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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the claimed “….motion from the user command… “;
“…a projection from the user command for feasible motion….” ;
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term of phrase, “solving for motion from the user command with inverse kinematics using a projection from the user command for feasible motion based on the less than three degrees of freedom, ……..” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms or phrases have missing words. It not clear from applicant’s disclosure what all is meant and encompassed by, “…..motion from the user command…”. Based on applicant’s disclosure there is no motion described as coming from the user command. Also it is not clear what motion applicant is referring to. That is the first part of the claim already recited “… move a surgical tool”, “rotation of the surgical tool” to indicate motion. It is therefore confusing to again recite, “…..motion from the user command…” when there has not been shown any motion emanating from the user command. It also not clear what all is meant and encompassed by the term, “a projection from the user command for feasible motion”. Based on applicant’s invention, there is no disclosure of any projection from the claimed, “user command”. As known in the art a, “user command” is a command from the user. Where is the claimed “projection”?
Applicant’s original disclosure recite:
“ [0005] By way of introduction, the preferred embodiments described below include methods, systems, instructions, and computer readable media for teleoperation of a surgical robotic system. The control of the surgical robotic system accounts for a limited degree of freedom of a tool in a surgical robotic system. A projection from the greater DOF of the user input commands to the lesser DOF of the tool is included within or as part of the inverse kinematics. The projection identifies feasible motion in the end-effector domain. This projection allows for a general solution that works for tools having different degrees of freedom and will converge on a solution.
[0006] In a first aspect, a method is provided for teleoperation of a surgical robotic system. A user command to move a surgical tool mounted to a robotic arm during the teleoperation is received. The user command includes rotation of the surgical tool where the surgical tool is rotatable only in less than three degrees of freedom. Motion is solved for from the user command with inverse kinematics. The solving has a projection from the user command to feasible motion based on the less than three degrees of freedom. The robotic arm or surgical tool moves based on a solution from the solving.
[0008] In a third aspect, a surgical robotic system is provided for medical teleoperation. A first surgical instrument connects to a robotic arm. An end effector of the first surgical instrument as connected to the robotic arm cannot rotate about at least one axis. A controller is configured to solve for motion of the first surgical instrument during the medical teleoperation on a patient and in response to user input of a move command. The solution is with inverse kinematics where the inverse kinematics includes a projection of the user input to a lower dimensional space that accounts for the lack of rotation about the at least one axis.
[0017] A projection matrix from a greater degree of freedom of the user input commands to a lesser degree of freedom of a surgical instrument is incorporated into the inverse kinematics. In one robotic surgical system, position commands are always achievable due to the construction of a spherical arm with three DOFs. Projections modify the commanded orientations due to limited rotation by the surgical tool connected with the spherical arm. This limited rotation requires computation of the unit vector joining a reduced center of motion (RCM) and an end-effector frame (EEF). This computation becomes undefined or ill-conditioned as the tool is drawn into a cannula and the EEF to RCM distance tends to zero. In order to avoid this singularity, the EEF coordinate axes define instantaneous feasible directions of motion and map those to an inverse kinematics solver control frame, such as the spherical arm base frame. This combines the Jacobian and command projection with the inverse kinematics solution step, removing the need to explicitly handle the singularity and reducing computation.
[0018] By incorporating the projection into the inverse kinematics, a generalized framework is provided for computing projections for n-DOF tools where n is an integer of 3 or less. The need for tool specific algorithms in the teleoperation pipeline is reduced by providing the generalized framework. The need for developer designed projections based on end-effector pose is removed. A programmatic way to generate projections from tool models is developed. The RCM singularity in orientation projection computations is removed, and the computations required for projections and inverse kinematics may be reduced.
[0019] Figures 1 and 2 show an example surgical robotic system. The approaches for incorporating the projection into the inverse kinematics are discussed below in reference to this example system. Other surgical robotic systems and surgical robots or non-surgical robotic systems and robots may use the approaches.
[0020] Figures 3-5 are directed to an inverse kinematic solution with an integrated projection in teleoperation. Figure 6 is directed to a system for using the integrated projection in the inverse kinematics with a medical robotic system for teleoperation.”
However, is not clear what all is meant and encompassed by the limitations, “solving for motion from the user command with inverse kinematics using a projection from the user command for feasible motion based on the less than three degrees of freedom, ……..” in claims.
As such it is suggested that applicant rewrite the claims to include phrases like:
--solving for feasible motion of the surgical tool with inverse kinematics based on the less than three degrees of freedom –;
-- projecting a command from a user interface --;
“the solving having a projection from the user command to feasible motion”
are not defined by the disclosure, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The rest of the claims are rejected for depending on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1-4, 6-9, 16, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itkowitz (US 8600551) in view of VAKANSKI ALEKSANDAR (CA 2928645 C)
Regarding claim 1, Itkowitz discloses a method for teleoperation of a surgical robotic system (telesurgical system; col. 6, lines 56-63; fig. 1), the method comprising:
receiving a user command (col. 6, lines 56-63; fig. 1) to move a surgical tool (tool 106 comprises 102.1, 102.2, figs. 5, 7; col. 6, lines 56-63; col. 11, lines 11-39) mounted to a robotic arm (100, 300, 310; figs. 1, 5, 9A&B; col. 6, lines 47-63; col. 9, lines 55-65), the user command including rotation of the surgical tool where the surgical tool is rotatable only in less than three degrees of freedom (col. 11, lines 11-39; col. 27, lines 2-4);
solving for motion of a surgical tool based on a user command with inverse kinematics (fig. 18; col. 27, lines 35-45), the solving having a projection (i.e. a transformation) feasible motion of the surgical tool (fig. 18; col. 27, lines 25-45), wherein the projection is based on the less than three degrees of freedom (col. 11, lines 11-39; col. 27, lines 2-4), the projection modifying the motion based on the user command for the feasible motion of the surgical tool in the solving (fig. 18; col. 27, lines 25-45), the feasible motion being the rotation only in less than the three degrees of freedom (col. 11, lines 11-39; col. 27, lines 2-4); and
moving the robotic arm or surgical tool based on a solution from the solving (col. 6, lines 56-63; col. 11, lines 11-39; col. 27, lines 2-4).
Itkowitz did not particularly recite the limitations, “…, wherein solving comprises weighting the feasible motion with a nonzero weight and infeasible motion with another weight”.
However, VAKANSKI ALEKSANDAR teaches of
solving for motion of a surgical tool based on a user command with inverse kinematics (equation 21), the solving having a projection (equation 22, 33) for feasible motion of the surgical tool, wherein the projection is based on the less than three degrees of freedom, the projection modifying the motion based on the user command for the feasible motion of the surgical tool in the solving, the feasible motion being the rotation only in less than the three degrees of freedom (see 3X3 matrix in the equations), wherein solving further comprises weighting (see weights in the 3X3 matrix in the equations), for the feasible motion with a nonzero weight and infeasible motion with another weight.
See equations 19-23, 33, 34 of VAKANSKI ALEKSANDAR pages 17, 21.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Itkowitz to include essential and detail mathematical operations in Itkowitz needed for the teleoperation of surgical robots for the purpose of optimizing design and performance operations surgical robotic tool of Itkowitz.
Regarding claim 2, Itkowitz as modified by Vakanski Aleksandar discloses the method of claim 1 wherein receiving during the teleoperation comprises receiving the user command with rotation in three degrees of freedom (figs. 3A&B; col. 8, lines 1-6, lines 30-38) where the surgical tool is only rotatable in one or two degrees of freedom (col. 11, lines 11-39; col. 27, lines 2-4).
Regarding claim 3, Itkowitz as modified by Vakanski Aleksandar discloses the method of claim 1 wherein receiving comprises receiving the user command where the surgical tool is rotatable in only one degree of freedom [surgical tool can be rotated in lesser or fewer than three; therefore, the phrase, “lesser or fewer than three” implies less than two which implies “rotatable in only one degree of freedom” as claimed (col. 11, lines 34-39; col. 27, lines 2-4)].
Regarding claim 4, Itkowitz as modified by Vakanski Aleksandar discloses the method of claim 1 wherein solving comprises solving with the projection restricting to feasible rotations (col. 11, lines 27-39; col. 27, lines 2-12).
Regarding claim 6, Vakanski Aleksandar discloses the method of claim 1 wherein solving comprises solving with a rotation selection matrix in the projection, the rotation selection matrix being in an end effector coordinate system of the surgical tool and indicating feasible and not feasible rotations (See equations 19-23, 33, 34 of VAKANSKI ALEKSANDAR pages 17, 21).
Regarding claim 7, Vakanski Aleksandar discloses the method of claim 6 wherein the surgical tool has a single degree of freedom for the rotation, and wherein solving comprises solving with the rotation selection matrix in the projection, the rotation selection matrix comprising a 3x3 matrix with zeros for all entries but one, the one entry corresponding to the single degree of freedom of the rotation of the surgical tool (See equations 20, 22, 23, 33 of VAKANSKI ALEKSANDAR pages 17&21, wherein the entries of values of “a” could be zeros or “1” for allowing degree of freedom).
Regarding claim 8, Vakanski Aleksandar discloses the method of claim 6 wherein the surgical tool has only two degrees of freedom for the rotation, and wherein solving comprises solving with the rotation selection matrix in the projection, the rotation selection matrix comprising a 3x3 matrix with zeros for all entries but two, the two entries corresponding to the two degrees of freedom of the rotation of the surgical tool (See equations 20, 22, 23, 33 of VAKANSKI ALEKSANDAR pages 17#21, wherein the entries of values of “a” could be zeros or “1”).
Regarding claim 9, Vakanski Aleksandar discloses the method of claim 6 wherein solving comprises solving in a control frame different than the end effector coordinate system by multiplication of the rotation selection matrix with a Jacobian of the inverse kinematics (See equations 19-23, 33, 34 of VAKANSKI ALEKSANDAR pages 17, 21).
Regarding claim 16, Itkowitz discloses a surgical robotic system for medical teleoperation (telesurgical system; col. 6, lines 56-63; fig. 1), the surgical robotic system comprising:
a robotic arm (100, 300, 310; figs. 1, 5, 9A&B; col. 6, lines 47-63; col. 9, lines 55-65);
a first surgical instrument (tool 106; figs. 5, 7; col. 6, lines 56-63; col. 11, lines 11-39) connected to the robotic arm, where an end effector (102.1, 102.2, figs. 5, 7; tool 106 comprises 102.1, 102.2; col. 6, lines 56-63; col. 11, lines 11-39) of the first surgical instrument (tool 106; figs. 5, 7) as connected to the robotic arm (100, 300, 310; figs. 1, 5, 9A&B) cannot rotate about at least one axis (less than three degrees of freedom; col. 11, lines 11-39; col. 27, lines 2-4); and
a controller (200, 200A; col. 7, lines 30-60) configured to solve for a solution for motion of the first surgical instrument during the medical teleoperation on a patient and in response to user input of a move command (col. 6, lines 47-63; col. 7, lines 1-8), the solution being with inverse kinematics, the inverse kinematics (fig. 18; col. 27, lines 35-45) including a projection of the user input from a higher dimension space to a lower dimensional space (user input has more degrees of freedom i.e. col. 8, lines 1-6, lines 30-38, compared to a lesser degrees of freedom at the tool, i.e. col. 11, lines 11-39; col. 27, lines 2-4, hence the tool side is lower dimensional space) that accounts for a lack of rotation about the at least one axis [i.e. projection from the user command to feasible motion (fig. 18; col. 27, lines 25-45) is based on the less than three degrees of freedom , and does not include or lack rotation about the at least one axis (col. 11, lines 11-39; col. 27, lines 2-4].
Itkowitz did not particularly recite, “wherein the projection comprises a selection matrix for rotation of the end effector, the selection matrix distinguishing permitted and not permitted rotations of the end effector in an end effector space.”
However, VAKANSKI ALEKSANDAR teaches of a projection comprising a selection matrix (see equation 22, 33) for rotation of an end effector, the selection matrix distinguishing permitted and not permitted rotations (See equations 20, 22, 23, 33 of VAKANSKI ALEKSANDAR pages 17&21, wherein the entries of values of “a” could be zeros or “1” for permitting degree of freedom or rotations) of the end effector in an end effector space.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Itkowitz to include essential and detail mathematical operations in Itkowitz needed for the teleoperation of surgical robots for the purpose of optimizing design and performance operations surgical robotic tool of Itkowitz.
Regarding claim 19, Itkowitz discloses the surgical robotic system of claim 16 wherein the solution is operable for different surgical instruments (instruments may be different and or replaced; col. 10, lines 62 to col. 11, lines 11 ), including the first surgical instrument, where the different surgical instruments have different limitations on movement (different instruments have different movements, the limitation is moving according to the limits of the axes; col. 10, lines 62 to col. 11, lines 39), the projection being different for the different limitations on the movement (different instruments have different movements and thus different projections; col. 10, lines 62 to col. 11, lines 30).
Regarding claim 20, Itkowitz discloses the surgical robotic system of claim 16 wherein the projection defines instantaneous feasible motion of the end effector mapped to a control frame (figs. 22; col. 6, lines 56-63; col. 8, lines 7-38; col. 30, lines 20-32), the inverse kinematics (fig. 18; col. 27, lines 35-45) being a combination of a Jacobian and the projection (col. 18, lines 24-53).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 5, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itkowitz (US 8600551) and Vakanski Aleksandar as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Nowlin (US 20200060777).
Regarding claim 5, Itkowitz discloses the method of claim 1 wherein solving comprises solving with minimization that includes the projection [applicant at sections 0042, indicates that inverse kinematics is minimization. That is the inverse kinematics is an optimization function, such as a minimization. For example, a difference between a change in joint position of the surgical robotic system and a change in pose of an end effector of the tool (i.e., change translated from user command) is minimized in act 312].
The prior art, Itkowitz also discloses inverse kinematics minimizes (fig. 18; col. 27, lines 35-45) and also reduces a difference between a change in joint position e.g. when extending the robot arm and de-extending the robot arms as in figs 9 the difference in joint positions can be minimized and also increase when the joints are moved according to their axes; col. 25, lines 61 to col. 26, lines 63. The cited inverse kinematics is also anticipated be Vakanski Aleksandar, See equations 19-23, 33, 34 of Vakanski Aleksandar pages 17, 21.
The prior art, Itkowitz or Vakanski Aleksandar did not particularly recite a least square; however, Nowlin teaches of a method for teleoperation of a surgical robotic system, wherein solving for motion from a user command with inverse kinematics comprises solving with minimization (i.e. minimizing a difference between joint positions; figs. 6, 7, 8A-C; sec 0069 to sec 0073) that includes a projection from a user command to feasible motion, the solving being with a least square for the minimization (sec 0097, 0103, 0105).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Itkowitz, Vakanski Aleksandar as taught by Nowlin for purpose of improving the Itkowitz and Vakanski Aleksandar device to solve for an inverse Jacobian Matrix shown in Itkowitz which generally does not fully define a joint vector solution (see Nowlin sec 0101, 0103).
Regarding claim 18, Itkowitz discloses the surgical robotic system of claim 16 wherein the inverse kinematics is a minimization of a difference between the motion of the first surgical instrument and the user input (user input is used to minimize or increase a difference between the motion of the first surgical instrument and motion of the user input; col. 25, lines 61 to col. 26, lines 63, e.g. recalibration of motion), the user input being for motion of the end effector, and wherein the projection comprises a projection of the user input with a greater degree of freedom to the motion of the first surgical instrument with a lesser degree of freedom (user input has more degrees of freedom i.e. col. 8, lines 1-6, lines 30-38, compared to a lesser degrees of freedom at the tool, i.e. col. 11, lines 11-39; col. 27, lines 2-4, hence the tool side is lower dimensional space).
The prior art, Itkowitz did not particularly recite a least square. However, Nowlin teaches of a method for teleoperation of a surgical robotic system, wherein solving for motion from a user command with inverse kinematics comprises solving with minimization (i.e. minimizing a difference between joint positions; figs. 6, 7, 8A-C; sec 0069 to sec 0073) that includes a projection from a user command to feasible motion, the solving being with a least square for the minimization (sec 0097, 0103, 0105).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Itkowitz as taught by Nowlin for purpose of improving the Itkowitz device to solve for an inverse Jacobian Matrix shown in Itkowitz which generally does not fully define a joint vector solution (see Nowlin sec 0101, 0103).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art (NIU, Wen-tie, CN 115179289 A) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure discloses inverse kinematics, projection (i.e. 3x3 transformation matrix), least square, joint angle, rotation, etc.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-15 are objected, but would be allowable when written in independent form and removing all objections pr rejection there to.
The prior art does not disclose:
11. (Original) A method for accounting for a limited degree of freedom of a tool in a surgical robotic system, the method comprising:
minimizing a difference between a change in joint position of the surgical robotic system and a change in pose of an end effector of the tool;
weighting the difference in the minimizing with a matrix distinguishing feasible and infeasible poses of the end effector of the tool based on the limited degrees of freedom; and
controlling the surgical robotic system based on the change in the joint position.
12. (Original) The method of claim 11 wherein minimizing comprises performing inverse kinematics as a least square minimization.
13. (Original) The method of claim 11 further comprising receiving a user input command from a user interface, the change in the pose of the end effector being provided as the user input command, where the user input command is free of the limited degree of freedom of the tool and the weighting with the matrix prevents the changes in position for the infeasible poses.
14. (Original) The method of claim 11 wherein weighting comprises weighting the difference with a projection operator projecting to the limited degree of freedom, the matrix being part of the projection operator.
15. (Original) The method of claim 11 wherein the limited degree of freedom is a limitation in rotation of the tool, and wherein weighting comprises weighting with the matrix, the matrix having binary weights for rotation with 1 for feasible rotation and 0 for infeasible rotation.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONNIE MANCHO whose telephone number is (571)272-6984. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Mott can be reached on 571 270 5376. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RONNIE M MANCHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights