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 .
Status of the Claims
The office action is being examined in response to the response filed by the applicant on November 21, 2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted September 5, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The claim objection for the abstract has been withdrawn due to the applicant’s amendments.
With respect to the applicant’s arguments on page 13, that the art of reference alone or in combination does not teach “measure, at each of a plurality of times, the instrument drive force applied at the one or more interface elements;” nor “determine, for each of the plurality of times, a force behaviour value using a derivative of the measured instrument drive force with respect to the time at that time;” as in claim 1, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation is taught by Deane, “The control system may command the same force to be applied to both A1 and B1 (or A2 and B2). If the end effector elements match, and the driving elements for those end effector elements match, then for a configuration in which the end effector elements are not fully closed and exerting a forces against each other, applying the same force to both A1 and B1 (or A2 and B2) causes both end effectors elements to yaw in unison. The control system may also respond to detection of the second motion (such as rotation) of the body of the hand controller by commanding forces to be applied to one of C1 and C2 to cause a rotation of the pitch joint 204”. See at least paragraph 0045. In addition, by NOONAN teaching, (“the system may continuously monitor the robot arm and forces applied thereto” [0185]; “the system may measure motor current of the motors operatively coupled to the joints of the robot arm as well as angulations of the links of the robot arm based on measurements by the encoders of the robot arm to calculate the position of the robot arm and the surgical instrument as well as the forces acting on any portion of the robot arm as well as on the surgical instrument, if any, in real time.” [0185]; “force detection module 1422”. See at least paragraph 0134 & fig. 14. Furthermore, not required but as explained by the Noonan art it teaches “the force on the trocar may be a function of how much weight is being lifted by the instrument being used.” See at least paragraph 0146]. Therefore, the combination of art does teach the limitation above. For the reasons explained above applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to the applicant’s arguments on page 15, that the art of reference alone or in combination does not teach “determining an offset value based on derivative information… Calibrate compensated or correct instrument position using derivative based characterization of drive train behavior” as in claim 15, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant is arguing outside of the claim limitations. However, for compact prosecution the examiner has provided the response to the argument. The limitation is taught by Shelton, “wherein the tissue compression parameter comprises a time change rate of the force applied by the motor to change the jaw to the closed configuration”. The examiner would like to note that this map of the derivative of force over time is yanked for time rate of change of force or rate of force development. Therefore, the combination of art does teach the limitation above. For the reasons explained above applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 10-11, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DEANE (US 20210113287 A1) in view of NOONAN (US 20220361968 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 19, and 20:
DEANE teaches:
cause an instrument drive force applied at the one or more interface elements to be varied; (“The control system may command the same force to be applied to both A1 and B1 (or A2 and B2). If the end effector elements match, and the driving elements for those end effector elements match, then for a configuration in which the end effector elements are not fully closed and exerting a forces against each other, applying the same force to both A1 and B1 (or A2 and B2) causes both end effectors elements to yaw in unison. The control system may also respond to detection of the second motion (such as rotation) of the body of the hand controller by commanding forces to be applied to one of C1 and C2 to cause a rotation of the pitch joint 204” [0045])
control, [in dependence on the offset value], the surgical robot arm to control the spread angle between the first end effector element and the second end effector element of the robotic surgical instrument.(“ The end effector elements may be opened to a spread angle ϕ, “ [0048])
force is taught by DEANE however, measuring is not taught by DEANE, however, NOONAN teaches:
measure, at each of a plurality of times, the instrument drive force applied at the one or more interface elements; determine, for each of the plurality of times, a force behaviour value using a derivative of the measured instrument drive force with respect to the time at that time; (“the system may continuously monitor the robot arm and forces applied thereto” [0185]; “the system may measure motor current of the motors operatively coupled to the joints of the robot arm as well as angulations of the links of the robot arm based on measurements by the encoders of the robot arm to calculate the positon of the robot arm and the surgical instrument as well as the forces acting on any portion of the robot arm as well as on the surgical instrument, if any, in real time.” [0185]; “force detection module 1422” [0134 & fig. 14)
in dependence on the offset value ; determine an offset value in dependence on the plurality of determined force behaviour values; and (“determine if the force matches a predefined force signature associated with an operational change, e.g., by comparing the force with one or more predefined force signatures stored in the system. If there is a match, then the system may change the operational mode of the robot arm to the particular operational mode that matches the force signature.” [0184]; “may update the calibration factors for the particular surgical instrument and store the updated calibration factors for the particular surgical instrument in the associated calibration file for future use.” [0140])])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing to have modified DEANE to include the teachings as taught by NOONAN because “Surgical instrument calibration module 1414 may determine that the calibration factors are not adequate to compensate for the force of gravity if, e.g., when a surgical instrument is coupled with the robot arm, the robot arm moves due only to forces of gravity acting on the robot arm and/or the surgical instrument, which may be done when the surgical instrument is positioned completely outside of the patient's body..” (NOONAN , See at least paragraph 0140).
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of DEANE and NOONAN, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
DEANE further teaches
when the control system is configured to cause the instrument drive force to be varied to close the robotic surgical instrument from an open configuration, the configuration in which an inner surface of the first end effector element first contacts an inner surface of the second end effector element; or when the control system is configured to cause the instrument drive force to be varied to open the robotic surgical instrument from a closed configuration, the configuration in which an inner surface of the first end effector element last contacts an inner surface of the second end effector element. (“ determines the forces to be applied to the first pair of driving elements A1, A2 and the forces to be applied to the second pair of driving elements B1, B2 so as to cause both (i) the end effector to be driven to θ or θ.sub.max, and (ii) the opening angle to be driven to ϕ (i.e. ψ or ϕ.sub.max).” [0064] )
DEANE does not teach but NOONAN teaches:
calibration or re-calibration ( The examiner notes this I sin the preamble but worth noting the art teaches calibration. “Surgical instrument calibration module 1414 may be executed by processor 1402 for calibration a surgical instrument, e.g., a surgical instrument that does not currently have an associated calibration file in the database stored in memory 1410. Accordingly, surgical instrument calibration module 1414 may calculate measurements and specifications of a surgical instrument when it is coupled to robot arm 300 and the system is in calibration mode, as described in further detail below with regard to FIG. 16, based on force measurements of robot arm 300 applied by the surgical instrument via force detection module 1422. For example, surgical instrument calibration module 1414 may generate a calibration file for the surgical instrument including information such as instrument type, weight, center of mass, length, instrument shaft diameter, a viscosity parameter of the surgical instrument, etc. At least some of the surgical instrument information in the calibration file may be provided by user input via user interface 1408, e.g., the instrument type..” [0139-140]; recalibration is in para 0140.; fig. 14, 16, and 17)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing to have modified DEANE to include the teachings as taught by NOONAN because “Surgical instrument calibration module 1414 may determine that the calibration factors are not adequate to compensate for the force of gravity if, e.g., when a surgical instrument is coupled with the robot arm, the robot arm moves due only to forces of gravity acting on the robot arm and/or the surgical instrument, which may be done when the surgical instrument is positioned completely outside of the patient's body..” (NOONAN , See at least paragraph 0140).
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of DEANE and NOONAN, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
DEANE further teaches
measure, at each of the plurality of times, a position of each of the one or more interface elements; predict, for each of the plurality of times, a resultant spread angle between the first end effector element and the second end effector element in dependence on the measured position of each of the one or more interface elements at that time; and determine the spread offset value in dependence on the plurality of determined force behaviour values and the plurality of predicted resultant spread angles. (Fig. 4-5; “ Each end effector element is limited in how far it can rotate about the axis of its connected joint. The maximum rotational angle between the longitudinal axis 402 of the furthest end effector and the longitudinal axis 401 of the articulated coupling 203 is α.sub.max. For example, α.sub.max may be in the range 60° to 90°. α.sub.max may be in the range 65° to 80°. α.sub.max may be 70°. α.sub.max may be instrument dependent. The end effector elements may be opened to a spread angle ϕ, and then yawed clockwise as shown in FIG. 4. As the end effector elements yaw, the opening angle ϕ is initially maintained. However, once the furthest end effector element 210 reaches its rotation limit at an angle of α.sub.max it stops rotating. If the surgeon input device continues to command a yawing action, and the control system continues to drive the instrument accordingly, then the end effector element 210 remains still, but the other end effector element 209 continues to yaw, i.e. continues to rotate clockwise. Thus, the opening angle ϕ starts to decrease, and hence the end effector elements start to close, even though the surgeon input device is still commanding the end effector elements to remain open.” [0048]; “First and second end effector elements may be one of: a pair of jaws, a pair of scissors, and a needle driver.” [0024])
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of DEANE and NOONAN, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 3.
DEANE further teaches
cause the instrument drive force to be varied to close the robotic surgical instrument from an open configuration, and approximate in dependence on the plurality of determined force behaviour values a time at which the force behaviour value for that time reaches or exceeds a force behaviour threshold value; or cause the instrument drive force to be varied to open the robotic surgical instrument from a closed configuration, and approximate in dependence on the plurality of determined force behaviour values a time at which the force behaviour value for that time reaches or falls below a force behaviour threshold value; and determine, as the spread offset value, the resultant spread angle predicted for that time in dependence on the plurality of predicted resultant spread angles. (Fig. 4-5; “The end effector elements may also be limited in how far they can rotate away from each other. For example, the opening angle may be limited to ϕ.sub.max. ϕ.sub.max may be instrument dependent. “ [0050] as well as [0051]; “Each end effector element is limited in how far it can rotate about the axis of its connected joint. The maximum rotational angle between the longitudinal axis 402 of the furthest end effector and the longitudinal axis 401 of the articulated coupling 203 is α.sub.max. For example, α.sub.max may be in the range 60° to 90°. α.sub.max may be in the range 65° to 80°. α.sub.max may be 70°. α.sub.max may be instrument dependent. The end effector elements may be opened to a spread angle ϕ, and then yawed clockwise as shown in FIG. 4. As the end effector elements yaw, the opening angle ϕ is initially maintained. However, once the furthest end effector element 210 reaches its rotation limit at an angle of α.sub.max it stops rotating. If the surgeon input device continues to command a yawing action, and the control system continues to drive the instrument accordingly, then the end effector element 210 remains still, but the other end effector element 209 continues to yaw, i.e. continues to rotate clockwise. Thus, the opening angle ϕ starts to decrease, and hence the end effector elements start to close, even though the surgeon input device is still commanding the end effector elements to remain open.” [0048]; “First and second end effector elements may be one of: a pair of jaws, a pair of scissors, and a needle driver.” [0024])
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of DEANE and NOONAN, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
NOONAN further teaches
measure, at each of the plurality of times, a position of an interface element of the one or more interface elements that is indicative of a predicted spread angle between the first end effector element and the second end effector element; and determine the interface position offset value in dependence on the plurality of determined force behaviour values and the plurality of measured interface positions. (“ If the system overcompensates for the gravity of the surgical instrument, at step 1606, robot arm 300 may “runaway”, e.g., drift upward. The runaway effect may be detected at step 1607, and at step 1608, indicators 334 may blink to indicate to the operator of the runaway. At step 1609, the system may identify the runaway as a minor fault, and accordingly apply additional impedance to robot arm 300 and freeze robot arm 300 when robot arm 300 slows down before removing the additional impedance. Once the minor fault is addressed, calibration process 1600 may return to step 1603..” [0181] )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing to have modified DEANE to include the teachings as taught by NOONAN because “Surgical instrument calibration module 1414 may determine that the calibration factors are not adequate to compensate for the force of gravity if, e.g., when a surgical instrument is coupled with the robot arm, the robot arm moves due only to forces of gravity acting on the robot arm and/or the surgical instrument, which may be done when the surgical instrument is positioned completely outside of the patient's body..” (NOONAN , See at least paragraph 0140).
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of DEANE and NOONAN, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 5.
DEANE further teaches
cause the instrument drive force to be varied to close the robotic surgical instrument from an open configuration, and approximate in dependence on the plurality of determined force behaviour values a time at which the force behaviour value for that time reaches or exceeds a force behaviour threshold value; or cause the instrument drive force to be varied to open the robotic surgical instrument from a closed configuration, and approximate in dependence on the plurality of determined force behaviour values a time at which the force behaviour value for that time reaches or falls below a force behaviour threshold value; and determine, as the interface position offset value, the interface position at that time in dependence on the plurality of measured interface positions. the control system determines that ψ>ϕ.sub.max, then at step 509, the control system drives the first and second end effector elements to rotate such that the angle between the longitudinal axes 402 and 403 of the end effector elements ϕ=ϕ.sub.max.” [0062] ; [0063]; “Performed in concert means that the control system determines the forces to be applied to the first pair of driving elements A1, A2 and the forces to be applied to the second pair of driving elements B1, B2 so as to cause both (i) the end effector to be driven to θ or θ.sub.max, and (ii) the opening angle to be driven to ϕ (i.e. ψ or ϕ.sub.max).” [0064]; [0065]; Fig. 5 )
Regarding claim 10:
The combination of DEANE and NOONAN, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
NOONAN further teaches
wherein the plurality of measured instrument drive forces are filtered prior to being used to determine the plurality of force behaviour values. (“ filtering/other signal processing algorithms may be performed, e.g., median filter, Gaussian noise removal, anti-aliasing algorithms, morphological operations, ambient light adjustments, etc.” [0208] fig. 22 )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing to have modified DEANE to include the teachings as taught by NOONAN because “Surgical instrument calibration module 1414 may determine that the calibration factors are not adequate to compensate for the force of gravity if, e.g., when a surgical instrument is coupled with the robot arm, the robot arm moves due only to forces of gravity acting on the robot arm and/or the surgical instrument, which may be done when the surgical instrument is positioned completely outside of the patient's body..” (NOONAN , See at least paragraph 0140).
Regarding claim 11:
The combination of DEANE and NOONAN, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
NOONAN further teaches
the control system being further configured to: receive a request to drive the spread angle between the first end effector element and the second end effector element to a desired spread angle; approximate a lost motion compensation value in dependence on a lost motion compensation function; and control, in dependence on the desired spread angle and the lost motion compensation value, the surgical robot arm to control the spread angle between the first end effector element and the second end effector element of the robotic surgical instrument. (“ If surgical instrument calibration module 1414 determines that re-calibration results are consistently different from the configurations already loaded into the system, surgical instrument calibration module 1414 may replace existing information or add to its list of known tools without any user inputs and load them automatically. Surgical instrument calibration module 1414 may determine that the calibration factors are not adequate to compensate for the force of gravity if, e.g., when a surgical instrument is coupled with the robot arm, the robot arm moves due only to forces of gravity acting on the robot arm and/or the surgical instrument, which may be done when the surgical instrument is positioned completely outside of the patient's body. Moreover, surgical instrument calibration module 1414 may automatically update or adjust the calibration factors (e.g., the forces applied to the joints of the robot arm) if it determines that the calibration factors are not adequate to compensate for the force of gravity. Thus, surgical instrument calibration module 1414 may update the calibration factors for the particular surgical instrument and store the updated calibration factors for the particular surgical instrument in the associated calibration file for future use..” [0140 and [0180]; fig. 16 )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing to have modified DEANE to include the teachings as taught by NOONAN because “Surgical instrument calibration module 1414 may determine that the calibration factors are not adequate to compensate for the force of gravity if, e.g., when a surgical instrument is coupled with the robot arm, the robot arm moves due only to forces of gravity acting on the robot arm and/or the surgical instrument, which may be done when the surgical instrument is positioned completely outside of the patient's body..” (NOONAN , See at least paragraph 0140).
Claims 7-9, 12-13, 15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DEANE (US 20210113287 A1) in view of NOONAN (US 20220361968 A1) in further view of SHELTON (CN 111556728 A).
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of DEANE and NOONAN, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
SHELTON teaches:
wherein the derivative of the measured instrument drive force with respect to the time at that time is the first derivative of the measured instrument drive force with respect to the time at that time. (The Examiner would like to note that this math of the derivative of force over time is yank or time rate of change of force or rate of force development. Therefore, SHELTON teaches “wherein the tissue compression parameter comprises a time change rate of the force applied by the motor to change the jaw to the closed configuration”) Please note there are no paragraph numbers in the English translation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing to have modified DEANE to include the teachings as taught by SHELTON because “the maximum tissue closing threshold can be reduced to address the substantial stiffness and brittleness of the irradiated object being processed. ” (SHELTON).
Regarding claim 8:
The combination of DEANE,NOONAN, and SHELTON, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7.
SHELTON teaches:
wherein the first derivative of the measured instrument drive force with respect to time at a time,tn, is determined by: assessing the difference between the measured instrument drive force,Fn, at that time,tn, and the measured instrument drive force Fn-1, at a preceding time,tn-1, and dividing that difference, (Fn-Fn-1), by the time difference between the time tn, and the time tn-1; or assessing the difference between the measured instrument drive force,Fn+1, at a subsequent time, tn+1, and the measured instrument drive force Fn, at that time,tn, and dividing that difference, (Fn+1-Fn), by the time difference between the time tn+1, and the time tn; or assessing the difference between the measured instrument drive force, Fn+1, at a subsequent time,tn+1, and the measured instrument drive force Fn-1, at a preceding time,tn-1, and dividing that difference, (Fn+1-Fn-1), by the time difference between the time tn+1, and the time tn-1. (The Examiner would like to note that this math of the derivative of force over time is yank or time rate of change of force or rate of force development. Therefore, SHELTON teaches Figures 51, 83, 98, and 104 and associated text. FTC = force to close or clamp. “wherein the tissue compression parameter comprises a time change rate of the force applied by the motor to change the jaw to the closed configuration” as well as “The rate of change of the strain trigger force "F" over time "t" is the slope of the curve shown in FIG. 50, where the slope is equal to Δ Δt”) Please note there are no paragraph numbers in the English translation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing to have modified DEANE to include the teachings as taught by SHELTON because “the maximum tissue closing threshold can be reduced to address the substantial stiffness and brittleness of the irradiated object being processed. ” (SHELTON).
Regarding claim 9:
The combination of DEANE,NOONAN, and SHELTON, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
SHELTON teaches:
wherein: the measured instrument drive force is dependent on a first force measured at a first interface element for changing an angle of the first end effector element and a second force measured at a second interface element for changing an angle of the second end effector element, optionally wherein the instrument drive force is dependent on a sum of the first force and the second force; or the measured instrument drive force is dependent on a force measured at a single interface element for changing an angle of one or both of the first end effector element and the second end effector element. (The Examiner would like to note that this math of the derivative of force over time is yank or time rate of change of force or rate of force development. Therefore, SHELTON teaches Figures 101B and 103-4 and associated text. FTC = force to close or clamp. “control circuit 710 may be in communication with one or more sensors 738. The sensor 738 may be positioned on the end effector 702 and adapted to operate with the robotic surgical instrument 700 to measure various derived parameters, such as gap distance versus time, tissue compression and time, and anvil strain and time. sensor 738 may include a magnetic sensor, a magnetic field sensor, a strain gauge, a load sensor, a pressure sensor, a force sensor, a torque sensor, an inductive sensor such as a vortex sensor, a resistance sensor, a capacitive sensor, An optical sensor and/or any other suitable sensor for measuring one or more parameters of the end effector 702. The sensor 738 may include one or more sensors. The sensor 738 may be located on the cartridge 718 platform to use the segmented electrode to determine the tissue position. The torque sensor 744a-744e be configured to be capable of sensing force such as percussion force, closing force and/or joint motion and so on. Thus, the control circuit 710 can sense (1) the closed load experienced by the distal closed tube and its position; (2) the percussion member at the rack and its position; (3) the upper part of the nail chamber 718 has the tissue part; and (4) the load and the position on the two joint motion rods.”) Please note there are no paragraph numbers in the English translation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing to have modified DEANE to include the teachings as taught by SHELTON because “the maximum tissue closing threshold can be reduced to address the substantial stiffness and brittleness of the irradiated object being processed. ” (SHELTON).
Regarding claim 12:
The combination of DEANE, NOONAN, and SHELTON, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 11.
SHELTON teaches:
wherein the lost motion compensation function comprises: a first portion that relates desired or offset-corrected spread angle to lost motion compensation value for a range of desired or offset-corrected spread angles; and a second portion that is representative of a maximum positive lost motion compensation value, wherein the first portion connects to the second portion at a first transition point, the first transition point being at the greatest desired or offset-corrected spread angle within the range of desired or offset-corrected spread angles; and/or a third portion that is representative of a maximum negative lost motion compensation value, wherein the first portion connects to the third portion at a second transition point, the second transition point being at the smallest desired or offset-corrected spread angle within the range of desired or offset-corrected spread angles. (The Examiner would like to note that this math of the derivative of force over time is yank or time rate of change of force or rate of force development. Therefore, SHELTON teaches Figures 83-86 and associated text. FTC = force to close or clamp. “FIG. 85 shows a PID feedback control system … Main controller 153952 or secondary controller 153955 or both can be realized as PID controller 153972. In one aspect, the PID controller 153972 may include a proportional element 153974 (P), an integrating element 153976 (I), and a derivative element 153978 (D). The output of P element 153974, I element 153976, D element 153978 is summed by summer 153986, and the summer provides control variable u (t) to process 153980. The output of process 153980 is a process variable y (t). The summer 153984 calculates the difference between the desired set point r (t) and the measured process variable y (t). PID controller 153972 the error value e (t) (e.g., the difference between the closing force threshold value and the measured closing force) is continuously calculated as the desired set point r (t) (e.g., a closing force threshold) and the measured process variable y (t) (e.g., the speed and direction of the closed tube) difference. and based on the proportion element 153974 (P), the integral element 153976 (I) and derivative element 153978 (D) calculating the proportion, integral and derivative term to apply correction. PID controller 153972 attempts by adjusting the control variable u (t) (e.g., the speed and direction of the closed tube) to minimize the time-varying error e (t).”) Please note there are no paragraph numbers in the English translation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing to have modified DEANE to include the teachings as taught by SHELTON because “the maximum tissue closing threshold can be reduced to address the substantial stiffness and brittleness of the irradiated object being processed. ” (SHELTON).
Regarding claim 13:
The combination of DEANE, NOONAN, and SHELTON, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 11.
SHELTON teaches:
receive a request to increase the spread angle from a desired or offset-corrected spread angle within the range of desired or offset-corrected spread angles to an increased desired or offset-corrected spread angle within the range of desired or offset-corrected spread angles; approximate a lost motion compensation value for the increased desired or offset-corrected spread angle using the first portion of the lost motion compensation function; subsequently, receive a request to decrease the spread angle from the increased desired or offset-corrected spread angle to a decreased desired or offset-corrected spread angle within the range of desired or offset-corrected spread angles; and approximate a lost motion compensation value for the decreased desired or offset-corrected spread angle using the first portion of the lost motion compensation function. (The Examiner would like to note that this math of the derivative of force over time is yank or time rate of change of force or rate of force development. Therefore, SHELTON teaches Figures 83-86 and associated text. FTC = force to close or clamp. The control feedback loops and input allow for additional and subtractive amounts for each input. “FIG. 85 shows a PID feedback control system … Main controller 153952 or secondary controller 153955 or both can be realized as PID controller 153972. In one aspect, the PID controller 153972 may include a proportional element 153974 (P), an integrating element 153976 (I), and a derivative element 153978 (D). The output of P element 153974, I element 153976, D element 153978 is summed by summer 153986, and the summer provides control variable u (t) to process 153980. The output of process 153980 is a process variable y (t). The summer 153984 calculates the difference between the desired set point r (t) and the measured process variable y (t). PID controller 153972 the error value e (t) (e.g., the difference between the closing force threshold value and the measured closing force) is continuously calculated as the desired set point r (t) (e.g., a closing force threshold) and the measured process variable y (t) (e.g., the speed and direction of the closed tube) difference. and based on the proportion element 153974 (P), the integral element 153976 (I) and derivative element 153978 (D) calculating the proportion, integral and derivative term to apply correction. PID controller 153972 attempts by adjusting the control variable u (t) (e.g., the speed and direction of the closed tube) to minimize the time-varying error e (t).”) Please note there are no paragraph numbers in the English translation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing to have modified DEANE to include the teachings as taught by SHELTON because “the maximum tissue closing threshold can be reduced to address the substantial stiffness and brittleness of the irradiated object being processed. ” (SHELTON).
Regarding claim 15:
The combination of DEANE, NOONAN, and SHELTON, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 12.
SHELTON teaches:
wherein the lost motion compensation function is a piecewise function, in which: the first portion of the lost motion compensation function is a first sub-function of the piecewise function that relates desired or offset-corrected spread angle to lost motion compensation value for the range of desired or offset-corrected spread angles; the second portion of the lost motion compensation function is a second sub-function of the piecewise function that is representative of the maximum positive lost motion compensation value; and the first transition point of the lost motion compensation function is a first endpoint of the first sub-function that connects the first sub-function and the second sub-function. (The Examiner would like to note that this math of the derivative of force over time is yank or time rate of change of force or rate of force development. Therefore, SHELTON teaches Figures 20-21, 84-86 and associated text. FTC = force to close or clamp. The control feedback loops and input allow for additional and subtractive amounts for each input. “The closed motor speed set point SP2 is compared with the actual speed of the closed tube, and the actual speed is determined by the secondary controller 153955. The actual speed of the closed tube can be measured by comparing the displacement of the closed tube with the position sensor and measuring the elapsed time with the timer/counter. Other techniques, such as linear encoders or rotary encoders, may be employed to measure the displacement of the closed tube. The output 153968 of the secondary process 153960 is the actual speed of the closed tube. The closed tube speed output 153968 is provided to the primary process 153958 which determines the force acting on the closed tube and feeds back back to the adder 153962 which subtracts the measured closing force from the main set point SP1. The main set point SP1 may be an upper limit threshold value or a lower limit threshold value. Based on the output of the adder 153962, the main controller 153952 controls the speed and direction of the closed tube motor as described herein. The secondary controller 153955 controls the speed of the closed motor based on the actual speed of the closed tube measured by the secondary process 153960 and the secondary set point SP2, which speed is based on a comparison of the actual percussion force with the upper limit threshold and the lower threshold of the percussion force. FIG. 85 shows a PID feedback control system 153970 according to at least one aspect of the present disclosure. Main controller 153952 or secondary controller 153955 or both can be realized as PID controller 153972. In one aspect, the PID controller 153972 may include a proportional element 153974 (P), an integrating element 153976 (I), and a derivative element 153978 (D). The output of P element 153974, I element 153976, D element 153978 is summed by summer 153986, and the summer provides control variable u (t) to process 153980. The output of process 153980 is a process variable y (t). The summer 153984 calculates the difference between the desired set point r (t) and the measured process variable y (t). PID controller 153972 the error value e (t) (e.g., the difference between the closing force threshold value and the measured closing force) is continuously calculated as the desired set point r (t) (e.g., a closing force threshold) and the measured process variable y (t) (e.g., the speed and direction of the closed tube) difference. and based on the proportion element 153974 (P), the integral element 153976 (I) and derivative element 153978 (D) calculating the proportion, integral and derivative term to apply correction. PID controller 153972 attempts by adjusting the control variable u (t) (e.g., the speed and direction of the closed tube) to minimize the time-varying error e (t). According to the PID algorithm, the current value of the error is calculated by the "P" element 153974. For example, if the error is large and is positive, then the control output will be large and positive. According to the present disclosure, the error term e (t) is different between the desired closing force of the closed tube and the measured closing force. The "I" element 153976 calculates the past value of the error. For example, if the current output is not strong enough, the integration of the error will be accumulated over time, and the controller will respond by applying a stronger action. The "D" element 153978 calculates the future possible trend of the error according to its current rate of change. For example, in the case of continuing the above P example, when the large positive control output successfully makes the error more close to zero, it also places the process in the nearest future large negative error path. In this case, the derivative becomes negative, and the D module reduces the intensity of the action to prevent the overshoot. It will be appreciated that other variables and setpoints may be monitored and controlled according to feedback control systems 153950, 153970. For example, the adaptive closing member speed control algorithm described herein can measure at least two of the following parameters: a firing member stroke position, a firing member load, a displacement of the cutting element, a speed of the cutting element, a closing tube stroke position, a closing tube load, and so on.”) Please note there are no paragraph numbers in the English translation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing to have modified DEANE to include the teachings as taught by SHELTON because “the maximum tissue closing threshold can be reduced to address the substantial stiffness and brittleness of the irradiated object being processed. ” (SHELTON).
Regarding claim 17:
The combination of DEANE, NOONAN, and SHELTON, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
SHELTON teaches:
determine a commanded spread angle in dependence on the desired spread angle, the offset value and the lost motion compensation value; and control the surgical robot arm to drive the robotic surgical instrument using the commanded spread angle. (The Examiner would like to note that this math of the derivative of force over time is yank or time rate of change of force or rate of force development. Therefore, SHELTON teaches as shown in the closed tube assembly location graph 20750, the compensation distance when the end effector does not perform the joint motion is zero, and the compensation distance when the joint motion angle is about θ degrees is about 0.008 inches. In this example, the closure tube assembly retracts a compensation distance of 0.008 inches during motion of the joint. Thus, in order to close the jaws, the closure tube assembly can begin advancing the stroke length from the retracted position. Such measurement results are provided only for illustrative purposes, and may include any one of various angles and corresponding compensation distances without departing from the scope of the present disclosure. As shown in FIG. 21, the relationship between the joint motion angle θ and the compensation distance is non-linear, and the rate of the compensation distance extension increases as the joint motion angle θ increased. For example, an increase in the compensation distance between 45 and 60 degrees is greater than an increase in the compensation distance between 0 and 15 degrees.”) Please note there are no paragraph numbers in the English translation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing to have modified DEANE to include the teachings as taught by SHELTON because “the maximum tissue closing threshold can be reduced to address the substantial stiffness and brittleness of the irradiated object being processed. ” (SHELTON).
Regarding claim 18:
The combination of DEANE, NOONAN, and SHELTON, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 17.
SHELTON teaches:
wherein determining the commanded spread angle in dependence on the desired spread angle, the offset value and the lost motion compensation value comprises: determining an offset-corrected spread angle in dependence on the desired spread angle and the offset value, approximating a lost motion compensation value in dependence on the offset-corrected spread angle and the lost motion compensation function, and determining the commanded spread angle in dependence on the offset-corrected spread angle and the lost motion compensation value; or approximating a lost motion compensation value in dependence on the desired spread angle and the lost motion compensation function, and determining the commanded spread angle in dependence on the desired spread angle, the offset value and the lost motion compensation value. (The Examiner would like to note that this math of the derivative of force over time is yank or time rate of change of force or rate of force development. Therefore, SHELTON teaches Figures 20-21, 84-86 and associated text. FTC = force to close or clamp. The control feedback loops and input allow for additional and subtractive amounts for each input. “The closed motor speed set point SP2 is compared with the actual speed of the closed tube, and the actual speed is determined by the secondary controller 153955. The actual speed of the closed tube can be measured by comparing the displacement of the closed tube with the position sensor and measuring the elapsed time with the timer/counter. Other techniques, such as linear encoders or rotary encoders, may be employed to measure the displacement of the closed tube. The output 153968 of the secondary process 153960 is the actual speed of the closed tube. The closed tube speed output 153968 is provided to the primary process 153958 which determines the force acting on the closed tube and feeds back back to the adder 153962 which subtracts the measured closing force from the main set point SP1. The main set point SP1 may be an upper limit threshold value or a lower limit threshold value. Based on the output of the adder 153962, the main controller 153952 controls the speed and direction of the closed tube motor as described herein. The secondary controller 153955 controls the speed of the closed motor based on the actual speed of the closed tube measured by the secondary process 153960 and the secondary set point SP2, which speed is based on a comparison of the actual percussion force with the upper limit threshold and the lower threshold of the percussion force. FIG. 85 shows a PID feedback control system 153970 according to at least one aspect of the present disclosure. Main controller 153952 or secondary controller 153955 or both can be realized as PID controller 153972. In one aspect, the PID controller 153972 may include a proportional element 153974 (P), an integrating element 153976 (I), and a derivative element 153978 (D). The output of P element 153974, I element 153976, D element 153978 is summed by summer 153986, and the summer provides control variable u (t) to process 153980. The output of process 153980 is a process variable y (t). The summer 153984 calculates the difference between the desired set point r (t) and the measured process variable y (t). PID controller 153972 the error value e (t) (e.g., the difference between the closing force threshold value and the measured closing force) is continuously calculated as the desired set point r (t) (e.g., a closing force threshold) and the measured process variable y (t) (e.g., the speed and direction of the closed tube) difference. and based on the proportion element 153974 (P), the integral element 153976 (I) and derivative element 153978 (D) calculating the proportion, integral and derivative term to apply correction. PID controller 153972 attempts by adjusting the control variable u (t) (e.g., the speed and direction of the closed tube) to minimize the time-varying error e (t). According to the PID algorithm, the current value of the error is calculated by the "P" element 153974. For example, if the error is large and is positive, then the control output will be large and positive. According to the present disclosure, the error term e (t) is different between the desired closing force of the closed tube and the measured closing force. The "I" element 153976 calculates the past value of the error. For example, if the current output is not strong enough, the integration of the error will be accumulated over time, and the controller will respond by applying a stronger action. The "D" element 153978 calculates the future possible trend of the error according to its current rate of change. For example, in the case of continuing the above P example, when the large positive control output successfully makes the error more close to zero, it also places the process in the nearest future large negative error path. In this case, the derivative becomes negative, and the D module reduces the intensity of the action to prevent the overshoot. It will be appreciated that other variables and setpoints may be monitored and controlled according to feedback control systems 153950, 153970. For example, the adaptive closing member speed control algorithm described herein can measure at least two of the following parameters: a firing member stroke position, a firing member load, a displacement of the cutting element, a speed of the cutting element, a closing tube stroke position, a closing tube load, and so on.”) Please note there are no paragraph numbers in the English translation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing to have modified DEANE to include the teachings as taught by SHELTON because “the maximum tissue closing threshold can be reduced to address the substantial stiffness and brittleness of the irradiated object being processed. ” (SHELTON).
Examiner Note
The Examiner has not applied art to claims 14 and 16 which is dependent upon clams 1, 11, and 12.
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 MICHAEL W ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0508. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am-4pm.
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, Debbie Reynolds can be reached at (571) 272-0734. 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.
Mike Anderson
Supervisor Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3693
/Mike Anderson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights