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 .
Priority
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 13-16, 21, 23-29, 31, and 33 are deemed to have an effective filing date of September 21, 2022.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84 (o) because a legend is required for the boxes designated by reference numerals “3” (Fig. 1), “9” (Fig. 9), 11 (Fig. 9), and 21 (Fig. 9) .
CFR 1.84 (o) Legends. Suitable descriptive legends may be used subject to approval by the Office, or may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 30, line 1 refers to claim 16 of the substitute specification. However, when the patent is printed, original claim 16 will be renumbered to a different number. Thus, the specification should be amended to delete reference to the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4-6, 8, 13-14, 16, 23, 25, and 28-29 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.
Claims 4, lines 8-9, and 29, lines 7-8, recite the conditional preposition “if”, which renders the scope of the claims indefinite as it is unclear if the steps in lines 3-4 are required to meet the claims. The use of “if” includes both positive and negative scenarios, and in negative scenarios, the steps in claim 4, lines 8-9, and claim 29, lines 7-8 are not required. The Examiner recommends replacing “if” with --when--.
Claim 5 refers to “the microsurgical slave instrument” in line 4. However, neither claim 4, from which claim 5 depends, nor claim 1, uses the words “microsurgical” or “slave”. Thus, it is unclear to what “the microsurgical slave instruments” refers. Is it a new element?
Claim 8 refers to “the microsurgical slave instrument” in line 4. However, neither claim 4, from which claim 5 depends, nor claim 1, uses the words “microsurgical” or “slave”. Thus, it is unclear to what “the microsurgical slave instruments” refers. Is it a new element?
Claim 13 recites “with a dynamics which cannot be perceived by a/the user” twice in the last three lines of the claim. It is unclear what the second recitation adds to the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “said detection frequency and position control frequency” in lines 1-2; but, claims 9 and 1 do not recited a detection frequency. Thus, the scope of claim 14 is indefinite as it is unclear to what said frequency detection and position control frequency refer. In addition, it is unclear what is intended by “the method is at each period T comprised in an interval between 1 ms and 0 ms, based on a force detected at the same period”. It is unclear if the period T is for the entire method or a portion of the method.
Claim 16 recites “the step of imparting a movement on the respective motorized actuator” in lines 2-3; but claim 1 recites that the method comprises: … imparting a movement to said at least one of said one or more motorized actuators … . Thus, the scope of claim 16 is indefinite because it is unclear if claim 16 should refer to the step of imparting a movement to … actuators, or, if another step of imparting a movement on the respective motorized actuators is intended to be claimed.
Claim 23, line 7, recites “said transmission elements”, but claim 1, from which claim 23 depends, does not mention “transmission elements”. Thus, the scope of claim 23 is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 25, lines 3-4, includes the narrative phrase: “being known a working time unit”. It is unclear to what “it” refers back. Consequently, the scope of claim 25 is indefinite.
Claim 28 recites the limitation: “the speed control”. Claim 1, from which claim 28 depends, does not mention a speed control. Consequently, the scope of claim 28 is indefinite. The Examiner notes that claim 25 does mention a speed control.
Claim 6 is rejected because it depends from an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8, 21, 29, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0250083 to Schuh et al (hereinafter referred to as “Schuh”).
Regarding claim 1, Schuh discloses a method for controlling an articulated end effector actuated by one or more actuation tendons of a surgical instrument of a robotic system for surgery, executable during an operating phase of the surgical instrument, wherein the surgical instrument comprises an articulated end effector and at least one actuation tendon, configured to actuate the articulated end effector (e.g., abstract, paragraphs [0002] and [0088]: a method for causing motion of the surgical effector about three degrees of freedom by controlling length in the cables/actuation tendons), and wherein the robotic system for surgery (e.g., Fig. 1, 100) comprises, in addition to said surgical instrument (e.g., abstract: surgical instrument includes a surgical effector; paragraphs [0032]: Fig. 1, surgical effector 164; and [0047]: surgical instrument), a controller (e.g., abstract: surgical instrument includes a surgical effector moving with N degrees of freedom where input controllers and a plurality of cables manipulate the N degrees of freedom) and at least one motorized actuator (e.g., paragraphs [0009]-[0010]: to control the degrees of freedom of the surgical instrument/effector has four input controllers, four cables, and a pantograph for maintaining a constant length of cable between each pair of input controllers; [0041]: robotic arm 204 includes multiple segments coupled at joints to provide multiple degrees of freedom and the slave base of the robotic system includes actuators, such as motors to move the robotic arm; and [0053]-[0055]: The input controllers 520 and bracket 450 … actuate the cables 560 to control motion of the surgical effector 440), operatively connectable to a respective one of said at least one actuation tendon to impart an action to the respective actuation tendon, controlled by the controller, to determine a univocal correlation between at least one movement of the one or more motorized actuators and a respective at least one movement of the articulated end effector (e.g., paragraph [0094]: The computer program [of the controller] recognizes the grip strength of the user/operator based on the loads of the motors actuating the input controllers coupled to the cable segments in order to control the actions of the surgical effector, including holding, pressing, translation and rotation of the surgical instrument via the robotic arm), wherein the method comprises the steps of: during said operating phase, detecting a force (Fm) exerted by at least one of said one or more motorized actuators (e.g., paragraph [0094]: computer program may measure the electric load required to rotate the input controllers to compute the length and/or movement in the cable segments, and the computer program recognizes/detects grip strength based on the load of the motors actuating the input controllers to the cable segments – implies that a force is detected); estimating, by a predefined mathematical model, based on the detected force (Fm), a length variation of at least one of said one or more actuation tendons, due to elastic elongation of the actuation tendon (e.g., paragraph [0094]: the computer program computes the length and/or movement in the cable segments/tendons and compensates for changes in cable elasticity); using the estimated length variation for position control of the one or more motorized actuators (e.g., paragraph [0094]: the computer program compensates for changes in elasticity by increasing/decreasing the amount of rotation needed for the input controllers to change the length of a cable segment), wherein said position control comprises: imparting a movement to said at least one of said one or more motorized actuators taking into account the estimated length variation of said at least one of said one or more actuation tendons, to reduce or cancel error introduced by said elastic elongation between a position reached by the articulated end effector and a desired nominal position of the articulated end effector (e.g. paragraphs [0056]: change in the cable length is compensated for by the instrument device manipulator (IDM), robotic arm, and controlling computer; [0066]: input controller pair concurrently unspools first and second segments resulting in a compensatory rotation of the reciprocal pantograph to conserve cable length; [0094]: computer program compensates for changes in cable elasticity).
With respect to claim 2, Schuh discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the robotic system is a master-slave system in which the surgical instrument is a slave device controlled, according to a control mode, by a master device of the robotic system (e.g., paragraphs [0007]-[0008]; and [0031]: Fig. 1 illustrates a master/slave surgical robotic system 100 having a master device 110/command console including control modules and a slave device 150 or robotic surgical instrument), wherein the method, in the absence of external forces, allows minimizing in a finite time an error between a pose commanded by the master device and a pose reached by the articulated end effector of the slave device (e.g., paragraph [0094]), and/or wherein the step of imparting takes into account a command action performed by a user (e.g., paragraphs [0010]: surgical wrist is controlled by a computer program designed to interpret motions of a user into surgical operations to manipulated the four cables/articulated tendons; [0031]: a user 120 remotely controls the surgical robotic system from the command console 112).
As to claim 3, Schuh discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the surgical instrument comprises a plurality of actuation tendons, and the robotic system for surgery comprises a respective plurality of motorized actuators (e.g., Fig. 5 and paragraph [0055]: input controllers/motorized actuators 520 and mounting bracket 450 are coupled to the IDM and actuate the cables/ actuation tendons 560 to control motion of the surgical effector 440) wherein said step of detecting a force is carried out on a plurality or on all the motorized actuators (e.g., paragraph [0094]: computer program may measure the electric load required to rotate the input controllers to compute the length and/or movement in the cable segments, and the computer program recognizes/detects grip strength based on the load of the motors actuating the input controllers to the cable segments – implies that a force is detected), said step of estimating is carried out with reference to a plurality or to all the actuation tendons (e.g., paragraph [0094]: the computer program computes the length and/or movement in the cable segments/tendons and compensates for changes in cable elasticity), said step of imparting is performed on a plurality or on all the motorized actuators (e.g. paragraphs [0056]: change in the cable length is compensated for by the instrument device manipulator (IDM), robotic arm, and controlling computer; [0066]: input controller pair concurrently unspools first and second segments resulting in a compensatory rotation of the reciprocal pantograph to conserve cable length; [0094]: computer program compensates for changes in cable elasticity), wherein said actuation tendons are polymeric tendons comprising intertwined polymeric fibers (e.g., paragraph [0094]: computer program compensates for cable length change when the cables are a polymer), wherein each of said one or more actuation tendons is operatively connected to both a respective motorized actuator of the robotic system for surgery and to said articulated end effector, to actuate a respective degree of freedom among one or more degrees of freedom of the articulated end effector, wherein at least one of said one or more actuation tendons actuates a rotational degree of freedom of the articulated end effector (e.g., Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0008]-[0009]: the degrees of freedom of the surgical effector are controlled by an IDM; and [0055]: The input controllers 520 and bracket 450 … actuate the cables 560 to control motion of the surgical effector 440).
With respect to claim 4, Schuh discloses the method according to claim 1, comprising the further steps of: verifying information related to the state of the robotic system (e.g., paragraphs [0039]-[0040]: user 120 compares “surgical view” model to actual images captured by the cameral to confirm that the surgical effectors are in the correct – or approximately correct – location inside the patient); deciding, by the controller, whether or not to perform said step of imparting a movement on a motorized actuator, to reduce and/or cancel and/or compensate for the error introduced by the elastic elongation, based on one or more conditions related to the state of the robotic system (e.g., paragraph [0094]: computer program compensates for changes in cable elasticity); performing said step of imparting only if said one or more conditions are satisfied (conditional claim step not required; however, Schuh discloses in paragraph [0094]: If the tension in any of the cables drops below a lower minimum tension, the computer program increases rotation of all input controllers in coordination until the cable tension is above the minimum threshold).
As to claim 8, Schuh discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein the master device is a hand-held, unconstrained master device adapted to be moved by an operator and manipulated by the operator according to a degree of freedom associated with closing and/or gripping of the microsurgical slave instrument (e.g., abstract and paragraph [0031]: user 120 remotely controls the surgical robotic system via a joystick 118, a hand-held, unconstrained master device moved by the user/operator), wherein, at an end of a teleoperation, when the surgical instrument is in a gripping state and the gripping state is to be maintained, said step of imparting a movement on a motorized actuator, to reduce and/or cancel and/or compensate for the error introduced by the elastic elongation, is inhibited for all the motorized actuators connected to respective actuation tendons (e.g., paragraphs [0056]-[0057]: the reciprocal pantograph is configured to maintain the length of the cables in the surgical instrument when the surgical instrument is detached from the slave surgical device – the surgical instrument would not be controlled by the input controllers at this point, but the gripping state would be maintained).
With respect to claim 21, Schuh discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein said surgical instrument further comprises at least one transmission element operatively connected to a respective at least one actuation tendon and operatively connectable to a respective motorized actuator (e.g., paragraphs [0009], [0041], and [0095]-[0099]: surgical instrument has a reciprocal pantograph coupled a pair of input controllers via a cable/actuation tendon, and the reciprocal pantograph maintains a constant length of cable between each pair of input controllers by rotating the reciprocal pantograph where the cable transmits the motion to the input controllers), and wherein the step of imparting a movement and/or exerting a force comprises controlling the movement of each of the motorized actuators so that the movement of the transmission elements includes compensation due to elongation or relaxation of the respective actuation tendons, based on both an estimated length variation of each of the actuation tendons and a modulus and stiffness of said actuation tendons (e.g., paragraph [0094]: computer program may compensate for changes in cable elasticity, due to polymer material of the cable, by increasing/decreasing the rotation of all the input controllers in coordination).
As to claim 29, Schuh discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the position control is performed in a common manner for a plurality of motorized actuators, (e.g., paragraph [0094]: the tension may be adjusted by increasing the rotation of all the input controllers in coordination) by performing a joint control on each pair of antagonistic tendons, based on a common effective elasticity constant value, depending on conditions comprising a position of the master or slave device (e.g., paragraphs [0035]: user 120 can control a surgical effector coupled to a slave device in a position control mode; [0054]-[0055]: cables 560 are coupled to input controllers 520 in a rotary joint so that the cables are wrapped around the input controllers and may spool or unspool around the input controllers; [0063]: the total length in a cable is manipulated by the interplay of spooling and unspooling the pair of input controllers associated with a given cable, as well as the rotation of the restraint pantograph about the reciprocal axis where the pulleys rotate about the reciprocal and tensile axes to create an equal and opposite lengthening (or shortening) to compensate for the shortening (or lengthening) created by spooling or unspooling cable where antagonistic tendons/cables oppose one another), and/or aging or state of the robotic system (alternative condition), and/or wherein the position and/or speed control is performed only if the detected force is lower than a maximum operating force value, and wherein the method is inhibited when even only one of the motorized actuators detects a force greater than said maximum operating force (alternate conditions).
Referring to claim 33, Schuh disclose a robotic system for surgery (e.g., paragraph [0002]: This description relates to surgical robotics), comprising: a surgical instrument comprising an articulated end effector and at least one actuation tendon, configured to actuate the articulated end effector (e.g., abstract: surgical instrument includes a surgical effector moving with N degrees of freedom where input controllers and a plurality of cables/actuation tendons manipulate the N degrees of freedom); a controller (e.g., paragraph [0031]: master device is a command console with control modules); at least one motorized actuator, operatively connectable to a respective said at least one actuation tendon to impart an action to the respective actuation tendon, controlled by the controller, so as to determine a univocal correlation between at least one movement of one or more motorized actuators and a respective at least one movement of the articulated end effector (e.g., paragraphs [0009]-[0010]: to control the degrees of freedom of the surgical effector, the surgical instrument of the robotic system has four input controllers, four cables, and a pantograph for maintaining a constant length of cable between each pair of input controllers; [0041]: robotic arm 204 includes multiple segments coupled at joints to provide multiple degrees of freedom and the slave base of the robotic system includes actuators, such as motors to move the robotic arm; and [0053]-[0055]: The input controllers 520 and bracket 450 … actuate the cables 560 to control motion of the surgical effector 440, Fig. 5); a force detector configured to detect a force exerted by at least one of said one or more motorized actuators, during an operating phase of the surgical instrument (e.g., paragraph [0094]: the computer program may measure the electric load/force required to rotate the input controllers); wherein the controller is configured to carry out the following actions: estimating, by a predefined mathematical model, based on the detected force, a length variation of at least one of said one or more actuation tendons, due to elastic elongation of the actuation tendon (e.g., paragraph [0094]: the computer program computes the length and/or movement in the cable segments/tendons and compensates for changes in cable elasticity); using the estimated length variation for a position control of the one or more motorized actuators, wherein said position control comprises imparting a movement to said at least one of said one or more motorized actuators taking into account the estimated length variation of said at least one of said one or more actuation tendons to reduce or cancel an error introduced by said elastic elongation between a position reached by the articulated end effector and a desired nominal position of the articulated end effector (e.g., paragraph [0094]: the computer program compensates for changes in elasticity by increasing/decreasing the amount of rotation needed for the input controllers to change the length of a cable segment).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuh in view of US Patent Application No. 2023/0390009 to Scholan et al. (EFD 08/31/2021) hereinafter referred to as “Scholan”) and US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0061936 to Zhou et al. (EFD 08/27/2020 and hereinafter referred to as “Zhou”).
With respect to claim 5, Schuh discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein the master device is a hand-held, unconstrained master device adapted to be moved by an operator and manipulated by the operator according to a degree of freedom associated with closing and/or gripping of the surgical instrument (e.g., abstract and paragraph [0031]: user 120 remotely controls the surgical robotic system via a joystick 118, a hand-held, unconstrained master device moved by the user/operator), when, during a teleoperation, the surgical instrument is in a gripping state, said step of imparting a movement on a motorized actuator, to reduce and/or cancel and/or compensate for the error introduced by the elastic elongation (e.g., paragraph [0094], but does not expressly teach that movement is inhibited or decreased according to a scaling factor between 0 and 1, for at least one of the motorized actuators connected to a respective at least one actuation tendon for the actuation of a gripping degree of freedom. However, Scholan, in a related art: control system for surgical robot art, teaches that in some poses, the main controller may translate the movement of an input device to movement of an instrument end effector by applying a scale factor to the input device movement and based on a safety monitor reading that the pose commands are inconsistent with an acceptable scaling factor, movement is inhibited/moved to a safe state (e.g., paragraph [0142] of Scholan). With respect to the scaling factor numbers, Zhou, in a related art: control of an endoscope by a surgical robot, teaches that endoscope motion may be constrained by the mechanical or virtual remote center of motion (RCM) of the robotic arm during minimally invasive surgery (e.g., paragraphs [0001] and [0018]) where the scaling factor is 1 when the distance to the RCM is greater than the distance to the RCM threshold and that the scaling factor when the distance to the RCM is less than 1 (RCM distance/RCM threshold) (e.g., paragraphs [00 [0090] of Zhou. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of inhibiting/constraining according to a scaling factor in view of the teachings of Scholan, and the benefits of the scaling factor being between 0 and 1 the movement in order to reduce vibration as taught by Zhou. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the method of Schuh to inhibit/constrain movement according to a scaling factor between 0 and 1 in view of the teachings of Scholan and Zhou that such was a well-known protocol in the surgical robotic control art, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
As to claim 6, Schuh discloses the method according to claim 5, wherein said step of imparting a movement on a motorized actuator, to reduce and/or cancel and/or compensate for the error introduced by the elastic elongation, is inhibited or decreased according to a scaling factor between 0 and 1 (see combination rejection of claim 5 above), for the two motorized actuators connected to respective two antagonistic actuation tendons of the grip closing degree of freedom, (e.g., paragraph [0063] of Schuh: the total length in a cable is manipulated by the interplay of spooling and unspooling the pair of input controllers associated with a given cable, as well as the rotation of the restraint pantograph about the reciprocal axis where the pulleys rotate about the reciprocal and tensile axes to create an equal and opposite lengthening (or shortening) to compensate for the shortening (or lengthening) created by spooling or unspooling cable where antagonistic tendons/cables oppose one another) or for four motorized actuators connected to the four actuation tendons of the pairs of antagonistic actuation tendons of grip closing and grip opening degrees of freedom (e.g., alternative condition, not required, but disclosed in paragraphs [0009]-[0010] of Schuh: to control the degrees of freedom of the surgical effector, the surgical instrument of the robotic system has four input controllers, four cables, and a pantograph for maintaining a constant length of cable between each pair of input controllers), or wherein said step of imparting a movement on a motorized actuator, to reduce and/or cancel and/or compensate for the error introduced by the elastic elongation, is inhibited or decreased according to a scaling factor between 0 and 1, for all the motorized actuators (alternative condition, not required).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuh in view of US Patent Application Publication NO. 2023/0001579 to Overmyer et al. (EFD 06/30/2021 and hereinafter referred to as “Overmyer”).
Schuh discloses the method according to claim 1, but does not expressly teach when a teleoperation is exited in a non-gripping state, before re-entering a new teleoperation, the estimated length variation for each of the one or more actuation tendons, during a previous teleoperation, is reset. However, Overmyer, in a related art: grasping work determination for a surgical robotic system, teaches a surgical system comprising an end effector that moves through a grasping motion which calculates an amount of work performed during the grasping motion while a position detector indicates when the end effector is within a three-dimensional zone, and resets the calculation of the amount of work performed when the position detector is outside of the three-dimensional zone (e.g. Abstract); and when the jaws of the end effector begin to open (in a non-gripping state), the work calculation during the previous teleoperation is zeroed or reset (e.g., paragraph [021] of Overmyer). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of resetting/zeroing a calculation from an earlier end effector performance in view of the teachings of Overmyer. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the method of Schuh so that when the teleoperation is exited in a non-gripping state, its estimated calculation of the cable length variation for each of the one or more actuation tendons/cables, during the previous teleoperation, is reset in view of the teachings of Overmyer that such was a well-known protocol in the surgical robotic system art, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
Claim 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuh.
With respect to claim 13, as best understood, Schuh discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the step of detecting a force is performed continuously, with a detection frequency (e.g., paragraph [0094] implies that the force detection/calculation of the length or movement in the cable segments is continuous as the calculation is made for all movements of the cable and it would necessarily have a detection frequency), and said position control of the one or more motorized actuators is performed continuously, with a position control frequency (e.g., paragraphs [0036], [0041], [0053] and [0091] where the position control of the instrument is achieved by the motorized actuators and would be performed continuously during the teleoperation (surgical robotic operation) and would necessarily have a frequency), wherein said detection frequency and said position control frequency are set to ensure a compensation of the elastic elongation in real time with a dynamics which cannot be perceived by a user in real time (e.g., paragraph [0094]: computer program can be compensated for changes in cable elasticity; and paragraphs [0006], [0010], [0033] and [0094] real time compensation as the calculation occurs while the instrument is being moved). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art reading Schuh would have recognized the benefits of performing the steps of detecting a force/electrical load continuously and a position control of the motorized actuators continuously in order to monitor the operators motions during the teleoperation of Schuh.
As to claim 14, as best understood, Schuh discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein said detection frequency and position control frequency coincide (e.g., paragraph [0094]: measurement of the electric load required to rotate the input controllers and the length of the cable to position the effector occur at a similar time by increasing or decreasing the rotation of all the input controllers in coordination), but does not expressly disclose that detection frequency and position control frequency are comprised in an interval between 100 Hz and 1000 Hz, wherein, the method is at each period T, comprised in an interval between 1 and 10 ms, based on a force detected at the same period. However, with respect to specific frequency of the force detection and the position control, as well as the duration value of each period, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as taught by Schuh to have force detection frequency and position control frequency in an interval between 100 HZ and 1000 Hz, where the method is at each period T comprised in an interval between 1 and 10 ms, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art [In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233] and Applicant does not appear to provide criticality for force detection frequency and the position control frequency or the period of its method.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuh as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0252268 to Loshak et al. (EFD 6/7/2022, and hereinafter referred to as “Loshak”) and US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0315520 to Leussler et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Leussler”).
Schuh discloses the method according to claim 13, wherein the step of imparting a movement and/or exerting a force on each transmission element comprises applying a force to the transmission element by a double feedback-operated loop (e.g., paragraph [0037] of Schuh: surgical robotic system 100 may rely on force feedback and inertial control from the users to determine appropriate configuration of robotic arms 160 and equipment), but does not expressly disclose that an elastic compensation correction is inserted in parallel to displacement of the motorized actuator due to a movement kinematic mechanism. However, Loshak, in a related art: a surgical robot system, teaches one of ordinary skill in the art to automatically adjust control parameters to compensate for observable parameters that slowly change over time via minimum torque controller 402 feedback loop that runs in parallel to the position controller 400 due to a movement of the end effector (e.g., paragraphs [0084]-[0093] of Loshak). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of a feedback loop applying a force to the transmission element where an elastic compensation correction is inserted in parallel to displacement of the motorized actuator due to a movement kinematic mechanism (movement caused by the operator to move the effector) in view of the teachings of Loshak. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the method of Schuh so that the step of imparting a movement on each transmission element comprises applying a force to the transmission element by a feedback loop wherein an elastic compensation correction is inserted in parallel to displacement of the motorized actuator in view of the teachings of Loshak that such was a known engineering protocol in the surgical robotic art, and the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
With respect to the recitation of a double feedback-operated loop, Leussler teaches that it was known in the surgical art to use “double feedback architecture to control operation” of two different devices during a procedure (e.g., paragraph [0082] of Leussler). In the absence of criticality, the use of a double feedback-operated loop is considered a well-known type of feedback control in view of Leussler and would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuh in view of US Patent No. 11,051,892 to Hata et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Hata”).
With respect to claim 31, Schuh discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein elongation compensation parameters are determined in a controlled and variable manner depending on a pose of the articulated end effector (e.g., paragraphs [0005]: friction forces were known to those skilled in the art, and [0091]-[0094]: discuss controlling compensation values of cable over various surgical effector states/poses), but does not expressly disclose that the elongation compensation parameters are determined to take into account different frictions related to different poses. However, Hata, in a related art: control apparatus and tendon-driven device, teaches that tendon-driven continuum robot needs further refinement due to the friction forces operating between the tendons and their guide structures (e.g., column 2, lines 47-59); and that it was known in the art to use the controller to provide a tension value of the tendon to obtain a desired angular displacement where the tension has a nonlinear relation ship with the desired angular displacement based on friction (e.g., abstract, Figs 27-28 and column 27, line 44 through column 30, line 39). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of taking into account different frictions related to different poses of an end effector in view of the teachings of Hata. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the method of Schuh to take into account friction when determining elongation compensation parameters in view of the teachings of Hata that friction forces are unrealistic to ignore in control and trajectory planning (e.g., column 2, lines 53-59), and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 16, 23, 25, and 28 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0054403 to Zhou et al. is directed to motor control of a surgical tool in a surgical robotic system where an operator may command motions of one or more joints of a surgical robotic arm and a control unit provides the desired motor speed or current and direction of rotation to one or more actuators so that the end effector will change its pose, position, or other state (e.g., paragraph [0066]) where the current source adds a high frequency (e.g., 100 Hz) for the speed control and/or position control (e.g., paragraphs [0104] and [0116]). In addition, Zhou teaches a control unit with a hard stop or physical constraint to set a reference position of the end effector (e.g., paragraphs [0064] and [0083]).
US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0238991 to Worrell et al. is directed to medical devices for grasping tissue that may include a stepper motor control circuit to drive a stepper motor (e.g., Fig. 108) that moves a knife (e.g., paragraphs [0555] and [0556]). Thus, using a stepper motor to acuate actuators is known to those skilled in the medical arts. While Worrell teaches stepper motorized actuators, it does not teach that the speed and position control is performed by a feedback-operated control look with a gain parameter dimensioned to ensure convergence of the compensation with a time constant lower than a maximum convergence time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE M VOORHEES whose telephone number is (571)270-3846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM.
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, Unsu Jung can be reached at 571 272-8506. 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.
/CATHERINE M VOORHEES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792