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 .
Benefit
The application, filed 3 July 2024, claims benefit to US Provisional 63/597,489 (11/9/2023) and US Provisional 63/518902 (8/11/2023).
Formal Matters
Claims 1-20 are pending and under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3 October 2024 (x2) and 13 January 2025 have been considered by the examiner. A signed copies are attached.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 27 recites the phrase “based on position of”. There appears to be an article missing between the words “on” and “position”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 is 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.
Claim 17, line 5 recites “approximating the first jaw and the second jaw”. The metes and bounds of “approximating” are unclear and confusing. What structures, functions, or feature(s) to be approximated in the method? The disclosure states that “[t]he method also includes approximating the first jaw and the second jaw” at ¶8, but does not otherwise provide any further information on what is encompassed by “approximating”.
Applicant is referred to Nautilus Inc., v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 908-909 (2014) in which the Court held that a claim is indefinite if the specification and prosecution history fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention. The Court also held that a patent must be precise enough to afford clear notice of what is claimed thereby "appris[ing] the public of what is still open to them (citing Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 373 (1996)), in a manner that avoids "[a] zone of uncertainty which enterprise and experimentation may enter only at the risk of infringement claims," (citing United Carbon Co., v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 236 (1942)) (Nautilus 909).Applicant is referred to Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (2008). A five member expanded panel of the Board held that "if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, as indefinite."
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wells, US 20230182303 (15 June 2023) (also published as WO 2021252199 (16 December 2021) in view of Zemlock US 20180153634 (7 June 2018) and further in view Shelton US 20190200977 (4 July 2019), as evidenced by “Current Sensing in Motor Drives” (Allegro Microsystems, AN296276, pages 1-17. Epub 29 March 2023 (https://www.allegromicro.com/-/media/files/application-notes/an296276-current-sensing-in-motor-drives.pdf) (last accessed 4/15/2026), and Maughan et al., US 20220047347 (17 February 2022).
Regarding independent claim 1, Wells teaches a surgical robotic system (FIG 1, 10) comprising:
an instrument drive unit (IDU 52) including:
a plurality of motors (motor pack 150, ¶49 ),
wherein each motor of the plurality of motors (FIG 6; motors 152a, 152b, 152c, ¶71) includes a torque sensor for measuring motor torque (torque sensor 155, ¶71) and a position sensor for measuring angular position (angle sensor 157, ¶71);
an instrument (instrument 50; ¶50) coupled to the instrument drive unit (IDU 52), the instrument (instrument 50; ¶50) including:
an end effector (FIG 10, end effector 400; ¶50); and a controller (41b) (instrument drive unit (IDU) controller 41d, ¶45);
a controller (IDU controller 41d):
calculating angles based on the positions of motors (FIG 11; ¶¶45, 47);
calculating combined torque output by the motors (FIGs 11, 12, ¶¶6, 44, 71)
determining an error state based on the combined angle limit measurements and the torque limit measurements (FIG 11, ¶¶6, 71, ¶73), and
outputting an error state (FIG 11).
Wells does not expressly teach two pairs of motors where the motors are designated as a first high-side motor, a second high side-motor, a first low-side motor, and a second low-side motor, the instrument including: having a first jaw and a second jaw each movable between an open position and a closed position; a first high-side cable coupled to the first jaw and actuatable by the first high-side motor to move the first jaw toward the closed position;
a first low-side cable coupled to the first jaw and actuatable by the first low-side motor to move the first jaw toward the open position; a second high-side cable coupled to the second jaw and actuatable by the second high-side motor to move the second jaw toward the closed position; and a second low-side cable coupled to the second jaw and actuatable by the second low-side motor to move the second jaw toward the open position;
calculating an angle between the first jaw and the second jaw based on position of at least one of the motors;
calculating a combined torque of the first high-side motor and the second high-side motor;
determining whether at least one of the first low-side cable or the second low-side cable is broken based on the angle between the first jaw and the second jaw and the combined torque; and outputting an alert based on the determination that at least one of the first low-side cable or the second low-side cable is broken.
Zemlock teaches a robotic surgical assembly (FIG 2B, 100) comprising an instrument drive unit (IDU) (400, ¶41) comprising an end effector comprising jaws (¶3), a motor assembly (410) comprising four motors (FIGs 3, 5, 6, “four pack” ¶41) where the plurality of motors includes a first pair motors (420, 430) and a second pair of motors (440, 450).
Zemlock does not specifically teach that the motors are high-side motors or low-side motors.
Shelton specifically teaches motor driver 492 comprising high-side and low-side motors (¶714) used in tracking (positional) system 480 in an end-effector surgical system (FIGs 2, 12). Tracking system 480 comprising a controlled motor drive circuit arrangement comprising position sensor 472 (FIG 12, ¶715). Shelton teaches control system 470 (FIG 12) comprising a processor 462, a memory 468, and one or more sensors (472, 474, 476), motor 482, motor driver 492 (¶708). Shelton teaches an A3941 motor driver available from Allegro Microsystems Inc (¶711). “Current Sensing in Motor Drives” (published by Allegro Microsystems) provides evidence that the high-side of the motor drive circuits, such as those taught by Shelton, places the switching transistor (MOSFET or IGBT), for inductive loads such as brush DC motors, between the positive supply rail and the motor’s positive terminal and useful for isolated, high-voltage stages for safety and noise control. The high-side drive is also useful for holding brake or zeroing torque at standstill. The low-side transistors of the motor drive circuit place the switching transistor between the motor and ground and are useful for integrated, non-isolated stages. Both high-side and low-side motors are chosen based on power topology, isolation needs, and the precision, reliability, and haptic performance required for surgical motion control (see entire document, especially pp. 2, 7). Driver design (high-side/low-side) influences heat dissipation, component stress, and isolation requirements.
Maughan teaches end effector (FIG 4A, grasper 222; ¶35) having a first jaw (401A) and a second jaw (401B) each movable between an open position and a closed position (FIGs 4A, 4B; ¶35); a first pair of cables (FIG 4A, cables 405A, 405B; ¶35) each of which is actuated by one motor of the first pair motors (¶59) to move the first jaw (401A; ¶35) and the second jaw (401B; ¶35) toward the closed position (FIG 4A, ¶¶37, 38), wherein one of the first pair of cables (405A; ¶35) is coupled to the first jaw (401A; ¶35) and another of the first pair of cables (405B, ¶35) is coupled to the second jaw (401B; ¶35) and a second pair of cables (cables 405C, 405D; ¶35) each of which is actuated by one motor of the second pair motors (¶59) to move the first jaw (cables 405A, 405B; ¶35) and the second jaw toward the open position (FIG 4B, ¶¶37, 38), wherein one of the second pair of cables is coupled to the first jaw (cables 405C; ¶35) and another of the second pair of cables is coupled to the second jaw (cables 405D; ¶35).
Maughan also teaches calculating an angle between the first jaw and the second jaw based on the angular position (¶59, “position encoder 233 may be a rotary position encoder that monitors motor shaft position and encodes the current motor shaft position e.g. to a value representing angular position”) of at least one motor of the plurality of motors (FIG 9, ¶59); calculating a combined torque (FIGs 10, 11; ¶¶81, 106) of the first pair of motors (FIG 10, ¶82, “relative to an operating parameter of another motor that is part of the same actuator”); determining whether at least one cable of the second pair of cables is broken (FIG 11, S111) based on the angle between the first jaw and the second jaw (FIG 9, ¶59) and the combined torque (FIGs 10, 11; ¶¶81, 106); and outputting an alert (FIG 10, alert 507; ¶118) based on the determination that at least one cable of the second pair of cables is broken (FIG 11, S111; ¶117).
Maughan does not label the cables “high-side” or “low-side”.
Labeling the cables “high-side” or “low-side” is broadly interpreted as the particular cable (or pair of cables) connected to the particular motor switching transistor that is subsequently linked to one pair of motors that are designated a “high-side” or “low-side” for the purposes of naming the particular switch drive circuit with particular grounding functions. This naming convention based on structure of these drive circuits is also taught by Shelton as explained in detail by the “Current Sensing in Motor Drives” evidentiary reference.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Wells, Zemlock, Shelton, and Maughan, as evidenced by “Current Sensing in Motor Drives” given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single reference. Wells, Zemlock, Shelton, and Maughan teach in the same field of endeavor, surgical assemblies comprising cable driven tools. “Current Sensing in Motor Drives” provides background on the teachings of the motor switches of Shelton and also provides evidence that the selection of motor switches for high-side and low-side uses are results effective variables that are well-known in the art as design options depending on individual use case.
Although, Wells discloses the claimed base surgical robotic system comprising an IDU, a three-motor assembly comprising torque sensors and angle sensors for measuring position, and an end effector and controller coupled to the drive unit, Wells does not does not disclose a four-motor system, a jawed end effector, any specific cabling connections to a jawed end effector, and does not disclose calculations of angles and torques to derive an output alert based on a determination that at least one cable is broken. However, Wells does teach IDU controllers calculating angles based on motor positions, a controller outputting errors if normal torque is not detected, and a three motor system comprising a motor pack.
Zemlock specifically addresses a four motor pack comprising a first and second pair of motors in a IDU assembly system. Because Wells includes a motor pack comprising a three motor assembly in an IDU system, a person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to provide differential power distribution for particular end-use cases with the need for additional power for a range of functional end effectors, including a pair of jaws with multiple degrees of freedom, would reasonably consult Zemlock’s additional motor solution. Zemlock’s four motor pack can be incorporated alongside Well’s base surgical robotic system (comprising an IDU, torque sensors, angle sensors, end effectors, and controller) using known assembly methods without redesigning Well’s core device.
Shelton specifically addresses control system 470 (FIG 12) used in end-effector surgical systems (FIGs 2, 12) comprising a processor 462, a memory 468, and one or more sensors (472, 474, 476), motor 482, motor driver 492 (¶708) where motor driver 492, comprises high-side and low-side motors (¶714). Shelton teaches an A3941 motor driver available from Allegro Microsystems Inc (¶711). “Current Sensing in Motor Drives” (published by Allegro Microsystems) provides evidence that the high-side of the motor drive circuits, such as those taught by Shelton, places the switching transistor (MOSFET or IGBT), for inductive loads such as brush DC motors, between the positive supply rail and the motor’s positive terminal and useful for isolated, high-voltage stages for safety and noise control. The high-side drive is also useful for holding brake or zeroing torque at standstill. The low-side transistors of the motor drive circuit place the switching transistor between the motor and ground and are useful for integrated, non-isolated stages. Both high-side and low-side motors are chosen based on power topology, isolation needs, and the precision, reliability, and haptic performance required for surgical motion control (see entire document, especially pp. 2, 7). Driver design (high-side/low-side) influences heat dissipation, component stress, and isolation requirements.
Based on the teachings of Shelton, as evidenced by “Current Sensing in Motor Drives”
(especially the variables in the Table on p. 2), the claimed high-side and low-side designations for both motors and cables in the claims are drawn to design-selections of components which evidence shows are results-effective variables which can be optimized based on the electrical power needs of the system, which will vary based on intended use. The “Current Sensing in Motor Drives” discusses many of the tradeoffs when considering variational current paths. Page 7 states that “high-size current sensors are primarily used when a customer must detect a system-level short to ground. As mentioned previously, this can be the most common failure mechanism to occur. In the low-side sensing case, the fault current path bypasses the sensor. When a high-side current sensor is used (see Wells at FIG 11), the fault current flows though the current sensor and this fault mode can be properly detected so that the system can act” (p. 7, paragraph above FIG 8). One of skill in the art would clearly recognize that the high-side components and configuration options and low-side components and configuration options can be optimized depending on the end effect desired for the use case. This is shown by FIG 11 of Wells.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate components necessary to detect faults, including cable breakage by determining the current, torque, and angle measurements as taught by Wells at FIG 11. The torque limits, current limits, and angle limits can be optimized by a person of ordinary skill in the art without undue experimentation based on the energy needs for the intended use case and the anatomical structures for which the devices are designed to service. Selecting from a finite number of known components in order to detect system faults would amount to nothing more than routine experimentation that can be optimized on an individual use case basis. See, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) and In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Additionally, Maughan provides additional support for the selection of results effective variables in terms of using a controller to calculate and compare sensed measurement of components to detect faults (FIG 10). Maughan teaches formulas and calculations of comparative velocities and tension including commanded position and inverse kinematics (FIG 10, 508) using an AND gate 505 (FIG 10, ¶105) to message the disengagement of a cable (¶106).
Maughan discloses surgical robotic systems comprising end effectors with a pair of jaws moved by cables and the detection of disengagement of those cables in the tool. Maughan teaches the particular limitations of how the cables are attached to the first and second jaw and also teaches a position encoder that encodes motor shaft position as a value representing angular position, which are the same type of calculations used by Wells in monitoring the state of the system for cable disengagement. Both Wells and Maughan expressly teach sensors, controllers, and calculations involved with monitoring instrument engagement and failure detection. A person of ordinary skill in the art attempting to provide jaw-specific cable disengagement detection would look for established cable designs, sensors, detection means, device components and methods, would look for established cable connection and articulation designs that promote detection of disengagement in cable driven tools to avoid creating a novel jaw end effector modular component to be controlled by a controller. Maughan’s end effector, cable connections, and controller functions are modular and can be adapted to the end effector of Wells device to enable robotic activation of a jawed end effector assembly including the detection of disengagement of cables in a jawed end effector tool.
Because the references address the same engineering problem (the detection of engagement/disengagement of cables in cable-driven tools using measurements of motor torque, angle (position), current, and combinations thereof in order to determine whether a fault, such as a cable break, has occurred, and to have the system alert on the malfunction) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adding a four pack set of motors (as taught by Zemlock) comprising a pair of high-side and a pair of low-side motor switches for increased power to a particular end effector component such as jaws (taught by Maughan) and for separation of ground to provide a fault warning system (as taught by Shelton), adding a modular component comprising a cabled, jaw end effector whose architecture and controller components are linked to the four pack of motors with high-side and low-side switches designed to faults, and for which Maughan teaches the detection of disengagement in the cable driven tools), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Additionally, all of Wells, Zemlock, Shelton, and Maughan, as well as the evidence provided by the “Current Sensing in Motor Drives” publication demonstrates that there were a finite number of identified, predicable, modular solutions within the same field and same and overlapping instrument types where a person of ordinary skill in the art could choose from with a reasonable expectation of success. There has been a recognized need in the art to find solutions to surgical tool malfunction before the instruments are introduced inside the human body or to provide immediate notice to end-users/physicians of adverse mechanical/equipment events while the instruments are in vivo. Wells and Maughan show that fault detection can be added to robotic instrument systems using sensors and motor component measurements, controlled by a controller, which can be optimized such that the selection of components is predictable or readily accomplished without undue experimentation and the measurements can be done continuously and combined to provide output comprising fault detection and alerts, including of cable breakage (Maughan).
Wells, Zemlock, Shelton, and Maughan, as well as the evidence provided by the “Current Sensing in Motor Drives”, demonstrate that there were a finite number of identified predictable potential solutions published in these prior art references. One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential options with a reasonable expectation of success, given the teachings, suggestions, and motivation provided by Wells, Zemlock, Shelton, and Maughan, as well as the evidence provided by the “Current Sensing in Motor Drives” publication. The person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursues the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). See also, MPEP 2144.05. Further, it is noted that there is no discussion in the disclosure as to the criticality of any particularly type of motor switching system that designates a pair of high-side and a pair of low-side motors (or cables connected to those motors, such that the cables are designated high-side and low-side). There are no reasons set forth in the disclosure as to why any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art which teaches high-side/low-side motor drive units for fault detection, would result in a different function. The disclosure at ¶54 states that “[t]he present disclosure provides a system and a method configured to predict and/or detect when any of the cables 201a-d, and in particular high side cables 201b and 201c will snap using sensor signals from the motors 152a-d”. However, this is also exactly what is taught in the art. Motivation for a high-side/low-side motor switching system in a surgical end effector system is found in Shelton, as evidenced by the “Current Sensing in Motor Drives” publication. The “Current Sensing in Motor Drives” is particularly enlightening because it unambiguously discloses that “in the low-side sensing case, the fault current path bypasses the sensor. When a high-side current sensor is used (see Wells at FIG 11), the fault current flows though the current sensor and this fault mode can be properly detected so that the system can act” (see “Current Sensing in Motor Drives” at p. 7, paragraph above FIG 8). This resonates with applicant’s disclosure at ¶54. This is also indicative of a design choice made from among known alternatives used for the same function in the prior art.
One of skill in the art would clearly recognize that the high-side components and configuration options and low-side components and configuration options can be arranged and optimized depending on the end effect desired for the use case, as explained in the prior art, such as Shelton and the “Current Sensing in Motor Drives” document. This concept is also shown in practice in FIG 11 of Wells, albeit without the detailed specificities of the power system structure of the surgical instrument. Similarly, the detection of cable disengagement by Maughan further supports the motivation to pursue known solutions when the end effectors comprise a pair of cabled jaws (FIG 10).
Applicant is reminded that design choice applies when old elements in the prior art perform the same function as the now claimed structures. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975) (use of claimed feature solves no stated problem and presents no unexpected result and “would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art”). However, when the claimed structure performs differently from the prior art a finding of obvious design choice is precluded. In re Gal, 980 F.2d 717, 719 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (finding of obvious design choice precluded when claimed structure and the function it performs are different from the prior art). See In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 298-99 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“design choice” is appropriate where the applicant fails to set forth any reasons why the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art would result in a different function). In the absence of any indication of criticality for the greater than or equal to twice the width element, the limitation is construed as a design choice.
Regarding claim 2, Wells, modified by Zemlock, Shelton, as evidenced by “Current Sensing in Motor Drives”, and Maughan teach the surgical robotic system according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Maughan teaches wherein the controller further calculates a derivative (FIG 10; ¶¶95-96, 105) of the angle between the first jaw and the second jaw (FIGs 4B, 10; ¶¶54-57, 59; “the kinematic relationship that relates the ideal cable displacements and jaw angles are described in Equations 7-9”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Wells, Zemlock, Shelton, and Maughan, as evidenced by “Current Sensing in Motor Drives” given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single reference, for the reasons set forth in claim 1.
Claims 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wells, US 20230182303 (15 June 2023) (also published as WO 2021252199 (16 December 2021) in view of Zemlock US 20180153634 (7 June 2018) and further in view Shelton US 20190200977 (4 July 2019), as evidenced by “Current Sensing in Motor Drives” (Allegro Microsystems, AN296276, pages 1-17. Epub 29 March 2023 (https://www.allegromicro.com/-/media/files/application-notes/an296276-current-sensing-in-motor-drives.pdf) (last accessed 4/15/2026), and Maughan et al., US 20220047347 (17 February 2022), and further in view of Blondia, US 20070001624 (4 January 2007).
Regarding claim 3, Wells, modified by Zemlock, Shelton, as evidenced by “Current Sensing in Motor Drives”, and Maughan teaches the surgical robotic system according to claim 2, as set forth above.
Maughan teaches wherein the controller further calculates a first moving average of the derivative (FIG 10; ¶¶95-96, 105) of the angle (Maughan, ¶42, FIG 4B, Equation 4) between the first jaw and the second jaw (FIGs 4B, 10; ¶¶54-57, 59; “the kinematic relationship that relates the ideal cable displacements and jaw angles are described in Equations 7-9”).
Wells, modified by Zemlock, Shelton, as evidenced by “Current Sensing in Motor Drives”, and Maughan do not teach a plurality of subsequent moving averages of the first moving average.
Blondia teaches plurality of subsequent moving averages of the first moving average (¶77). Blondia teaches power systems comprising DC power supply and current sensors (claim 1). Blondia teaches the use of an adaptive moving average window technique, where rather than keeping track of all operating voltage history since power up, one calculates the average over a moving window, which is “very suitable for a less powerful processor” (¶77). Blondia teaches the size of the time window and the sample conversion speeds determines the time constant (¶77). Blondia also teaches that right shifting is a standard logical instruction in most microcontrollers or microprocessors (¶77). Blondia also teaches that the average window can be resized dynamically for changing operating conditions (¶77).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Wells, Zemlock, Shelton, and Maughan, as evidenced by “Current Sensing in Motor Drives” given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single reference, for the reasons set forth in claim 1. Additionally, Maughan teaches limitations set forth in claim 2, for which the combinatorial and design choice rationales of claim 1 also apply.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Wells, Zemlock, Shelton, Maughan and Blondia, as evidenced by “Current Sensing in Motor Drives”, given that the prior art included a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine elements in the prior art and given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not in a single reference. All of Wells, Zemlock, Shelton, Maughan, Blondia, and the “Current Sensing in Motor Drives” document teach systems comprising power supplies and controllers.
Both Wells and Maughan expressly teach motor drive units comprising sensors, controllers, in addition to the calculations involved with monitoring instrument engagement and failure detection. Maughan specifically addressed using a controller to calculate and compare sensed measurement of components to detect faults (FIG 10). Maughan teaches formulas and calculations of comparative velocities and tension including commanded position and inverse kinematics (FIG 10, 508) and the option of using an AND gate 505 (FIG 10, ¶105) to message the disengagement of a cable (¶106).
Blondia specifically addresses using a plurality of subsequent moving averages of the first moving average and that the average window can be resized dynamically for changing operating conditions (¶77). Blondia teaches the use of an adaptive moving average window technique is “very suitable for a less powerful processor”, rather than keeping track of all operating voltage history since power up (¶77).
A person of ordinary skill in the art attempting to provide derivative calculations using a controller would look for established hardware, software or calculation methodologies that compute the derivatives (differential equations, either ordinary or partial) based on sensor calculations for hardware variables as close to the component as possible with speed, accuracy, and reliability, to avoid creating a novel computational system (calculations) to manage computationally heavy series of differentials over time. Maughan’s derivative calculations and equation examples are software-enabled and modular and can be adapted to the controllers of Blondia for use in control circuit-driven systems. Blondia provides specific motivation for using moving averages and adaptive moving average windows, teaching that they are very suitable for less powerful processors. Blondia also expressly teaches that right shifting is a standard logical instruction, emphasizing the common practice as the industry standard in microcontrollers and microprocessors (¶77).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate components and controller hardware and software necessary to detect faults, including cable breakage by determining the current, torque, and angle measurements knowing the calculations taught by Wells and Maughan and industry standards for controllers and processors, as taught by Blondia, as well as the commonly used moving averages and adaptive moving average windows, including average window can be resized dynamically for changing operating conditions taught by Blondia.
Because the references address the same engineering problem (calculating derivatives of differential movements in motor angles between the first jaw and the second jaw and a plurality of subsequent moving averages of the first moving average) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (utilizing processors comprising standard logical instructions based on known equations for high-throughput differential equations in determining derivatives in end-effector surgical systems (as taught by Maughan), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
It is also noted that although all of the references teach in the field of systems comprising power supplies and controllers, Blondia does not expressly involve surgical systems or end-effector systems. To the extent that Blondia may be considered non-analogous art, depending on the field-specific granularity with which the reference is viewed, Applicant is reminded that the use of non-analogous art is acceptable when it is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Implicit motivation to combine cited prior art references also exists if the claimed improvement is technology-independent and combination results in a product or process that is more desirable, as well as if the suggestion to combine may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole. Motivation to combine exists in such circumstance even in the absence of a suggestion in the references themselves, since the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving products or processes is universal and even common-sensical, and in such a situation the proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses knowledge and skill render him or her capable of combining prior art references. (Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co., Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 80 USPQ2d 1641 at pp. 1651 and 1653 (Fed. Cir. 2006), citing Pro-Mold & Tool Inc., v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 37 USPQ2d 1626 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).
Regarding claim 4, Wells, modified by Zemlock, Shelton, as evidenced by “Current Sensing in Motor Drives”, Maughan, and Blondia, teaches the surgical robotic system according to claim 3, as set forth above.
Wells teaches wherein the controller further calculates a scaled value (scaled by a scaling function by the controller) (¶46) for the first moving average (¶47, “the inverse kinematics function calculates angles for the joints 44a, 44b, 44c of the robotic arm 40 that achieve the scaled and adjusted pose input by the hand controller 38a. The calculated angles are then passed to the robotic arm controller 41c, which includes a joint axis controller having a proportional-derivative (PD) controller, the friction estimator module, the gravity compensator module, and a two-sided saturation block, which is configured to limit the commanded torque of the motors of the joints 44a, 44b, 44c).
Wells, modified by Zemlock, Shelton, as evidenced by “Current Sensing in Motor Drives”, and Maughan do not teach each moving average of the plurality of subsequent moving averages.
As set forth in claim 3, Blondia teaches plurality of subsequent moving averages of the first moving average (¶77). Blondia teaches power systems comprising DC power supply and current sensors (claim 1). Blondia teaches the use of an adaptive moving average window technique, where rather than keeping track of all operating voltage history since power up, one calculates the average over a moving window, which is “very suitable for a less powerful processor” (¶77). Blondia teaches the size of the time window and the sample conversion speeds determines the time constant (¶77).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Wells, Zemlock, Shelton, Maughan and Blondia, as evidenced by “Current Sensing in Motor Drives”, given that the prior art included a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine elements in the prior art and given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not in a single reference. All of Wells, Zemlock, Shelton, Maughan, Blondia, and the “Current Sensing in Motor Drives” document teach systems comprising power supplies and controllers, for the reasons set forth in claim 3, above.
Blondia specifically addresses using a plurality of subsequent moving averages of the first moving average and that the average window can be resized dynamically for changing operating conditions (¶77). Blondia teaches the use of an adaptive moving average window technique is “very suitable for a less powerful processor”, rather than keeping track of all operating voltage history since power up (¶77).
A person of ordinary skill in the art attempting to provide derivative calculations using a controller would look for established hardware, software or calculation methodologies that compute the derivatives (differential equations, either ordinary or partial) based on sensor calculations for hardware variables as close to the component as possible with speed, accuracy, and reliability, to avoid creating a novel computational system (calculations) to manage computationally heavy series of differentials over time. Maughan’s derivative calculations and equation examples are software-enabled and modular and can be adapted to the controllers of Blondia for use in control circuit-driven systems. Blondia provides specific motivation for using moving averages and adaptive moving average windows, teaching that they are very suitable for less powerful processors. Blondia also expressly teaches that right shifting is a standard logical instruction, emphasizing the common practice as the industry standard in microcontrollers and microprocessors (¶77).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate components and controller hardware and software necessary to detect faults, including cable breakage by determining the current, torque, and angle measurements knowing the calculations taught by Wells and Maughan and industry standards for controllers and processors, as taught by Blondia, as well as the commonly used moving averages and adaptive moving average windows, including average window can be resized dynamically for changing operating conditions taught by Blondia.
Because the references address the same engineering problem (calculating derivatives of differential movements in motor angles between the first jaw and the second jaw and a plurality of subsequent moving averages of the first moving average) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (utilizing processors comprising standard logical instructions based on known equations for high-throughput differential equations in determining derivatives in end-effector surgical systems (as taught by Maughan), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Regarding claim 5, Wells, modified by Zemlock, Shelton, as evidenced by “Current Sensing in Motor Drives”, Maughan, and Blondia teaches the surgical robotic system according to claim 3, as set forth above.
Blondia teaches wherein each moving average of the plurality of subsequent moving averages has a unique window size (¶77). Blondia teaches the size of the time window and the sample conversion speeds determines the time constant and that the average window can be resized dynamically for changing operating conditions (¶77).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Wells, Zemlock, Shelton, Maughan and Blondia, as evidenced by “Current Sensing in Motor Drives”, given that the prior art included a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine elements in the prior art and given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not in a single reference. All of Wells, Zemlock, Shelton, Maughan, Blondia, and the “Current Sensing in Motor Drives” document teach systems comprising power supplies and controllers, for the reasons set forth in claim 3, above.
A person of ordinary skill in the art attempting to provide derivative using a controller would look for established hardware, software or calculation methodologies that compute the derivatives (differential equations, either ordinary or partial) based on sensor calculations for hardware variables as close to the component as possible with speed, accuracy, and reliability, to avoid creating a novel computational system (calculations) to manage computationally heavy series of differentials over time. Maughan’s derivative calculations and equation examples are software-enabled and modular and can be adapted to the controllers of Blondia for use in control circuit-driven systems. Blondia provides specific motivation for using moving averages and adaptive moving average windows, teaching that they are very suitable for less powerful processors. Blondia also expressly teaches that right shifting is a standard logical instruction, emphasizing the common practice as the industry standard in microcontrollers and microprocessors (¶77).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Wells, Zemlock, Shelton, Maughan and Blondia, as evidenced by “Current Sensing in Motor Drives”, given that the prior art included a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine elements in the prior art and given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not in a single reference. All of Wells, Zemlock, Shelton, Maughan, Blondia, and the “Current Sensing in Motor Drives” document teach systems comprising power supplies and controllers, for the reasons set forth in claim 3, above.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate components and controller hardware and software necessary to detect faults, including cable breakage by determining the current, torque, and angle measurements knowing the calculations taught by Wells and Maughan and industry standards for controllers and processors, as taught by Blondia, as well as the commonly used moving averages and adaptive moving average windows, including average window can be resized dynamically for changing operating conditions taught by Blondia.
Because the references address the same engineering problem (calculating derivatives of differential movements in motor angles between the first jaw and the second jaw and a plurality of subsequent moving averages of the first moving average) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (utilizing processors comprising standard logical instructions based on known equations for high-throughput differential equations in determining derivatives in end-effector surgical systems (as taught by Maughan), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Regarding claim 6, Wells, modified by Zemlock, Shelton, as evidenced by “Current Sensing in Motor Drives”, Maughan, and Blondia teaches the surgical robotic system according to claim 3, as set forth above.
Blondia teaches wherein the controller identifies a minimum moving average from the first moving average and each moving average of the plurality of subsequent moving averages (¶77). Blondia specifically addresses using a plurality of subsequent moving averages of the first moving average and that the average window can be resized dynamically for changing operating conditions (¶77). Blondia teaches the use of an adaptive moving average window technique is “very suitable for a less powerful processor”, rather than keeping track of all operating voltage history since power up (¶77).
Maughan teaches wherein the controller further calculates a first moving average of the derivative (FIG 10; ¶¶95-96, 105) of the angle (Maughan, ¶42, FIG 4B, Equation 4) between the first jaw and the second jaw (FIGs 4B, 10; ¶¶54-57, 59; “the kinematic relationship that relates the ideal cable displacements and jaw angles are described in Equations 7-9”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Wells, Zemlock, Shelton, Maughan and Blondia, as evidenced by “Current Sensing in Motor Drives”, given that the prior art included a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine elements in the prior art and given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not in a single reference. All of Wells, Zemlock, Shelton, Maughan, Blondia, and the “Current Sensing in Motor Drives” document teach systems comprising power supplies and controllers, for the reasons set forth in claim 3, above.
A person of ordinary skill in the art attempting to provide derivative calculations using a controller would look for established hardware, software or calculation methodologies that compute the derivatives (differential equations, either ordinary or partial) based on sensor calculations for hardware variables as close to the component as possible with speed, accuracy, and reliability, to avoid creating a novel computational system (calculations) to manage computationally heavy series of differentials over time. Maughan’s derivative calculations and equation examples are software-enabled and modular and can be adapted to the controllers of Blondia for use in control circuit-driven systems. Blondia provides specific motivation for using moving averages and adaptive moving average windows, teaching that they are very suitable for less powerful processors. Blondia also expressly teaches that right shifting is a standard logical instruction, emphasizing the common practice as the industry standard in microcontrollers and microprocessors (¶77).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate components and controller hardware and software necessary to detect faults, including cable breakage by determining the current, torque, and angle measurements knowing the calculations taught by Wells and Maughan and industry standards for controllers and processors, as taught by Blondia, as well as the commonly used moving averages and adaptive moving average windows, including average window can be resized dynamically for changing operating conditions taught by Blondia.
Because the references address the same engineering problem (calculating derivatives of differential movements in motor angles between the first jaw and the second jaw and a plurality of subsequent moving averages of the first moving average) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (utilizing controllers and processors comprising standard logical instructions based on known equations for high-throughput differential equations in determining derivatives in end-effector surgical systems (as taught by Maughan), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Regarding claim 7, Wells, modified by Zemlock, Shelton, as evidenced by “Current Sensing in Motor Drives”, Maughan, and Blondia teaches the surgical robotic system according to claim 6, as set forth above.
Blondia teaches wherein the controller compares (comparator 614, 624) the minimum moving average to a threshold (reference 616, 622) (FIG 6, ¶¶95, 96).
Blondia teaches wherein the controller identifies a minimum moving average from the first moving average and each moving average of the plurality of subsequent moving averages (¶77).
Maughan teaches wherein the controller further calculates a first moving average of the derivative (FIG 10; ¶¶95-96, 105) of the angle (Maughan, ¶42, FIG 4B, Equation 4) between the first jaw and the second jaw (FIGs 4B, 10; ¶¶54-57, 59; “the kinematic relationship that relates the ideal cable displacements and jaw angles are described in Equations 7-9”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Wells, Zemlock, Shelton, Maughan and Blondia, as evidenced by “Current Sensing in Motor Drives”, given that the prior art included a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine elements in the prior art and given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not in a single reference. All of Wells, Zemlock, Shelton, Maughan, Blondia, and the “Current Sensing in Motor Drives” document teach systems comprising power supplies and controllers, for the reasons set forth in claims 3 and 6, above.
A person of ordinary skill in the art attempting to provide derivative calculations using a controller would look for established hardware, software or calculation methodologies that compute the derivatives (differential equations, either ordinary or partial) based on sensor calculations for hardware variables as close to the component as possible with speed, accuracy, and reliability, to avoid creating a novel computational system (calculations) to manage computationally heavy series of differentials over time. Maughan’s derivative calculations and equation examples are software-enabled and modular and can be adapted to the controllers of Blondia for use in control circuit-driven systems. Blondia provides specific motivation for using moving averages and adaptive moving average windows, teaching that they are very suitable for less powerful processors. Blondia also expressly teaches that right shifting is a standard logical instruction, emphasizing the common practice as the industry standard in microcontrollers and microprocessors (¶77).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate components and controller hardware and software necessary to detect faults, including cable breakage by determining the current, torque, and angle measurements knowing the calculations taught by Wells and Maughan and industry standards for controllers and processors, as taught by Blondia, as well as the commonly used moving averages and adaptive moving average windows, including average window can be resized dynamically for changing operating conditions taught by Blondia.
Because the references address the same engineering problem (calculating derivatives of differential movements in motor angles between the first jaw and the second jaw and a plurality of subsequent moving averages of the first moving average) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (utilizing controllers and processors comprising standard logical instructions based on known equations for high-throughput differential equations in determining derivatives in end-effector surgical systems (as taught by Maughan), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Regarding claim 8, Wells, modified by Zemlock, Shelton, as evidenced by “Current Sensing in Motor Drives”, Maughan, and Blondia teaches the surgical robotic system according to claim 7, as set forth above.
Maughan teaches wherein the controller determines (FIG 11, S111; ¶117) a malfunction of the surgical tool where the malfunction is based on the comparison for tension (¶78, “measured torque (a rotational force) can be converted to a tension (a linear force)”) and the comparison for velocity (¶117). Maughan teaches that when the tension is below the tension threshold and the velocity is above the threshold, the processor identifies a malfunction with the cable (¶117). Maughan teaches that the malfunction may be disengagement of at least one cable (¶117).
Maughan teaches where the calculation is a first moving average of the derivative (FIG 10; ¶¶95-96, 105) of the angle (Maughan, ¶42, FIG 4B, Equation 4) between the first jaw and the second jaw (FIGs 4B, 10; ¶¶54-57, 59; “the kinematic relationship that relates the ideal cable displacements and jaw angles are described in Equations 7-9”).
Shelton specifically teaches motor driver 492 comprising high-side and low-side motors (¶714) (FIGs 2, 12). Shelton teaches control system 470 (FIG 12) comprising a processor 462, and one or more sensors (472, 474, 476), motor 482, motor driver 492 (¶708). Shelton teaches an A3941 motor driver available from Allegro Microsystems Inc (¶711). “Current Sensing in Motor Drives” (published by Allegro Microsystems) provides evidence that the high-side of the motor drive circuits, such as those taught by Shelton, places the switching transistor (MOSFET or IGBT), for inductive loads such as brush DC motors, between the positive supply rail and the motor’s positive terminal and useful for isolated, high-voltage stages for safety and noise control. The high-side drive is also useful for holding brake or zeroing torque at standstill. The low-side transistors of the motor drive circuit place the switching transistor between the motor and ground and are useful for integrated, non-isolated stages. Both high-side and low-side motors are chosen based on power topology, isolation needs, and the precision, reliability, and haptic performance required for surgical motion control (see entire document, especially pp. 2, 7).
Blondia teaches wherein the controller compares (comparator 614, 624) the minimum moving average to a threshold (reference 616, 622) (FIG 6, ¶¶95, 96).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Wells, Zemlock, Shelton, Maughan and Blondia, as evidenced by “Current Sensing in Motor Drives”, given that the prior art included a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine elements in the prior art and given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not in a single reference. All of Wells, Zemlock, Shelton, Maughan, Blondia, and the “Current Sensing in Motor Drives” document teach systems comprising power supplies and controllers, for the reasons set forth in claims 3, 6, and 7 above.
A person of ordinary skill in the art attempting to provide derivative calculations using a controller would look for established hardware, software or calculation methodologies that compute the derivatives (differential equations, either ordinary or partial) based on sensor calculations for hardware variables as close to the component as possible with speed, accuracy, and reliability, to avoid creating a novel computational system (calculations) to manage computationally heavy series of differentials over time. Maughan’s derivative calculations and equation examples are software-enabled and modular and can be adapted to the controllers of Blondia for use in control circuit-driven systems. Blondia provides specific motivation for using moving averages and adaptive moving average windows, teaching that they are very suitable for less powerful processors. Blondia also expressly teaches that right shifting is a standard logical instruction, emphasizing the common practice as the industry standard in microcontrollers and microprocessors (¶77).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate components and controller hardware and software necessary to detect faults, including cable breakage by determining the current, torque, and angle measurements knowing the calculations taught by Wells and Maughan and industry standards for controllers and processors, as taught by Blondia, as well as the commonly used moving averages and adaptive moving average windows, including average window can be resized dynamically for changing operating conditions taught by Blondia.
Because the references address the same engineering problem (calculating derivatives of differential movements in motor angles between the first jaw and the second jaw and a plurality of subsequent moving averages of the first moving average) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (utilizing processors comprising standard logical instructions based on known equations for high-throughput differential equations in determining derivatives in end-effector surgical systems (as taught by Maughan), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wells, US 20230182303 (15 June 2023) (also published as Wells, WO 2021252199 (16 December 2021)) in view of Zemlock, US 20180153634 (6 June 2018) and further in view of Maughan et al., US 20220047347 (17 February 2022).
Regarding independent claim 9, Wells teaches a surgical robotic system (FIG 1, 10) comprising:
an instrument drive unit (IDU 52) including:
a plurality of motors (motor pack 150, ¶49 ), wherein each motor of the plurality of motors (FIG 6; motors 152a, 152b, 152c, ¶71) includes a torque sensor for measuring motor torque (torque sensor 155, ¶71) and a position sensor for measuring angular position (angle sensor 157, ¶71);
an instrument (instrument 50; ¶50) coupled to the instrument drive unit (IDU 52) (FIG 12), the instrument (50) including: an end effector (FIG 10, end effector 400; ¶50)
and a controller (instrument drive unit (IDU) controller 41d, ¶45).
Wells does not teach where the plurality of motors includes a first pair of motors and a second pair of motors.
Wells does not teach the end effector having a first jaw and a second jaw each movable between an open position and a closed position; a first pair of cables each of which is actuated by one motor of the first pair motors to move the first jaw and the second jaw toward the closed position, wherein one of the first pair of cables is coupled to the first jaw and another of the first pair of cables is coupled to the second jaw; and a second pair of cables each of which is actuated by one motor of the second pair motors to move the first jaw and the second jaw toward the open position, wherein one of the second pair of cables is coupled to the first jaw and another of the second pair of cables is coupled to the second jaw.
Wells does not teach calculating an angle between the first jaw and the second jaw based on the angular position of at least one motor of the plurality of motors; calculating a combined torque of the first pair of motors; determining whether at least one cable of the second pair of cables is broken based on the angle between the first jaw and the second jaw and the combined torque; and outputting an alert based on the determination that at least one cable of the second pair of cables is broken.
However, Wells does teaches a three-motor system where motor pack 150 comprises motors 152a, 152b, and 152c (FIG 6). Wells teaches that the IDU controller 41d calculates actual angles based on the motor positions (¶45). Wells teaches outputting of an error at the expiration of a predetermined time period if the target torque is not detected (FIGs 11, 12; ¶77).
Zemlock teaches a robotic surgical assembly (FIG 2B, 100) comprising an instrument drive unit (IDU) (400, ¶41) comprising an end effector comprising jaws (¶3), a motor assembly (410) comprising a motor pack (FIGs 3, 5, 6, ¶41) where the plurality of motors includes a first pair motors (420, 430) and a second pair of motors (440, 450).
Maughan teaches end effector (FIG 4A, grasper 222; ¶35) having a first jaw (401A) and a second jaw (401B) each movable between an open position and a closed position (FIGs 4A, 4B; ¶35); a first pair of cables (FIG 4A, cables 405A, 405B; ¶35) each of which is actuated by one motor of the first pair motors (¶59) to move the first jaw (401A; ¶35) and the second jaw (401B; ¶35) toward the closed position (FIG 4A, ¶¶37, 38), wherein one of the first pair of cables (405A; ¶35) is coupled to the first jaw (401A; ¶35) and another of the first pair of cables (405B, ¶35) is coupled to the second jaw (401B; ¶35) and a second pair of cables (cables 405C, 405D; ¶35) each of which is actuated by one motor of the second pair motors (¶59) to move the first jaw (cables 405A, 405B; ¶35) and the second jaw toward the open position (FIG 4B, ¶¶37, 38), wherein one of the second pair of cables is coupled to the first jaw (cables 405C; ¶35) and another of the second pair of cables is coupled to the second jaw (cables 405D; ¶35).
Maughan also teaches calculating an angle between the first jaw and the second jaw based on the angular position (¶59, “position encoder 233 may be a rotary position encoder that monitors motor shaft position and encodes the current motor shaft position e.g. to a value representing angular position”) of at least one motor of the plurality of motors (FIG 9, ¶59); calculating a combined torque (FIGs 10, 11; ¶¶81, 106) of the first pair of motors (FIG 10, ¶82, “relative to an operating parameter of another motor that is part of the same actuator”); determining whether at least one cable of the second pair of cables is broken (FIG 11, S111) based on the angle between the first jaw and the second jaw (FIG 9, ¶59) and the combined torque (FIGs 10, 11; ¶¶81, 106); and outputting an alert (FIG 10, alert 507) based on the determination that at least one cable of the second pair of cables is broken (FIG 11, S111).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Wells, Zemlock, and Maughan, given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single reference. Wells, Zemlock, and Maughan teach in the same field of endeavor, surgical assemblies comprising cable driven tools.
Although, Wells discloses the claimed base surgical robotic system comprising an IDU, a three-motor assembly comprising torque sensors and angle sensors for measuring position, and an end effector and controller coupled to the drive unit, Wells does not does not disclose a four-motor system, a jawed end effector, any specific cabling connections to a jawed end effector, and does not disclose calculations of angles and torques to derive an output alert based on a determination that at least one cable is broken. However, Wells does teach IDU controllers calculating angles based on motor positions, a controller outputting errors if normal torque is not detected, and a three motor system comprising a motor pack.
Zemlock specifically addresses a four motor pack comprising a first and second pair of motors in a IDU assembly system. Because Wells includes a motor pack comprising a three motor assembly in an IDU system, a person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to provide differential power distribution for particular end-use cases with the need for additional power for a range of functional end effectors, including a pair of jaws with multiple degrees of freedom, would reasonably consult Zemlock’s additional motor solution. Zemlock’s four motor pack can be incorporated alongside Well’s base surgical robotic system (comprising an IDU, torque sensors, angle sensors, end effectors, and controller) using known assembly methods without redesigning Well’s core device.
Maughan specifically addresses surgical robotic systems comprising end effectors with a pair of jaws moved by cables and the detection of disengagement of those cables in the tool. Maughan teaches the particular limitations of how the cables are attached to the first and second jaw and also teaches a position encoder that encodes motor shaft position as a value representing angular position, which are the same type of calculations used by Wells in monitoring the state of the system for cable disengagement. Both Wells and Maughan expressly teach sensors, controllers, and calculations involved with monitoring instrument engagement and failure detection. A person of ordinary skill in the art attempting to provide jaw-specific cable disengagement detection would look for established cable designs, sensors, detection means, device components and methods, would look for established cable connection and articulation designs that promote detection of disengagement in cable driven tools to avoid creating a novel jaw end effector modular component to be controlled by a controller. Maughan’s end effector, cable connections, and controller functions are modular and can be adapted to the end effector of Wells device to enable robotic activation of a jawed end effector assembly including the detection of disengagement of cables in a jawed end effector tool.
Because the references address the same engineering problem (the detection of engagement/disengagement of cables in cable-driven tools) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adding a four pack motor for increased power to a particular end effector component such as jaws, adding a modular component comprising a cabled, jaw end effector whose architecture and controller components are already designed to detect disengagement in the cable driven tool), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Regarding claim 10, Wells, modified by Zemlock, and Maughan teaches the surgical robotic system according to claim 9, as set forth above.
Maughan teaches wherein the controller further calculates a derivative (FIG 10; ¶¶95-96, 105) of the angle between the first jaw and the second jaw (FIGs 4B, 10; ¶¶54-57, 59; “the kinematic relationship that relates the ideal cable displacements and jaw angles are described in Equations 7-9”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Wells, Zemlock, Shelton, and Maughan, as evidenced by “Current Sensing in Motor Drives” given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single reference, for the reasons set forth in claim 9.
Claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wells, US 20230182303 (15 June 2023) (also published as WO 2021252199 (16 December 2021) in view of Zemlock US 20180153634 (7 June 2018) and further in view of Maughan et al., US 20220047347 (17 February 2022) and Blondia, US 20070001624 (4 January 2007).
Regarding claim 11, Wells, modified by Zemlock and Maughan teaches the surgical robotic system according to claim 10, as set forth above.
Maughan teaches wherein the controller further calculates a first moving average of the derivative (FIG 10; ¶¶95-96, 105) of the angle (Maughan, ¶42, FIG 4B, Equation 4) between the first jaw and the second jaw (FIGs 4B, 10; ¶¶54-57, 59; “the kinematic relationship that relates the ideal cable displacements and jaw angles are described in Equations 7-9”).
Wells, modified by Zemlock and Maughan do not teach a plurality of subsequent moving averages of the first moving average.
Blondia teaches plurality of subsequent moving averages of the first moving average (¶77). Blondia teaches power systems comprising DC power supply and current sensors (claim 1). Blondia teaches the use of an adaptive moving average window technique, where rather than keeping track of all operating voltage history since power up, one calculates the average over a moving window, which is “very suitable for a less powerful processor” (¶77). Blondia teaches the size of the time window and the sample conversion speeds determines the time constant (¶77). Blondia also teaches that right shifting is a standard logical instruction in most microcontrollers or microprocessors (¶77). Blondia also teaches that the average window can be resized dynamically for changing operating conditions (¶77).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Wells, Zemlock and Maughan that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single reference, for the reasons set forth in claim 9. Wells, Zemlock and Maughan expressly teach motor drive units comprising sensors, controllers, in addition to the calculations involved with monitoring instrument engagement and failure detection. Maughan specifically addressed using a controller to calculate and compare sensed measurement of components to detect faults (FIG 10). Maughan teaches formulas and calculations of comparative velocities and tension including commanded position and inverse kinematics (FIG 10, 508) and the option of using an AND gate 505 (FIG 10, ¶105) to message the disengagement of a cable (¶106).
Blondia specifically addresses using a plurality of subsequent moving averages of the first moving average and that the average window can be resized dynamically for changing operating conditions (¶77). Blondia teaches the use of an adaptive moving average window technique is “very suitable for a less powerful processor”, rather than keeping track of all operating voltage history since power up (¶77).
A person of ordinary skill in the art attempting to provide derivative calculations using a controller would look for established hardware, software or calculation methodologies that compute the derivatives (differential equations, either ordinary or partial) based on sensor calculations for hardware variables as close to the component as possible with speed, accuracy, and reliability, to avoid creating a novel computational system (calculations) to manage computationally heavy series of differentials over time. Maughan’s derivative calculations and equation examples are software-enabled and modular and can be adapted to the controllers of Blondia for use in control circuit-driven systems. Blondia provides specific motivation for using moving averages and adaptive moving average windows, teaching that they are very suitable for less powerful processors. Blondia also expressly teaches that right shifting is a standard logical instruction, emphasizing the common practice as the industry standard in microcontrollers and microprocessors (¶77).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate components and controller hardware and software necessary to detect faults, including cable breakage by determining the current, torque, and angle measurements knowing the calculations taught by Wells and Maughan and industry standards for controllers, as taught by Blondia, as well as the commonly used moving averages and adaptive moving average windows, including average window can be resized dynamically for changing operating conditions taught by Blondia.
Because the references address the same engineering problem (calculating derivatives of differential movements in motor angles between the first jaw and the second jaw and a plurality of subsequent moving averages of the first moving average) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (utilizing controllers or processors comprising standard logical instructions based on known equations for high-throughput derivatives in end-effector surgical systems (as taught by Maughan), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
It is also noted that although all of the references teach in the field of systems comprising power supplies and controllers, Blondia does not expressly involve surgical systems or end-effector systems. To the extent that Blondia may be considered non-analogous art, depending on the field-specific granularity with which the reference is viewed, Applicant is reminded that the use of non-analogous art is acceptable when it is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Implicit motivation to combine cited prior art references also exists if the claimed improvement is technology-independent and combination results in a product or process that is more desirable, as well as if the suggestion to combine may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole. Motivation to combine exists in such circumstance even in the absence of a suggestion in the references themselves, since the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving products or processes is universal and even common-sensical, and in such a situation the proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses knowledge and skill render him or her capable of combining prior art references. (Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co., Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 80 USPQ2d 1641 at pp. 1651 and 1653 (Fed. Cir. 2006), citing Pro-Mold & Tool Inc., v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 37 USPQ2d 1626 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).
Regarding claim 12, Wells, modified by Zemlock, Maughan, and Blondia, teaches the surgical robotic system according to claim 11, as set forth above.
Wells teaches wherein the controller further calculates a scaled value (scaled by a scaling function by the controller) (¶46) for the first moving average (¶47, “the inverse kinematics function calculates angles for the joints 44a, 44b, 44c of the robotic arm 40 that achieve the scaled and adjusted pose input by the hand controller 38a. The calculated angles are then passed to the robotic arm controller 41c, which includes a joint axis controller having a proportional-derivative (PD) controller, the friction estimator module, the gravity compensator module, and a two-sided saturation block, which is configured to limit the commanded torque of the motors of the joints 44a, 44b, 44c).
Wells, modified by Zemlock and Maughan do not teach each moving average of the plurality of subsequent moving averages.
As set forth in claim 11, Blondia teaches plurality of subsequent moving averages of the first moving average (¶77). Blondia teaches power systems comprising DC power supply and current sensors (claim 1). Blondia teaches the use of an adaptive moving average window technique, where rather than keeping track of all operating voltage history since power up, one calculates the average over a moving window, which is “very suitable for a less powerful processor” (¶77). Blondia teaches the size of the time window and the sample conversion speeds determines the time constant (¶77).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Wells, Zemlock, Maughan and Blondia, given that the prior art included a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine elements in the prior art and given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not in a single reference. All of Wells, Zemlock, Maughan, Blondia, teach systems comprising power supplies and controllers, for the reasons set forth in claim 11, above.
Blondia specifically addresses using a plurality of subsequent moving averages of the first moving average and that the average window can be resized dynamically for changing operating conditions (¶77). Blondia teaches the use of an adaptive moving average window technique is “very suitable for a less powerful processor”, rather than keeping track of all operating voltage history since power up (¶77).
A person of ordinary skill in the art attempting to provide derivative calculations using a controller would look for established hardware, software or calculation methodologies that compute the derivatives (differential equations, either ordinary or partial) based on sensor calculations for hardware variables as close to the component as possible with speed, accuracy, and reliability, to avoid creating a novel computational system (calculations) to manage computationally heavy series of differentials over time. Maughan’s derivative calculations and equation examples are software-enabled and modular and can be adapted to the controllers of Blondia for use in control circuit-driven systems. Blondia provides specific motivation for using moving averages and adaptive moving average windows, teaching that they are very suitable for less powerful processors. Blondia also expressly teaches that right shifting is a standard logical instruction, emphasizing the common practice as the industry standard in microcontrollers and microprocessors (¶77).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate components and controller hardware and software necessary to detect faults, including cable breakage by determining the current, torque, and angle measurements knowing the calculations taught by Wells and Maughan and industry standards for controllers, as taught by Blondia, as well as the commonly used moving averages and adaptive moving average windows, including average window can be resized dynamically for changing operating conditions taught by Blondia.
Because the references address the same engineering problem (calculating derivatives of differential movements in motor angles between the first jaw and the second jaw and a plurality of subsequent moving averages of the first moving average) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (utilizing controllers or processors running standard logical instructions based on known equations for high-throughput derivatives in end-effector surgical systems (as taught by Maughan), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Regarding claim 13, Wells, modified by Zemlock, Maughan, and Blondia teaches the surgical robotic system according to claim 11, as set forth above.
Blondia teaches wherein each moving average of the plurality of subsequent moving averages has a unique window size (¶77). Blondia teaches the size of the time window and the sample conversion speeds determines the time constant and that the average window can be resized dynamically for changing operating conditions (¶77).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Wells, Zemlock, Maughan and Blondia, given that the prior art included a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine elements in the prior art and given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not in a single reference. All of Wells, Zemlock, Maughan, and Blondia teach systems comprising power supplies and controllers, for the reasons set forth in claim 11, above.
A person of ordinary skill in the art attempting to provide derivative using a controller would look for established hardware, software or calculation methodologies that compute the derivatives (differential equations, either ordinary or partial) based on sensor calculations for hardware variables as close to the component as possible with speed, accuracy, and reliability, to avoid creating a novel computational system (calculations) to manage computationally heavy series of differentials over time. Maughan’s derivative calculations and equation examples are software-enabled and modular and can be adapted to the controllers of Blondia for use in control circuit-driven systems. Blondia provides specific motivation for using moving averages and adaptive moving average windows, teaching that they are very suitable for less powerful processors. Blondia also expressly teaches that right shifting is a standard logical instruction, emphasizing the common practice as the industry standard in microcontrollers and microprocessors (¶77).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate components and controller hardware and software necessary to detect faults, including cable breakage by determining the current, torque, and angle measurements knowing the calculations taught by Wells and Maughan and industry standards for controllers and processors, as taught by Blondia, as well as the commonly used moving averages and adaptive moving average windows, including average window can be resized dynamically for changing operating conditions taught by Blondia.
Because the references address the same engineering problem (calculating derivatives of differential movements in motor angles between the first jaw and the second jaw and a plurality of subsequent moving averages of the first moving average) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (utilizing controllers and processors comprising standard logical instructions based on known equations for high-throughput differential equations in determining derivatives in end-effector surgical systems (as taught by Maughan), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Regarding claim 14, Wells, modified by Zemlock, Maughan, and Blondia teaches the surgical robotic system according to claim 11, as set forth above.
Blondia teaches wherein the controller identifies a minimum moving average from the first moving average and each moving average of the plurality of subsequent moving averages (¶77). Blondia specifically addresses using a plurality of subsequent moving averages of the first moving average and that the average window can be resized dynamically for changing operating conditions (¶77). Blondia teaches the use of an adaptive moving average window technique is “very suitable for a less powerful processor”, rather than keeping track of all operating voltage history since power up (¶77).
Maughan teaches wherein the controller further calculates a first moving average of the derivative (FIG 10; ¶¶95-96, 105) of the angle (Maughan, ¶42, FIG 4B, Equation 4) between the first jaw and the second jaw (FIGs 4B, 10; ¶¶54-57, 59; “the kinematic relationship that relates the ideal cable displacements and jaw angles are described in Equations 7-9”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Wells, Zemlock, Maughan and Blondia, given that the prior art included a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine elements in the prior art and given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not in a single reference. All of Wells, Zemlock, Shelton, Maughan, Blondia, and the “Current Sensing in Motor Drives” document teach systems comprising power supplies and controllers, for the reasons set forth in claim 11, above.
A person of ordinary skill in the art attempting to provide derivative calculations using a controller would look for established hardware, software or calculation methodologies that compute the derivatives (differential equations, either ordinary or partial) based on sensor calculations for hardware variables as close to the component as possible with speed, accuracy, and reliability, to avoid creating a novel computational system (calculations) to manage computationally heavy series of differentials over time. Maughan’s derivative calculations and equation examples are software-enabled and modular and can be adapted to the controllers of Blondia for use in control circuit-driven systems. Blondia provides specific motivation for using moving averages and adaptive moving average windows, teaching that they are very suitable for less powerful processors. Blondia also expressly teaches that right shifting is a standard logical instruction, emphasizing the common practice as the industry standard in microcontrollers and microprocessors (¶77).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate components and controller hardware and software necessary to detect faults, including cable breakage by determining the current, torque, and angle measurements knowing the calculations taught by Wells and Maughan and industry standards for controllers and processors, as taught by Blondia, as well as the commonly used moving averages and adaptive moving average windows, including average window can be resized dynamically for changing operating conditions taught by Blondia.
Because the references address the same engineering problem (calculating derivatives of differential movements in motor angles between the first jaw and the second jaw and a plurality of subsequent moving averages of the first moving average) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (utilizing controllers and processors comprising standard logical instructions based on known equations for high-throughput differential equations in determining derivatives in end-effector surgical systems (as taught by Maughan), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Regarding claim 15, Wells, modified by Zemlock, Maughan, and Blondia teaches the surgical robotic system according to claim 14, as set forth above.
Blondia teaches wherein the controller compares (comparator 614, 624) the minimum moving average to a threshold (reference 616, 622) (FIG 6, ¶¶95, 96). Blondia teaches wherein the controller identifies a minimum moving average from the first moving average and each moving average of the plurality of subsequent moving averages (¶77).
Maughan teaches wherein the controller further calculates a first moving average of the derivative (FIG 10; ¶¶95-96, 105) of the angle (Maughan, ¶42, FIG 4B, Equation 4) between the first jaw and the second jaw (FIGs 4B, 10; ¶¶54-57, 59; “the kinematic relationship that relates the ideal cable displacements and jaw angles are described in Equations 7-9”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Wells, Zemlock, Shelton, Maughan and Blondia, as evidenced by “Current Sensing in Motor Drives”, given that the prior art included a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine elements in the prior art and given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not in a single reference. All of Wells, Zemlock, Shelton, Maughan, Blondia, and the “Current Sensing in Motor Drives” document teach systems comprising power supplies and controllers, for the reasons set forth in claims 11 and 14, above.
A person of ordinary skill in the art attempting to provide derivative calculations using a controller would look for established hardware, software or calculation methodologies that compute the derivatives (differential equations, either ordinary or partial) based on sensor calculations for hardware variables as close to the component as possible with speed, accuracy, and reliability, to avoid creating a novel computational system (calculations) to manage computationally heavy series of differentials over time. Maughan’s derivative calculations and equation examples are software-enabled and modular and can be adapted to the controllers of Blondia for use in control circuit-driven systems. Blondia provides specific motivation for using moving averages and adaptive moving average windows, teaching that they are very suitable for less powerful processors. Blondia also expressly teaches that right shifting is a standard logical instruction, emphasizing the common practice as the industry standard in microcontrollers and microprocessors (¶77).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate components and controller hardware and software necessary to detect faults, including cable breakage by determining the current, torque, and angle measurements knowing the calculations taught by Wells and Maughan and industry standards for controllers and processors, as taught by Blondia, as well as the commonly used moving averages and adaptive moving average windows, including average window can be resized dynamically for changing operating conditions taught by Blondia.
Because the references address the same engineering problem (calculating derivatives of differential movements in motor angles between the first jaw and the second jaw and a plurality of subsequent moving averages of the first moving average) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (utilizing processors comprising standard logical instructions based on known equations for high-throughput differential equations in determining derivatives in end-effector surgical systems (as taught by Maughan), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Regarding claim 16, Wells, modified by Zemlock, Maughan, and Blondia teaches the surgical robotic system according to claim 15, as set forth above.
Maughan teaches wherein the controller determines (FIG 11, S111; ¶117) a malfunction of the surgical tool where the malfunction is based on the comparison for tension and the comparison for velocity (¶117). Maughan teaches that when the tension is below the tension threshold and the velocity is above the threshold, the processor identifies a malfunction with the cable (¶117). Maughan teaches that the malfunction may be disengagement of at least one cable (¶117). Maughan teaches where the calculation is a first moving average of the derivative (FIG 10; ¶¶95-96, 105) of the angle (Maughan, ¶42, FIG 4B, Equation 4) between the first jaw and the second jaw (FIGs 4B, 10; ¶¶54-57, 59; “the kinematic relationship that relates the ideal cable displacements and jaw angles are described in Equations 7-9”).
Blondia teaches wherein the controller compares (comparator 614, 624) the minimum moving average to a threshold (reference 616, 622) (FIG 6, ¶¶95, 96).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Wells, Zemlock, Maughan and Blondia, given that the prior art included a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine elements in the prior art and given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not in a single reference. All of Wells, Zemlock, Maughan, Blondia teach systems comprising power supplies and controllers, for the reasons set forth in claims 11 and 15, above.
A person of ordinary skill in the art attempting to provide derivative calculations using a controller would look for established hardware, software or calculation methodologies that compute the derivatives (differential equations, either ordinary or partial) based on sensor calculations for hardware variables as close to the component as possible with speed, accuracy, and reliability, to avoid creating a novel computational system (calculations) to manage computationally heavy series of differentials over time. Maughan’s derivative calculations and equation examples are software-enabled and modular and can be adapted to the controllers of Blondia for use in control circuit-driven systems. Blondia provides specific motivation for using moving averages and adaptive moving average windows, teaching that they are very suitable for less powerful processors. Blondia also expressly teaches that right shifting is a standard logical instruction, emphasizing the common practice as the industry standard in microcontrollers and microprocessors (¶77).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate components and controller hardware and software necessary to detect faults, including cable breakage by determining the current, torque, and angle measurements knowing the calculations taught by Wells and Maughan and industry standards for controllers and processors, as taught by Blondia, as well as the commonly used moving averages and adaptive moving average windows, including average window can be resized dynamically for changing operating conditions taught by Blondia.
Because the references address the same engineering problem (calculating derivatives of differential movements in motor angles between the first jaw and the second jaw and a plurality of subsequent moving averages of the first moving average) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (utilizing controllers and processors comprising standard logical instructions based on known equations for high-throughput differential equations in determining derivatives in end-effector surgical systems (as taught by Maughan), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maughan et al., US 20220047347 (17 February 2022), in view of Zemlock US 20180153634 (7 June 2018) and further in view Shelton US 20190200977 (4 July 2019), as evidenced by “Current Sensing in Motor Drives” (Allegro Microsystems, AN296276, pages 1-17. Epub 29 March 2023 (https://www.allegromicro.com/-/media/files/application-notes/an296276-current-sensing-in-motor-drives.pdf) (last accessed 4/15/2026).
Regarding independent claim 17, Maughan teaches a method (¶6) for controlling (FIG 9, control unit 210) a surgical robotic system (FIG 2; ¶30) comprising:
moving apart (FIGs 4A, 4B; ¶35) a first jaw and a second jaw (FIG 4A, 4B, opposing jaws 401A, 401B; ¶33),
wherein the first jaw (401A; ¶35) is coupled to a first cable (405A; ¶35) actuatable by a first motor (¶59, “a total of four cables may each be driven by an independent actuator or motor”) and a second jaw (401B; ¶35) is coupled to a second cable (405B, ¶35) actuatable by a second motor (¶59 “[a] total of four cables may each be driven by an independent actuator or motor”);
approximating (¶89, inverse kinematics model) the first jaw (401A; ¶35) and the second jaw (401B; ¶35), wherein the first jaw (401A; ¶35) is coupled to a first cable (405A; ¶35) actuatable by a first motor (¶59) and the second jaw (401B; ¶35) is coupled to a second cable (405A; ¶35) actuatable by a second motor (¶59);
measuring torque (¶78) of each of the motors (¶59, “a total of four cables may each be driven by an independent actuator or motor”);
measuring an angular position of each of the motors (FIG 9; ¶59, “position encoder
calculating, at the controller (¶65), a combined 233 may be a rotary position encoder that monitors motor shaft position and encodes the current motor shaft position e.g. to a value representing angular position”);
calculating, at a controller, an angle (¶¶40, 41) between the first jaw and the second jaw (FIG 4B), based on the angular position of at least one of the motors (¶59, “position encoder 233 may be a rotary position encoder that monitors motor shaft position and encodes the current motor shaft position e.g. to a value representing angular position”)
torque (FIGs 10, 11; ¶¶81, 106) of the motors (FIG 10, ¶82, “relative to an operating parameter of another motor that is part of the same actuator”);
determining, at the controller (¶101), whether at least one of the first cable or the second cable is broken (FIG 11, S111; ¶¶81, 106) based on the angle between the first jaw and the second jaw (FIG 9, ¶59) and the combined torque (FIGs 10, 11; ¶¶81, 106); and
outputting an alert (FIG 10, alert 507; ¶118) based on the determination at least one of the first cable or the second cable is broken (FIG 11, S111; ¶117).
Maughan does not teach a four-cable system comprising a first low-side cable, a second low-side cable, a first high-side cable, and a second high-side cable, two pair of motors comprising a first low-side motor, a second low side motor, a first high-side motor, and a second high-side motor.
Labeling the cables “high-side” or “low-side” is broadly interpreted as the particular cable (or pair of cables) connected to the particular motor switching transistor that is subsequently linked to one pair of motors that are designated a “high-side” or “low-side” for the purposes of naming the particular switch drive circuit with particular grounding functions. This naming convention based on structure of these drive circuits is also taught by Shelton as explained in detail by the “Current Sensing in Motor Drives” evidentiary reference. However, Maughan does teach load sharing by two or more motors (¶68).
Zemlock teaches a robotic surgical assembly (FIG 2B, 100) comprising an instrument drive unit (IDU) (400, ¶41) comprising an end effector comprising jaws (¶3), a motor assembly (410) comprising four motors (FIGs 3, 5, 6, “four pack” ¶41) where the plurality of motors includes a first pair motors (420, 430) and a second pair of motors (440, 450).
Shelton specifically teaches motor driver 492 comprising high-side and low-side motors (¶714) used in tracking (positional) system 480 in an end-effector surgical system (FIGs 2, 12). Tracking system 480 comprising a controlled motor drive circuit arrangement comprising position sensor 472 (FIG 12, ¶715). Shelton teaches control system 470 (FIG 12) comprising a processor 462, a memory 468, and one or more sensors (472, 474, 476), motor 482, motor driver 492 (¶708). Shelton teaches an A3941 motor driver available from Allegro Microsystems Inc (¶711). “Current Sensing in Motor Drives” (published by Allegro Microsystems) provides evidence that the high-side of the motor drive circuits, such as those taught by Shelton, places the switching transistor (MOSFET or IGBT), for inductive loads such as brush DC motors, between the positive supply rail and the motor’s positive terminal and useful for isolated, high-voltage stages for safety and noise control. The high-side drive is also useful for holding brake or zeroing torque at standstill. The low-side transistors of the motor drive circuit place the switching transistor between the motor and ground and are useful for integrated, non-isolated stages. Both high-side and low-side motors are chosen based on power topology, isolation needs, and the precision, reliability, and haptic performance required for surgical motion control (see entire document, especially pp. 2, 7). Driver design (high-side/low-side) influences heat dissipation, component stress, and isolation requirements.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Maughan, Zemlock, Shelton, as evidenced by “Current Sensing in Motor Drives”, given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single reference. Maughan, Zemlock, Shelton teach in the same field of endeavor, surgical assemblies comprising cable driven tools. “Current Sensing in Motor Drives” provides background on the teachings of the motor switches of Shelton and also provides evidence that the selection of motor switches for high-side and low-side uses are results effective variables that are well-known in the art as design options depending on individual use case.
Although, Maughan discloses the claimed base method for controlling a surgical robotic instrument comprising end effectors with a pair of jaws moved by cables, the manner in which those cables are attached to the first and second jaw, a position encoder that encodes motor shaft position as a value representing angular position, sensors, controllers, and calculations involving monitoring instrument engagement and failure detection, Maughan does not teach a four-cable system comprising a first low-side cable, a second low-side cable, a first high-side cable, and a second high-side cable, two pair of motors comprising a first low-side motor, a second low side motor, a first high-side motor, and a second high-side motor.
Zemlock specifically addresses a four motor pack comprising a first and second pair of motors in a IDU assembly system. Zemlock’s four motor pack can be incorporated alongside Maughan’s base surgical robotic system, which teaches load sharing by two or more motors (¶68) using known assembly methods without redesigning Maughan’s core device structure.
Shelton specifically addresses control system 470 (FIG 12) used in end-effector surgical systems (FIGs 2, 12) comprising a processor 462, a memory 468, and one or more sensors (472, 474, 476), motor 482, motor driver 492 (¶708) where motor driver 492, comprises high-side and low-side motors (¶714). Shelton teaches an A3941 motor driver available from Allegro Microsystems Inc (¶711). “Current Sensing in Motor Drives” (published by Allegro Microsystems) provides evidence that the high-side of the motor drive circuits, such as those taught by Shelton, places the switching transistor (MOSFET or IGBT), for inductive loads such as brush DC motors, between the positive supply rail and the motor’s positive terminal and useful for isolated, high-voltage stages for safety and noise control. The high-side drive is also useful for holding brake or zeroing torque at standstill. The low-side transistors of the motor drive circuit place the switching transistor between the motor and ground and are useful for integrated, non-isolated stages. Both high-side and low-side motors are chosen based on power topology, isolation needs, and the precision, reliability, and haptic performance required for surgical motion control (see entire document, especially pp. 2, 7). Driver design (high-side/low-side) influences heat dissipation, component stress, and isolation requirements.
Based on the teachings of Shelton, as evidenced by “Current Sensing in Motor Drives”
(especially the variables in the Table on p. 2), the claimed high-side and low-side designations for both motors and cables in the claims are drawn to design-selections of components which evidence shows are results-effective variables which can be optimized based on the electrical power needs of the system, which will vary based on intended use. The “Current Sensing in Motor Drives” discusses many of the tradeoffs when considering variational current paths. Page 7 states that “high-size current sensors are primarily used when a customer must detect a system-level short to ground. As mentioned previously, this can be the most common failure mechanism to occur. In the low-side sensing case, the fault current path bypasses the sensor. When a high-side current sensor is used, the fault current flows though the current sensor and this fault mode can be properly detected so that the system can act” (p. 7, paragraph above FIG 8). One of skill in the art would clearly recognize that the high-side components and configuration options and low-side components and configuration options can be optimized depending on the end effect desired for the use case.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success for carrying out the method of approximating the first and second jaw comprising measuring torque and angular position, making calculations, and determine cable breakage at the controller and outputting an alert based on the determination as taught by Maughan (FIGs 9-11, ¶¶53, 59) where the respective jaw cables are associated with four motors (Zemlock) paired (Maughan) as with high-side and low-side transistor switches (Shelton as evidenced by “Current Sensing in Motor Drives”) without undue experimentation based on the teachings of the references themselves.
Because the references address the same engineering problem (the use of cable-driven tools in surgical robotic systems) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adding a set of four motors (Zemlock) comprising a pair of high-side and a pair of low-side motor switches (Shelton) for increased power to a particular end effector component such as jaws (Maughan) for separation of ground (Shelton) to provide a fault warning system (Maughan), adding a modular component comprising a cabled, jaw end effector whose architecture and controller components are linked to the four pack of motors with high-side and low-side switches designed to faults, and for which Maughan teaches the detection of disengagement in the cable driven tools), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Additionally, all of Maughan, Zemlock, and Shelton, as evidenced by “Current Sensing in Motor Drives”. demonstrates that there were a finite number of identified, predicable, modular solutions within the same field and same and overlapping instrument types where a person of ordinary skill in the art could choose from with a reasonable expectation of success. There has been a recognized need in the art to find solutions to surgical tool malfunction before the instruments are introduced inside the human body or to provide immediate notice to end-users/physicians of adverse mechanical/equipment events while the instruments are in vivo. Maughan shows that fault detection can be added to robotic instrument systems using sensors and motor component measurements, controlled by a controller, which can be optimized such that the selection of components is predictable or readily accomplished without undue experimentation and the measurements can be done continuously and combined to provide output comprising fault detection and alerts, including of cable breakage (Maughan).
Maughan, Zemlock, and Shelton, as evidenced by the “Current Sensing in Motor Drives”, demonstrate that there were a finite number of identified predictable potential solutions published in these prior art references. One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential options with a reasonable expectation of success, given the teachings, suggestions, and motivation provided by Maughan, Zemlock, and Shelton, as evidenced by the “Current Sensing in Motor Drives”. The person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursues the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). See also, MPEP 2144.05. Further, it is noted that there is no discussion in the disclosure as to the criticality of any particularly type of motor switching system that designates a pair of high-side and a pair of low-side motors (or cables connected to those motors, such that the cables are designated high-side and low-side). There are no reasons set forth in the disclosure as to why any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art which teaches high-side/low-side motor drive units for fault detection, would result in a different function. The disclosure at ¶54 states that “[t]he present disclosure provides a system and a method configured to predict and/or detect when any of the cables 201a-d, and in particular high side cables 201b and 201c will snap using sensor signals from the motors 152a-d”. However, this is also exactly what is taught in the art. Motivation for a high-side/low-side motor switching system in a surgical end effector system is found in Shelton, as evidenced by the “Current Sensing in Motor Drives” publication. The “Current Sensing in Motor Drives” is particularly enlightening because it unambiguously discloses that “in the low-side sensing case, the fault current path bypasses the sensor. When a high-side current sensor is used, the fault current flows though the current sensor and this fault mode can be properly detected so that the system can act” (see “Current Sensing in Motor Drives” at p. 7, paragraph above FIG 8). This resonates with applicant’s disclosure at ¶54. This is also indicative of a design choice made from among known alternatives used for the same function in the prior art. One of skill in the art would clearly recognize that the high-side components and configuration options and low-side components and configuration options can be arranged and optimized depending on the end effect desired for the use case, as explained by Shelton and “Current Sensing in Motor Drives”.
Applicant is reminded that design choice applies when old elements in the prior art perform the same function as the now claimed structures. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975) (use of claimed feature solves no stated problem and presents no unexpected result and “would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art”). However, when the claimed structure performs differently from the prior art a finding of obvious design choice is precluded. In re Gal, 980 F.2d 717, 719 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (finding of obvious design choice precluded when claimed structure and the function it performs are different from the prior art). See In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 298-99 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“design choice” is appropriate where the applicant fails to set forth any reasons why the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art would result in a different function). In the absence of any indication of criticality for the greater than or equal to twice the width element, the limitation is construed as a design choice.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maughan et al., US 20220047347 (17 February 2022), in view of Wells, US 20230182303 (15 June 2023) (also published as WO 2021252199 (16 December 2021) in view of Zemlock US 20180153634 (7 June 2018) and further in view Shelton US 20190200977 (4 July 2019), as evidenced by “Current Sensing in Motor Drives” (Allegro Microsystems, AN296276, pages 1-17. Epub 29 March 2023 (https://www.allegromicro.com/-/media/files/application-notes/an296276-current-sensing-in-motor-drives.pdf) (last accessed 4/15/2026), and further in view of Blondia, US 20070001624 (4 January 2007).
Regarding claim 18, Maughan modified by Zemlock, and Shelton, as evidenced by “Current Sensing in Motor Drives” teaches the method according to claim 17, as set forth above.
Maughan also teaches the method further comprising: calculating, at the controller, (¶¶54-57, 59) a derivative (FIG 10; ¶¶95-96, 105) of the angle between the first jaw and the second jaw (FIGs 4B, 10;; “the kinematic relationship that relates the ideal cable displacements and jaw angles are described in Equations 7-9”).
Maughan, modified by Zemlock, Shelton, as evidenced by “Current Sensing in Motor Drives”, and Maughan do not teach calculating, at the controller, a first moving average of the derivative of the angle between the first jaw and the second jaw and a plurality of subsequent moving averages of the first moving average.
Blondia teaches plurality of subsequent moving averages of the first moving average (¶77). Blondia teaches power systems comprising DC power supply and current sensors (claim 1). Blondia teaches the use of an adaptive moving average window technique, where rather than keeping track of all operating voltage history since power up, one calculates the average over a moving window, which is “very suitable for a less powerful processor” (¶77). Blondia teaches the size of the time window and the sample conversion speeds determines the time constant (¶77). Blondia also teaches that right shifting is a standard logical instruction in most microcontrollers or microprocessors (¶77). Blondia also teaches that the average window can be resized dynamically for changing operating conditions (¶77).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Maughan, Zemlock, and Shelton, as evidenced by “Current Sensing in Motor Drives” given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single reference, for the reasons set forth in claim 17. Additionally, Maughan teaches limitations set forth in claim 17, for which the combinatorial and design choice rationales of claim 17 also apply.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Maughan, Zemlock, Shelton, as evidenced by “Current Sensing in Motor Drives”, and Blondia given that the prior art included a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine elements in the prior art and given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not in a single reference. All of Maughan, Zemlock, Shelton, as evidenced by the “Current Sensing in Motor Drives”, and Blondia, document teach systems comprising power supplies and controllers.
Maughan expressly teaches motor drive units comprising sensors, controllers, in addition to the calculations involved with monitoring instrument engagement and failure detection. Maughan specifically addressed using a controller to calculate and compare sensed measurement of components to detect faults (FIG 10). Maughan teaches formulas and calculations of comparative velocities and tension including commanded position and inverse kinematics (FIG 10, 508) and the option of using an AND gate 505 (FIG 10, ¶105) to message the disengagement of a cable (¶106).
Blondia specifically addresses using a plurality of subsequent moving averages of the first moving average and that the average window can be resized dynamically for changing operating conditions (¶77). Blondia teaches the use of an adaptive moving average window technique is “very suitable for a less powerful processor”, rather than keeping track of all operating voltage history since power up (¶77).
A person of ordinary skill in the art attempting to provide derivative calculations using a controller would look for established hardware, software or calculation methodologies that compute the derivatives (differential equations, either ordinary or partial) based on sensor calculations for hardware variables as close to the component as possible with speed, accuracy, and reliability, to avoid creating a novel computational system (calculations) to manage computationally heavy series of differentials over time. Maughan’s derivative calculations and equation examples are software-enabled and modular and can be adapted to the controllers of Blondia for use in control circuit-driven systems. Blondia provides specific motivation for using moving averages and adaptive moving average windows, teaching that they are very suitable for less powerful processors. Blondia also expressly teaches that right shifting is a standard logical instruction, emphasizing the common practice as the industry standard in microcontrollers and microprocessors (¶77).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate components and controller hardware and software necessary to detect faults, including cable breakage by determining the current, torque, and angle measurements knowing the calculations taught by Wells and Maughan and industry standards for controllers and processors, as taught by Blondia, as well as the commonly used moving averages and adaptive moving average windows, including average window can be resized dynamically for changing operating conditions taught by Blondia.
Because the references address the same engineering problem (calculating derivatives of differential movements in motor angles between the first jaw and the second jaw and a plurality of subsequent moving averages of the first moving average) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (utilizing processors comprising standard logical instructions based on known equations for high-throughput differential equations in determining derivatives in end-effector surgical systems (as taught by Maughan), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
It is also noted that although all of the references teach in the field of systems comprising power supplies and controllers, Blondia does not expressly involve surgical systems or end-effector systems. To the extent that Blondia may be considered non-analogous art, depending on the field-specific granularity with which the reference is viewed, Applicant is reminded that the use of non-analogous art is acceptable when it is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Implicit motivation to combine cited prior art references also exists if the claimed improvement is technology-independent and combination results in a product or process that is more desirable, as well as if the suggestion to combine may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole. Motivation to combine exists in such circumstance even in the absence of a suggestion in the references themselves, since the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving products or processes is universal and even common-sensical, and in such a situation the proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses knowledge and skill render him or her capable of combining prior art references. (Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co., Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 80 USPQ2d 1641 at pp. 1651 and 1653 (Fed. Cir. 2006), citing Pro-Mold & Tool Inc., v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 37 USPQ2d 1626 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).
Regarding claim 19, Maughan modified by Zemlock, Shelton, as evidenced by “Current Sensing in Motor Drives”, and Blondia teaches the method according to claim 18, as set forth above.
Teaches the method further comprising: identifying, at the controller, a minimum moving average of the derivative from the first moving average and each moving average of the plurality of subsequent moving averages; and comparing, at the controller, the minimum moving average of the derivative to a threshold derivative of the angle between the first jaw and the second jaw.
Maughan teaches the method further comprising: identifying, at the controller, a first moving average of the derivative (FIG 10; ¶¶95-96, 105) of the angle (Maughan, ¶42, FIG 4B, Equation 4) between the first jaw and the second jaw (FIGs 4B, 10; ¶¶54-57, 59; “the kinematic relationship that relates the ideal cable displacements and jaw angles are described in Equations 7-9”).
Blondia teaches the method further comprising: identifying, at the controller, a minimum moving average from the first moving average and each moving average of the plurality of subsequent moving averages (¶77). Blondia specifically addresses using a plurality of subsequent moving averages of the first moving average and that the average window can be resized dynamically for changing operating conditions (¶77). Blondia teaches the use of an adaptive moving average window technique is “very suitable for a less powerful processor”, rather than keeping track of all operating voltage history since power up (¶77).
Blondia also teaches wherein the controller compares (comparator 614, 624) the minimum moving average to a threshold (reference 616, 622) (FIG 6, ¶¶95, 96).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Maughan, Zemlock, Shelton, as evidenced by “Current Sensing in Motor Drives”, and Blondia, given that the prior art included a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine elements in the prior art and given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not in a single reference. All of Maughan, Zemlock, and Shelton, as evidenced by the “Current Sensing in Motor Drives”, and Blondia teach systems comprising power supplies and controllers, for the reasons set forth in claims 17 and 18, above.
A person of ordinary skill in the art attempting to provide derivative calculations using a controller would look for established hardware, software or calculation methodologies that compute the derivatives (differential equations, either ordinary or partial) based on sensor calculations for hardware variables as close to the component as possible with speed, accuracy, and reliability, to avoid creating a novel computational system (calculations) to manage computationally heavy series of differentials over time. Maughan’s derivative calculations and equation examples are software-enabled and modular and can be adapted to the controllers of Blondia for use in control circuit-driven systems. Blondia provides specific motivation for using moving averages and adaptive moving average windows, teaching that they are very suitable for less powerful processors. Blondia also expressly teaches that right shifting is a standard logical instruction, emphasizing the common practice as the industry standard in microcontrollers and microprocessors (¶77).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate components and controller hardware and software necessary to detect faults, including cable breakage by determining the current, torque, and angle measurements knowing the calculations taught by Wells and Maughan and industry standards for controllers and processors, as taught by Blondia, as well as the commonly used moving averages and adaptive moving average windows, including average window can be resized dynamically for changing operating conditions taught by Blondia.
Because the references address the same engineering problem (calculating derivatives of differential movements in motor angles between the first jaw and the second jaw and a plurality of subsequent moving averages of the first moving average) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (utilizing controllers and processors comprising standard logical instructions based on known equations for high-throughput differential equations in determining derivatives in end-effector surgical systems (as taught by Maughan), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Regarding claim 20, Maughan modified by Zemlock, Shelton, as evidenced by “Current Sensing in Motor Drives”, and Blondia teaches the method according to claim 19, as set forth above.
Maughan teaches the method wherein determining (FIG 11, S111; ¶117) whether at least one cable is broken is based on the combined torque (FIGs 10, 11; ¶¶81, 106) exceeding a torque (¶78, where “measured torque (a rotational force) can be converted to tension (a linear force)”) threshold (¶117).
Maughan also teaches where the calculation is a first moving average of the derivative (FIG 10; ¶¶95-96, 105) of the angle (Maughan, ¶42, FIG 4B, Equation 4) between the first jaw and the second jaw (FIGs 4B, 10; ¶¶54-57, 59; “the kinematic relationship that relates the ideal cable displacements and jaw angles are described in Equations 7-9”).
Maughan does not teach the first low-side or the second low-side cable or the minimum moving average of the derivative exceeding the threshold derivative of the angle between the first jaw and the second jaw.
Blondia teaches wherein the controller compares (comparator 614, 624) the minimum moving average to a threshold (reference 616, 622) (FIG 6, ¶¶95, 96).
Shelton specifically teaches motor driver 492 comprising high-side and low-side motors (¶714) (FIGs 2, 12). Shelton teaches control system 470 (FIG 12) comprising a processor 462, and one or more sensors (472, 474, 476), motor 482, motor driver 492 (¶708). Shelton teaches an A3941 motor driver available from Allegro Microsystems Inc (¶711). “Current Sensing in Motor Drives” (published by Allegro Microsystems) provides evidence that the high-side of the motor drive circuits, such as those taught by Shelton, places the switching transistor (MOSFET or IGBT), for inductive loads such as brush DC motors, between the positive supply rail and the motor’s positive terminal and useful for isolated, high-voltage stages for safety and noise control. The high-side drive is also useful for holding brake or zeroing torque at standstill. The low-side transistors of the motor drive circuit place the switching transistor between the motor and ground and are useful for integrated, non-isolated stages. Both high-side and low-side motors are chosen based on power topology, isolation needs, and the precision, reliability, and haptic performance required for surgical motion control (see entire document, especially pp. 2, 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Maughan, Zemlock, Shelton, as evidenced by “Current Sensing in Motor Drives”, and Blondia, given that the prior art included a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine elements in the prior art and given that the prior art included each element claimed, although not in a single reference. All of Maughan, Zemlock, and Shelton, as evidenced by the “Current Sensing in Motor Drives”, and Blondia teach systems comprising power supplies and controllers, for the reasons set forth in claims 17-19, above.
A person of ordinary skill in the art attempting to provide derivative calculations using a controller would look for established hardware, software or calculation methodologies that compute the derivatives (differential equations, either ordinary or partial) based on sensor calculations for hardware variables as close to the component as possible with speed, accuracy, and reliability, to avoid creating a novel computational system (calculations) to manage computationally heavy series of differentials over time. Maughan’s derivative calculations and equation examples are software-enabled and modular and can be adapted to the controllers of Blondia for use in control circuit-driven systems. Blondia provides specific motivation for using moving averages and adaptive moving average windows, teaching that they are very suitable for less powerful processors. Blondia also expressly teaches that right shifting is a standard logical instruction, emphasizing the common practice as the industry standard in microcontrollers and microprocessors (¶77).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate components and controller hardware and software necessary to detect faults, including cable breakage by determining the current, torque, and angle measurements knowing the calculations taught by Maughan and industry standards for controllers and processors, as taught by Blondia, as well as the commonly used moving averages and adaptive moving average windows, including average window can be resized dynamically for changing operating conditions taught by Blondia.
Because the references address the same engineering problem (calculating derivatives of differential movements in motor angles between the first jaw and the second jaw and a plurality of subsequent moving averages of the first moving average) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (utilizing processors comprising standard logical instructions based on known equations for high-throughput differential equations in determining derivatives in end-effector surgical systems (as taught by Maughan), a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wells, WO 2021252199 A1 (16 December 2021) teaches surgical robotic system instrument engagement and failure detection.
Kopp et al., US 20180168747 (21 June 2018) teaches robotic surgical system torque transduction sensing.
Perdue et al., US 20190274769 (12 September 2019) teaches cable failure detection and alerts (FIG 8).
Rockrohr, US 20220071725 (10 March 2022) teaches adapter configured to maintain a surgical tool in a predetermined pose when disconnected from drive unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHERIE M POLAND whose telephone number is (703)756-1341. The examiner can normally be reached M-W (9am-9pm CST) and R-F (9am-3pm CST).
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, Jackie Ho can be reached at 571-272-4696. 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.
/CHERIE M POLAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights