 1 and FIG. 2 endoscope 118 and console base 201; Agrawal paragraph [0052], “The console base 201 may include a central processing unit, a memory unit, a data bus, and associated data communication ports that are responsible for interpreting and processing…tracking sensor data, e.g., from the endoscope 118 shown in FIG. 1. In some embodiments, both the console base 201 and the base 101 perform signal processing for load-balancing. The console base 201 may also process commands and instructions provided by the user 205 through the control modules 203 and 204. In addition to the keyboard 203 and joystick 204 shown in FIG. 2, the control modules may include other devices, for example, computer mice, trackpads, trackballs, control pads, video game controllers, and sensors (e.g., motion sensors or cameras) that capture hand gestures and finger gestures.”).
Regarding Claim 7, Root in view of Iida, Nimkar, and Agrawal teach the features of Claim 4, as described above.
Iida further teaches wherein each of the forward direction compensation mode control unit and the reverse direction compensation mode control unit is configured to receive a motor position value in the idle state (Iida FIG. 6, showing process for calibrating instrument in an idle state; Iida paragraphs [0068] – [0069]; see also Agrawal paragraph [0052] as cited above in the rejection of Claim 5);
a pixel value in the idle state input from the camera part in the idle state, and a motor position value in a pixel change state at a time when the wire that is stretched is pulled according to the drive of the calibration mode and then a change in the pixel value input from the camera part occurs, thereby respectively calculating the forward direction calibration compensation value and the reverse direction calibration compensation value (Iida FIG. 4, image processing unit 54; Iida paragraph [0060], “The image processing unit 54 analyzes the image information 59 acquired by the imaging unit 30. Here, the image processing unit 54 calculates at least one of a position and an orientation of the joint portion 22 based on the image information 59).
Regarding Claim 8, Root in view of Iida and Nimkar and Agrawal teach the features of Claim 7, as described above.
Iida further teaches:
wherein each of the forward direction compensation mode control unit and the reverse direction compensation mode control unit comprises:
a motor initial position value calculation unit configured to receive the motor position value in the idle state (Iida FIG. 6, showing process for calibrating instrument in an idle state; Iida paragraphs [0068] – [0069]; see also Agrawal paragraph [0052] as cited above in the rejection of Claim 5);
a camera pixel change check unit configured to determine the change in the pixel value by using the pixel value in the idle state and the pixel value at the time when the stretched wire is pulled and load is applied; a motor final position value calculation unit configured to receive the motor position value in the pixel change state on the basis of a pixel change check signal of the camera pixel change check unit; and a compensation value calculation unit configured to calculate a hysteresis calibration compensation value of the wire in the idle state on the basis of the motor position value in the idle state and the motor position value in the pixel change state (Iida FIG. 4, image processing unit 54; Iida paragraph [0060], “The image processing unit 54 analyzes the image information 59 acquired by the imaging unit 30. Here, the image processing unit 54 calculates at least one of a position and an orientation of the joint portion 22 based on the image information 59).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Root et al. (US PGPUB 2004/0193016 – “Root”) in view of Iida et al. (US PGPUB 2016/0360947 – “Iida”), Nimkar et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0228636 – “Nimkar”), Agrawal et al. (US PGPUB 2016/0374541 – “Agrawal”), and Kraus et al. (US PGPUB 2004/0263102 – “Kraus”).
Regarding Claim 6, Root in view of Iida, Nimkar, and Agrawal teach the features of Claim 5, as described above.
Iida further teaches:
wherein each of the forward direction compensation mode control unit and the reverse direction compensation mode control unit comprises:
a motor initial position value calculation unit (Iida FIG. 4, encoder 36) configured to receive the motor position value in the idle state (Iida paragraph [0054], “a rotation signal from the encoder 36 is processed by the control unit 50 and is received as information of a degree of motor drive”);
a motor electric current change check unit configured to determine a time when the stretched wire is pulled and the load is applied on the basis of a change in a motor electric current; a motor final position value calculation unit configured to receive the motor position value in the loading state on the basis of an electric current change check signal of the motor electric current change check unit (Iida paragraph [0054], “the joint portion 22 is curved by the rotation of the driven-side rotary body 39. At this time, a rotation signal from the encoder 36 is processed by the control unit 50 and is received as information of a degree of motor drive”); and
a compensation value calculation unit configured to calculate a hysteresis calibration compensation value of the wire in the idle state on the basis of the motor position value in the idle state and the motor position value in the loading state (Iida FIG. 4, compensation value calculating unit 55; Iida paragraph [0061]).
However, Root in view of Iida, Nimkar, and Agrawal do not explicitly teach that the system detects changes in electrical power to the motor in order to identify movement/position, if any (idle), of the motor.
Kraus teaches that the system detects changes in electrical power to the motor in order to identify movement/position, if any (idle), of the motor (Kraus FIG. 13, 1306 - unit for detecting time-dependent change of rotational joint position; Kraus paragraph [0090], “detect the time-dependent change of the rotational joint position by evaluating the motor current in the electric motor 1303 of the corresponding rotational joint”; see also Kraus paragraph [0091]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kraus’ system that detects movement/rotation by evaluating the amount of motor current being supplied with the device taught by Root in view of Iida, Nimkar, and Agrawal. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a system that is able to determine motor movement without mechanical movement sensors, in order to reduce the size/complexity of the device.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iida et al. (US PGPUB 2016/0360947 – “Iida”) in view of Root et al. (US PGPUB 2004/0193016 – “Root”).
Regarding Claim 9, a first embodiment of Iida discloses:
A method for controlling a surgical tool device (Iida FIG. 3, treatment tool 21) having a wire hysteresis compensation function, the method comprising:
a process of performing a first direction calibration of a wire by performing a first direction calibration mode in an idle state so that a motor part is controlled such that the motor part is driven in a first direction (Iida FIG. 6, flowchart for calibrating and endoscope according to measured hysteresis; Iida paragraphs [0068] – [0069]);
a process of calculating a first direction calibration compensation value of the wire in the idle state according to the performance of the first direction calibration (Iida FIG. 6; Iida paragraphs [0068] – [0069]);
a process of performing a second direction calibration of the wire by, after the performance of the first direction calibration, performing a second direction calibration mode in the idle state so that the motor part is controlled such that the motor part is driven in a second direction (Iida FIG. 6, flowchart for calibrating and endoscope according to measured hysteresis; Iida paragraphs [0068] – [0069]);
a process of calculating a second direction calibration compensation value of the wire in the idle state according to the performance of the second direction calibration (Iida FIG. 6; Iida paragraphs [0068] – [0069]);
a process of calculating a total calibration compensation value in the idle state by using the first direction calibration compensation value and the second direction calibration compensation value (Iida FIG. 7; Iida paragraphs [0073] – [0081]).
A second embodiment of Iida discloses:
a process of performing a second direction calibration of the wire by, after the performance of the first direction calibration, performing a second direction calibration mode in the idle state so that the motor part is controlled such that the motor part is driven in a second direction (Iida FIG. 10, flowchart for calibrating and endoscope according to measured hysteresis in a second (turn-back) direction; Iida paragraphs [0098] – [0105]); and
a process of calculating a second direction calibration compensation value of the wire in the idle state according to the performance of the second direction calibration (Iida FIG. 6; Iida paragraphs [0068] – [0069]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Iida’s first embodiment with Iida’s second embodiment. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a method that determines hysteresis correction in two directions (see Iida paragraph [0099]).
Iida does not explicitly disclose a process of controlling hysteresis of the wire in an initial drive state by performing an operation mode in which an initial drive performed so as to leave the idle state so that the initial drive of a surgical tool or a flexible tube part is controlled by using the total calibration compensation value in the idle state of the wire.
Agrawal teaches a process of controlling hysteresis of the wire in an initial drive state by performing an operation mode in which an initial drive performed so as to leave the idle state so that the initial drive of a surgical tool or a flexible tube part is controlled by using the total calibration compensation value in the idle state of the wire (Agrawal FIG. 5B, positive (forward) and negative (backward) pitch of endoscope tip; Agrawal FIG. 6A, calibration curves 602 and 603, and hysteresis 606; Agrawal paragraph [0091], “the forward portion 604 of the curve 602 and backward portion 605 of the curve 602 is offset by hysteresis 606. Likewise, the forward and backward portions of the curve 603 are also offset by a hysteresis.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Agrawal’s forward and backward hysteresis compensation with the control unit taught by Iida. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a system that compensates for hysteresis in a moving tip (see Agrawal paragraphs [0090] – [0094], “calibration module 125 generates a fit to account for the endoscope's nonlinear behavior”).
Regarding Claim 10, Iida in view of Agrawal teach the features of Claim 9, as described above.
Iida further discloses wherein each of the first direction calibration mode and the second direction calibration mode comprises:
a process of receiving a motor position value of the motor part in the idle state (Iida paragraph [0054], “a rotation signal from the encoder 36 is processed by the control unit 50 and is received as information of a degree of motor drive”); and
a process of respectively calculating the first direction calibration compensation value and the second direction calibration compensation value by receiving a motor position value in a loading state at a time when load is applied by the wire that is stretched and pulled according to the drive of each calibration mode (Iida FIG. 4; Iida paragraphs [0055] – [0063], “compensation value calculating unit 55 detects displacement of the joint portion 22 based on at least one of the position and the orientation of the joint portion 22 which is calculated by the image processing unit 54, generates a compensation value for compensating for a difference between the input (command) 58 and the displacement of the joint portion 22, and incorporates the compensation value into the parameter”).
Regarding Claim 11, Iida in view of Agrawal teach the features of Claim 9, as described above.
Agrawal further teaches wherein each of the first direction calibration mode and the second direction calibration mode comprises a process of receiving a motor position value of the motor part in the idle state (Agrawal FIG. 1 and FIG. 2; Agrawal paragraph [0052], “The console base 201 may include a central processing unit, a memory unit, a data bus, and associated data communication ports that are responsible for interpreting and processing…tracking sensor data, e.g., from the endoscope 118 shown in FIG. 1. In some embodiments, both the console base 201 and the base 101 perform signal processing for load-balancing. The console base 201 may also process commands and instructions provided by the user 205 through the control modules 203 and 204. In addition to the keyboard 203 and joystick 204 shown in FIG. 2, the control modules may include other devices, for example, computer mice, trackpads, trackballs, control pads, video game controllers, and sensors (e.g., motion sensors or cameras) that capture hand gestures and finger gestures.”).
Iida further discloses a process of receiving a pixel value in the idle state input from a camera part; and a process of respectively calculating the first direction calibration compensation value and the second direction calibration compensation value by receiving a motor position value in a pixel change state at a time when the wire that is stretched is pulled according to the drive of each calibration mode and then a change in the pixel value input from the camera part occurs (Iida FIG. 4, image processing unit 54; Iida paragraph [0060], “The image processing unit 54 analyzes the image information 59 acquired by the imaging unit 30. Here, the image processing unit 54 calculates at least one of a position and an orientation of the joint portion 22 based on the image information 59).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes:
Kishi (US PGPUB 2016/0345801 – “Kishi”), which teaches in Kishi FIG. 4 a manipulator 2 that removes slack from control wires 17 and 18, thereby reducing wire movement hysteresis;
Durant et al. (US PGPUB 2007/0161857 – “Durant”), which teaches in paragraph [0040] controlling slack in a tendon 2612, which is controlled by a tendon cable 2612 that is not under tension or compression (i.e., is idle); see also Durant FIG. 4;
Suh et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0000318 – “Suh”), which teaches in Suh FIGs. 1A-1E, a system for preventing cable slack in an endoscope, thus controlling hysteresis in the cable;
Tojo et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0222214 – “Tojo”), which teaches in FIG. 2A hysteresis in a control for a flexible endoscope, and calculating an offset for this hysteresis (Tojo paragraph [0064]); and
Umemoto et al. (US PGPUB 2011/0295063 – “Umemoto”), which teaches in Umemoto paragraph [0168] adjusting slack in a control wire for bending an endoscopic insertion portion in order to minimize hysteresis characteristics in the control wire.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIM BOICE whose telephone number is (571)272-6565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm Eastern.
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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-4963. 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.
JIM BOICE
Examiner
Art Unit 3795
/JAMES EDWARD BOICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
10/30/25