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 .
Remarks
The claims being considered in this application are preliminary amended claims submitted on 09/13/2024. Claims1-19 are pending.
Priority
The applicant’s claim to priority of GB2203946.5 on 03/21/2022 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 09/13/2024 has been annotated and considered.
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.
Claims 1, 5-6, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunaoshi (JP2010076012A; IDS, Translation Attached) in view of Hariri et. al. (US 10166082 B1, IDS).
Regarding Claim 1, Sunaoshi discloses:
A grip force controller for controlling grip force of an instrument in a surgical robotic system, (See at least ¶0006 via "The present invention provides a manipulator system and a control method that can stably and accurately control the applied force, such as gripping force." and ¶0011/Figure 1 which shows a medical manipulator system)
the instrument having an end effector comprising a plurality of jaws and the drive assembly being for transferring drive to the plurality of jaws of the instrument to drive the jaws relative to each other in a closing direction for gripping an object between the jaws and in an opening direction for releasing a gripped object, (See at least Figure 3 which illustrates the instrument having an end effector [4] comprising a plurality of jaws [working members 325 and 326] and ¶0029, additionally see ¶0012 via "a drive unit 6 that generates the driving force for the action unit 4", and also see ¶0030 via "first and second working members 325 and 326 that constitute an opening and closing function (gripping mechanism: gripper)")
the grip force controller being configured to: control movement of the jaws according to a demanded spread between the jaws; (See at least Figure 3 and ¶0067 via "The manipulated variable update unit 58 sends the gripper axis target value θg to the inverse kinematic calculation unit 53 according to the determination result from the maximum closing angle determination unit 57, and updates the gripper axis target value θg" **Wherein the gripper axis target value "θg" is being interpreted as corresponding to the demanded spread that is a commanded jaw-position value used to control jaw movement)
determine an occurrence of a gripping event as the jaws are driven relative to each other in the closing direction so as to apply a grip force between the jaws; (See at least ¶0056 via "When controlling gripping force by gripping angle, that is, when controlling gripping force by angle control, it is necessary to recognize the gripper angle at which the object is actually gripped". Additionally see at least ¶0080 which describes the grip start estimation observer [51], as well as ¶0082 via "…T1 is earlier than the time T2 in Figure 10(b) when the start of gripping is recognized, indicating that the start of gripping can be estimated quickly and accurately" and S26 in ¶0090 via "If fa ≥ f1, it is determined that gripping has started…" **Wherein the determination of the grip starting s being interpreted as corresponds to the gripping event**)
determine a demanded spread between the jaws on determining the occurrence of the gripping event; (See at least ¶0065-¶0066 via "The closest closed angle determination unit 57 calculates the closest closed angle θc of the gripper shaft by subtracting the set gripping angle θh from the gripping start angle θt, based on the following equation (3)…θc=θt−θh…(3)" **Wherein the gripping start angle "θt" Is being interpreted as corresponding to the spread at the beginning of gripping, and θc is the demanded spread calculated using the gripping angle and gripping start angle. Thus, under BRI, "θc" corresponds to the demanded spread because the demanded spread can be used as a measure of demanded grip force beyond being limited to only representing physical jaw separation)
set the determined demanded spread as a minimum spread limit for the jaws; and (See at least ¶0065-¶0066 via "The closest closed angle determination unit 57 calculates the closest closed angle θc of the gripper shaft by subtracting the set gripping angle θh from the gripping start angle θt, based on the following equation (3)…θc=θt−θh…(3)" **Wherein the closest closed angle "θc" is being interpreted under BRI as corresponding to the minimum spread limit which is set from the demanded spread, because θc is derived from the gripping start angle θt that establishes a limit on further jaw closing.)
control movement of the jaws using the minimum spread limit so as to control grip force applied by the jaws (See at least ¶0065-¶0066 via "closest closed angle θc", as well as ¶0067 via "The manipulated variable update unit 58 sends the gripper axis target value θg to the inverse kinematic calculation unit 53 according to the determination result from the maximum closing angle determination unit 57, and updates the gripper axis target value θg" and ¶0084 via "the desired gripping force is first set, the gripper shaft is closed by angle (position) control, the gripping start angle is recognized by the output of the gripping force start estimation observer, the gripper shaft's fully closed angle is then set, and the gripper shaft angle is then controlled by angle (position) until it reaches the fully closed angle." **Wherein the system is using the closest closed angle θc to control and limit further jaw closing/limiting grip force.)
However, Sunaoshi does not explicitly disclose the robotic system base or the plurality of joints in the way the claim's structure is written.
Nevertheless, Hariri--who is directed towards a system and method for controlling a robotic wrist--discloses: surgical robotic system comprising a robot having a base and an arm extending from the base (See at least Figures 2 and 3A-3B which illustrates a base and an arm extending from the base, as well as Col. 5 Lines. 64-67 via "As shown in FIGS. 3A and 3B, in one variation, the tool drive 210 may include an elongated base (or “stage”) 310 having longitudinal tracks 312 and a tool carriage 320, which is slidingly engaged with the longitudinal tracks 312.")
the arm comprising a plurality of joints whereby the configuration of the arm can be altered, (See at least Column 5 lines 43-47 and Figure 2 which illustrates a plurality of joints)
PNG
media_image1.png
602
754
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Sunaoshi in view of Hariri in order to provide a plurality of joints that enable a configuration of the robotic arm to be altered in order to expand the ways the arm can be controlled and increase the number of configurations for operating a surgical instrument: "The joint modules may include various types, such as a pitch joint or a roll joint, which may substantially constrain the movement of the adjacent links around certain axes relative to others" [Col. 5 Lines. 47-50].
Regarding Claim 5, Modified Sunaoshi discloses the grip force controller according to Claim 1.
Furthermore, Sunaoshi discloses: in which the minimum spread limit is a negative spread (See at least ¶0064 via "sets the target gripping angle θh to obtain the desired gripping force based on the linear correlation between gripping angle and gripping force" and also ¶0065-¶0066 via "The closest closed angle determination unit 57 calculates the closest closed angle θc of the gripper shaft by subtracting the set gripping angle θh from the gripping start angle θt, based on the following equation (3)…θc=θt−θh…(3)" **Wherein the closest closed angle "θc" is being interpreted under BRI as corresponding to the minimum spread limit that is a negative spread because θc is derived from subtracting the target gripping angle θh from the gripping start angle θt, and under BRI, the negative spread can include a closure offset relative to the gripping starting position for generating grip force).
Regarding Claim 6, Modified Sunaoshi discloses the grip force controller according to Claim l.
Furthermore, Sunaoshi discloses: configured to reset the minimum spread limit on determining that any one or more of the following occur: the jaws are opened past an opening spread threshold; the demanded spread exceeds a demanded spread threshold; the demanded spread becomes positive; a measured spread becomes positive; the grip force applied between the jaws reduces past a further grip force threshold; a tension of a driving element or other component of the instrument reduces past a reset threshold tension; a torsion of a driving element or other component of the instrument reduces past a reset threshold torsion; a flexing of a driving element or other component of the instrument reduces past a reset threshold flexing; the jaws move relative to each other in the opening direction at a speed above an opening speed threshold; a commanded jaw movement in the opening direction exceeds a threshold commanded jaw movement; a change in force per unit of displacement exceeds a predetermined value; a grip force commanded by the surgeon decreases; a predetermined time, treset, elapses; and an indication of an end of a gripping operation is received (See at least ¶0093 which discloses the resetting and the at least one trigger of an indication of an end of a gripping operation being received via "If it is determined in step S29 that θg is equal to θp, or if it is determined in step S30 that θg > θt, then it is determined that the gripping operation is complete and the gripping flag is turned off (step S31)…Next, the minimum angle θn of the gripper axis is set as the gripping start angle θt (step S323)…Here, the reason for setting the gripping start angle θt to the minimum angle of the gripper axis is to reset the gripping start angle" **Wherein resetting the gripping start angle θt corresponds to resetting the minimum spread limit because the minimum spread limit θc depends on the value of θt**; further see ¶0066 via "θc=θt−θh").
Regarding Claim 18, Sunaoshi discloses:
A method of controlling grip force of an instrument in a surgical robotic system, (See at least ¶0009 via "a control method therefor that can stably and accurately control the applied force, such as gripping force.")
(Regarding the method steps, see Claim 1 rejection as they are the same)
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunaoshi (JP2010076012A; IDS, Translation Attached) and Hariri et. al. (US 10166082 B1, IDS) in view of Inoue et. al. (US 20140148819 A1, IDS).
Regarding Claim 2, Modified Sunaoshi discloses the grip force controller according to Claim 1.
However, although Sunaoshi discloses comparing a grip start estimation signal to a threshold to determine the occurrence of a gripping event (See at least ¶0088 via "First, the grip start estimation signal fa output from the grip start estimation observer 51 in Figure 8 is acquired (step S21)." and ¶0090 via "Next, it is determined whether the gripping start estimation signal fa is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold f1 (step S25)…If fa ≥ f1, it is determined that gripping has started, similar to time t1 in Figure 10(d), and the gripping flag is turned on (step S26)."); Sunaoshi does not explicitly disclose the signal being grip force or the other claimed triggers.
Nevertheless, Inoue--who is directed towards a surgical instrument and control method thereof--discloses: configured to determine the occurrence of the gripping event on determining that any one or more of the following occur: a grip force between the jaws exceeds a grip force threshold; a demanded motor force of a motor of the drive assembly for transferring drive to one of the jaws exceeds a motor force threshold; an average demanded motor force of a plurality of motors of the drive assembly for transferring drive to respective ones of the jaws exceeds an average motor force threshold; the motor of the drive assembly for transferring drive to one of the jaws approaches or reaches a saturation point; a current through the motor of the drive assembly for transferring drive to one of the jaws exceeds a current threshold; a driving element of the instrument, by which drive is transferred to one of the jaws, approaches or reaches a physical limit of the driving element; and a physical limit is reached of a component of the instrument (See at least ¶0061 via "The manipulator controller 42 determines that a target is gripped between a pair of jaws 51A and 51B when the force sensor 72 starts detecting of the gripping force (when the gripping force becomes non-zero) with normal reference to the value detected by the force sensor 72." **Wherein the gripping force becoming non-zero is interpreted as corresponding to the grip force threshold being exceeded, as the threshold is the non-zero detection threshold that is used to determine if gripping has started (gripping event).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Sunaoshi in view of Inoue's non-zero detection threshold in order to determine when gripping has begun and when the control can proceed to a next stage, while enabling intuitive manipulation and accurate control of the gripping force: "After it is determined that the gripping of a target is started, the gripping force increasing zone R3 is first set…the operator Op can perform the manipulation more intuitively…it is possible to more accurately control the gripping force" [¶0065-¶0066 Inoue].
Regarding Claim 3, Sunaoshi discloses the grip force controller according to Claim 2.
Furthermore, Sunaoshi discloses: configured to determine the occurrence of the gripping event based on a signal indicative of one or more of: the grip force between the jaws; the demanded motor force of the motor; the average demanded motor force of the plurality of motors; motor saturation of the motor of the drive assembly for transferring drive to one of the jaws; current through the motor of the drive assembly for transferring drive to one of the jaws; and tension in the driving element of the instrument by which drive is transferred to one of the jaws (See at least ¶0088 which teaches the required 'one or more' triggers via "First, the grip start estimation signal fa output from the grip start estimation observer 51 in Figure 8 is acquired (step S21)." and ¶0082 via "…T1 is earlier than the time T2 in Figure 10(b) when the start of gripping is recognized, indicating that the start of gripping can be estimated quickly and accurately", as well as ¶0090 via "Next, it is determined whether the gripping start estimation signal fa is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold f1 (step S25)…If fa ≥ f1, it is determined that gripping has started, similar to time t1 in Figure 10(d), and the gripping flag is turned on (step S26)." **Wherein the grip start estimation signal "fa" is interpreted as being a signal indicating there is a gripping force occurring, as the signal is recognizing the start of gripping).
Claim 4 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunaoshi (JP2010076012A; IDS, Translation Attached), Hariri et. al. (US 10166082 B1, IDS), and Inoue et. al. (US 20140148819 A1, IDS) in view of Bingham et. al. (US 20190176326 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Modified Sunaoshi discloses the grip force controller according to Claim 3.
However, although Inoue discloses determining the start of gripping from a camera in one embodiment: (See at least ¶0054 via “it is determined that the gripping of a target by the acting part 51 is started based on the image from the camera 61”); Modified Sunaoshi does not explicitly disclose the visual servoing or the signals being filtered.
Nevertheless, Bingham--who is directed towards robot grip detection using non-contact sensors--discloses: in which: the signal comprises or is derived from visual servoing based on an image of the instrument; and/or the grip force controller is configured to filter the signal and to determine the occurrence of the gripping event based on the filtered signal (See at least ¶0049 which discloses the visual servoing: via "the sensor data may be used to center the gripper on an object to grasp during a visual servoing process"; ¶0133 via " data from the time-of-flight sensor and the infrared camera may be fused together, possibly in addition to data from other sensors, in order to generate control instructions for the gripper", and also ¶0178 via "…a closed-loop control system may involve using vision information to sequentially adjust the gripper position…multimodal sensor data may be used as part of a position-based servoing process ")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Sunaoshi in view of the visual servoing of Bingham in order to utilize a signal derived from visual servoing to improve the control by ensuring the gripping is properly positioned and aligned relative to an object being gripped: "the sensor data may be used to center the gripper on an object to grasp during a visual servoing process" [Bingham ¶0049].
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunaoshi (JP2010076012A; IDS, Translation Attached), Hariri et. al. (US 10166082 B1, IDS), and Inoue et. al. (US 20140148819 A1, IDS) in view of Webb (US 4696501 A).
Regarding Claim 7, Modified Sunaoshi discloses the grip force controller according to Claim 2.
However, modified Sunaoshi does not explicitly disclose the static condition being determined from the motor force.
Nevertheless, Webb--who is directed towards a robot gripper--discloses: configured to determine that the instrument end effector is in a static condition where the average demanded motor force exceeds a static condition motor force (See at least Col. 2 Lines. 10-17 via "When the motor is driven by the drive means in a direction closing the gripper jaws (shown in FIG. 2 as 38 and 40), the force sensing means 200 provides a feedback control signal F to the control means 70 causing the control means to turn off the motor 32 when the gripper motor current exceeds a preselected threshold. The preselected threshold corresponds to a predetermined maximum of gripper force" and additionally Claim 9 via "…electrical circuit means for sensing the gripper motor current of the gripper jaws through the third output of the second electrical circuit means as the gripper jaws are closed together to hold objects, and for supplying a feedback output signal to a control input of the first electrical circuit means for stopping the gripper motor when the gripper motor current exceeds a preselected threshold corresponding to a predetermined maximum force on the objects being gripped by the gripper jaws" as well as Claim 11 via "…when the gripper motor current exceeds a preselected threshold corresponding to the force being exerted on the object by the gripper jaws…" **Wherein the gripper motor current is interpreted as corresponding to the demanded motor force as the threshold motor current is corresponding to the force being exerted by the gripper jaws, and the jaws being closed together to hold objects is interpreted as corresponding to the static condition because the gripper is maintaining a grasp on an object).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Sunaoshi in view of Webb's comparison of motor force/current to a threshold to determine when a grip is obtained/maintained in order to operate the instrument and end effector with an optimal force that avoids an excessive force that could cause damage to objects: "The current threshold and maximum force are advantageously selected to allow for firm handling of objects by the grippers without causing damage to the objects from excessive gripper force." [Webb Col. 2 Lines. 18-21].
Regarding Claim 8, Modified Sunaoshi discloses the grip force controller according to Claim 7.
Furthermore, Sunaoshi discloses: in which: the determination that the instrument end effector is in a and/or the static condition motor force is -180 units of effective force, and the average demanded motor force exceeds this when it becomes more negative than this value (See at least ¶0090 via "Next, it is determined whether the gripping start estimation signal fa is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold f1 (step S25). If fa ≥ f1, it is determined that gripping has started, similar to time t1 in Figure 10(d), and the gripping flag is turned on (step S26)." **Which corresponds to the start of the gripping event)
However, Sunaoshi does not explicitly disclose the static condition of the first trigger option.
Nevertheless, Webb discloses: in a static condition (See at least Claim 9 via "…electrical circuit means for sensing the gripper motor current of the gripper jaws through the third output of the second electrical circuit means as the gripper jaws are closed together to hold objects, and for supplying a feedback output signal to a control input of the first electrical circuit means for stopping the gripper motor when the gripper motor current exceeds a preselected threshold corresponding to a predetermined maximum force on the objects being gripped by the gripper jaws" **Wherein the jaws being closed together to hold objects is interpreted as corresponding to the static condition because the gripper is maintaining a grasp on an object).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Sunaoshi's gripping determination in view of Webb's force threshold that corresponds to the jaws holding an object to determine a static condition in order to determine when a gripping operation has progressed beyond the beginning of the gripping event to when the gripper is gripping/handling an object with respect to a desired force, in order to avoid an excessive force that could cause damage to objects and proceed with further control: "The current threshold and maximum force are advantageously selected to allow for firm handling of objects by the grippers without causing damage to the objects from excessive gripper force." [Webb Col. 2 Lines. 18-21].
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunaoshi (JP2010076012A; IDS, Translation Attached) and Hariri et. al. (US 10166082 B1, IDS) in view of Gregerson et. al. (US 20160302871 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Modified Sunaoshi discloses the grip force controller according to Claim l.
Furthermore, Sunaoshi discloses: a demanded yaw angle (See at least ¶0044 via "In step S14 described above, as shown in Figure 9 later, target values are generated by performing an inverse kinematic calculation to convert the yaw axis target angle θy, roll axis target angle θr, and gripper axis target angle θg, which are calculated based on the values obtained from the operating device, into the first motor axis angle θ1, the second motor axis angle θ2, and the motor 14c axis angle θ3" **Wherein the target value of yaw angle is interpreted as corresponding to the demanded yaw angle.)
However, Modified Sunaoshi does not explicitly determine the dynamic condition when the yaw difference value is greater than a dynamic yaw value.
Nevertheless, Gregerson--who is directed towards a surgical robot system--discloses: configured to: determine a determined that the yaw difference value is greater than a dynamic yaw value (See at least ¶0048 via " In embodiments, a motion tracking apparatus 129 such as described above may be configured to track the at least one robotic arm 101a, 101b to ensure that the end effector(s) 121 maintain the pre-determined position and orientation with respect to the patient 103. If an end effector 121 moves from the pre-determined position and orientation (e.g., due to the robotic arm being accidentally bumped), the motion tracking apparatus 129 may detect this movement and alert the surgeon or other clinician. Alternately or in addition, the motion tracking apparatus 129 may send a message to the controller 105 of the at least one robotic arm 101a, 101b indicating a detected deviation from the pre-determined position and orientation of the end effector 121." as well as ¶0058 via " the motion tracking apparatus 129 may provide a redundant safety feature in that if the motion tracking apparatus 129 detects a movement of an end effector 121 from the pre-determined position and orientation with respect to the patient 103, the surgeon or other clinicians may be promptly notified. In embodiments, when the motion tracking apparatus 129 detects a change in position or orientation of the end effector 121 with respect to the patient 103 by more than a threshold amount, the motion tracking apparatus 129 may send a message to the imaging system 125 and the controller 105 of the robotic arm(s) to stop all motion of the system 100." **Wherein the position and orientation of the end effector is interpreted as encompassing yaw angle, and the detected movement of the end effector from the change in position/orientation exceeding a threshold amount is interpreted as corresponding to the dynamic condition).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Sunaoshi in view of the threshold comparison that determines a dynamic state such as in Gregerson in order to perform corrective action to maintain a desired/intended position and orientation: "The controller 105 may move the robotic arm(s) 101a, 10 lb to compensate for any such movement (e.g., to maintain the end effector 121 in the same position and orientation with respect to the selected entrance point 405 on the patient's body)" [Gregerson ¶0048].
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunaoshi (JP2010076012A; IDS, Translation Attached) and Hariri et. al. (US 10166082 B1, IDS) in view of Tabandeh (US 20200409477 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Modified Sunaoshi discloses the grip force controller according to Claim l.
Furthermore, Sunaoshi discloses yaw (See at least ¶0044 via "yaw axis target angle θy").
However, Sunaoshi does not explicitly disclose the yaw speed comparison in determining a dynamic condition.
Nevertheless, Tabandeh--who is directed towards a system and method for motion management--discloses: configured to determine that the instrument end effector is in a dynamic condition where it is determined that a yaw speed is greater than a dynamic yaw speed value (See at least ¶0047 via "…determining whether an angular speed around the circular arc is greater than a configurable angular speed threshold… When the angular speed around the circular arc is greater than the angular speed threshold, the movement is considered to be likely to include one or more components of a mode switching movement…" and also ¶0040 via "… the detected movement may include information associated with both a position of each of the one or more input controls, a velocity (linear and/or rotational) of each of the one or more input controls, an acceleration (linear and/or rotational) of each of the one or more input controls…" and ¶0044 via "In some examples, detecting the rotational component of the movement may include tracking the position of each of the one or more input controls over time and fitting the tracked positions to a circular arc to determine…an average angular speed around the circular arc, an instantaneous angular speed around the circular arc…" **Wherein the angular speed is interpreted as corresponding to the yaw speed and the angular speed threshold is interpreted as corresponding to the dynamic yaw speed value, and the movement being determined based on the threshold being exceeded is interpreted as corresponding to the dynamic condition).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Sunaoshi in view of Tabandeh's angular velocity in order to classify movement, such as if the system is switching to a different mode: "When the angular speed around the circular arc is greater than the angular speed threshold, the movement is considered to be likely to include one or more components of a mode switching movement" [Tabandeh ¶0047].
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunaoshi (JP2010076012A; IDS, Translation Attached), Hariri et. al. (US 10166082 B1, IDS), and Inoue et. al. (US 20140148819 A1, IDS) in view of Deane et. al. (US 20210106395 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Modified Sunaoshi discloses the grip force controller according to Claim 2.
However, Modified Sunaoshi does not explicitly disclose the dynamic condition being determined based on the motor forces being above and below the thresholds.
Nevertheless, Deane--who is directed towards controlling a surgical instrument--discloses: configured to determine that the instrument end effector is in a dynamic condition where the demanded motor force for one of the plurality of motors is greater than the motor force threshold and the demanded motor force for another of the plurality of motors is less than the motor force threshold (See at least ¶0036 via "The opposable first and second end effector elements may be a pair of jaws" as well as ¶0037 via "comparing a demanded first yaw torque for the first end effector element to a first maximum yaw torque, and comparing a demanded second yaw torque for the second end effector element to a second maximum yaw torque" **Wherein the yaw torque is being interpreted as corresponding to motor force. Furthermore, see at least ¶0104 via "the control system determines if the magnitude of the yaw torque demanded for the first end effector element is greater than τ.sub.cap…And at step 603, the control system determines if the magnitude of the yaw torque demanded for the second end effector element is greater than τ.sub.cap. In other words, whether the absolute value of the yaw torque is greater than τ.sub.cap or less than −τ.sub.cap" Additionally, see Figure 5 via step 503 "Is Yawing motion of the surgical input device detected" which is interpreted as corresponding to the dynamic condition, and also step 504 "Reduce force applied to one driving element and retain maximum force applied to other driving element to cause end effector elements to yaw as commanded" **Wherein reducing the force that is applied to one of the driving elements while maintaining a maximum force that is applied to another is interpreted as corresponding to one of the demanded motor forces being below a threshold and the other being above during movement. Also see Figure 6 via steps 601, 602, 603, and 609).
PNG
media_image2.png
888
606
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of he given invention to modify Modified Sunaoshi in view of Deane in order to recognize and better control the distribution of forces on the end effector that has independent end effector elements/jaws: [creating] "a control system which better mediates the interdependence of the gripping and yawing motion of an end effector." [Deane ¶0005].
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunaoshi (JP2010076012A; IDS, Translation Attached), Hariri et. al. (US 10166082 B1, IDS), and Gregerson et. al. (US 20160302871 A1) in view of Deane et. al. (US 20210106395 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Modified Sunaoshi discloses the grip force controller according to Claim 9.
Furthermore, Sunaoshi discloses the minimum spread limit (See at least ¶0065-¶0066 via "The closest closed angle determination unit 57 calculates the closest closed angle θc of the gripper shaft by subtracting the set gripping angle θh from the gripping start angle θt, based on the following equation (3)…θc=θt−θh…(3)" **Wherein the closest closed angle "θc" is being interpreted under BRI as corresponding to the minimum spread limit because θc is derived from the gripping start angle θt that establishes a limit on further jaw closing.).
However, Sunaoshi does not explicitly disclose the minimum spread limit being made more positive.
Nevertheless, Deane discloses: in which, where it is determined that the instrument end effector is in a dynamic condition, the minimum spread limit for the jaws is made more positive (See at least ¶0086 via "By reducing the force applied to the driving elements, those driving elements are able to yaw the end effector elements… The greater the reduction in the closing force applied to the end effector elements, the greater the speed at which the end effector elements can be yawed. Thus, whilst the control method of FIG. 4 prioritises a closing motion of the end effector, it trades this off against the ability to yaw the end effector elements when the end effector elements are not actively moving towards each other" **Wherein the reduction of the closing force is being interpreted as corresponding to the increasing spread/the limit becoming more positive. Additionally, see at least Figure 5 via step 503 "Is Yawing motion of the surgical input device detected" which is interpreted as corresponding to the dynamic condition, and also step 504 "Reduce force applied to one driving element and retain maximum force applied to other driving element to cause end effector elements to yaw as commanded").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Sunaoshi in view of Deane in order to recognize and better control the distribution of forces on the end effector that has independent end effector elements/jaws while being able to access a more expanded range of gripping motion while accessing a more expanded range of yawing motion [Deane ¶0004], by thus [creating] "a control system which better mediates the interdependence of the gripping and yawing motion of an end effector." [Deane ¶0005].
Regarding Claim 13, Modified Sunaoshi discloses the grip force controller according to Claim 12.
Furthermore, Sunaoshi discloses a minimum spread limit (See at least ¶0065-¶0066 via "The closest closed angle determination unit 57 calculates the closest closed angle θc of the gripper shaft by subtracting the set gripping angle θh from the gripping start angle θt, based on the following equation (3)…θc=θt−θh…(3)" **Wherein the closest closed angle "θc" is being interpreted under BRI as corresponding to the minimum spread limit because θc is derived from the gripping start angle θt that establishes a limit on further jaw closing.).
However, Sunaoshi does not explicitly disclose, but Deane discloses: in which the minimum spread limit is not increased past a spread value corresponding to a minimum grip force threshold, thereby retaining a minimum grip force between the jaws (See at least Figure 5 via step 504 "Reduce force applied to one driving element and retain maximum force applied to other driving element to cause end effector elements to yaw as commanded" and ¶0086 via "The greater the reduction in the closing force applied to the end effector elements, the greater the speed at which the end effector elements can be yawed. Thus, whilst the control method of FIG. 4 prioritises a closing motion of the end effector, it trades this off against the ability to yaw the end effector elements when the end effector elements are not actively moving towards each other." **Wherein the retaining the maximum force on one of the end effector elements/jaws while reducing the force on another is interpreted as corresponding to the maintaining a minimum gripping force while making the jaw spread more positive).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Sunaoshi in view of Deane in order to maintain enough gripping force while allowing the end effectors to still perform yawing motion in order to recognize and better control the distribution of forces on the end effector that has independent end effector elements/jaws while being able to access a more expanded range of gripping motion while accessing a more expanded range of yawing motion [Deane ¶0004], by thus [creating] "a control system which better mediates the interdependence of the gripping and yawing motion of an end effector." [Deane ¶0005].
Regarding Claim 14, Modified Sunaoshi discloses the grip force controller according to Claim 9.
Furthermore, Hariri discloses: in which a spread-dependent gain is applied to the demanded yaw angle (See at least Col. 14 Lines. 6-8 via "The desired grip force may be determined according to a function of the desired jaw angle 803 and/or the threshold 844. The function may be a linear function, an exponential function, a quadratic function, or other functions." **Wherein the control value is modified based on a function of the jaw angle/spread. Furthermore, see at least Col. 19 Lines. 51-54 via "the input pitch angle 801 (rotation about axis 420 in FIG. 4B) and yaw angles 802 (angle between axis 452 and the middle point of jaws, as shown in FIG. 4B) of the end effector can be controlled in position mode by the position controller 506." **Wherein the commands are generated based on both the yaw angle and the jaw angle)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Sunaoshi in view of Hariri in account for the desired jaw angle/spread directly impacting the desired grip force: "When the desired jaw angle is smaller than the threshold, the desired jaw angle can be interpreted both as an indication and an extent of the desired grip force between the two opposing members of the end effector. [Col. 19 Lines. 51-54], which illustrates that the jaw angle is an indication and an extent that affects other variables of the end effector. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the jaw angle/spread to modify the yaw angle through a mathematical function such as through application of gain.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunaoshi (JP2010076012A; IDS, Translation Attached) and Hariri et. al. (US 10166082 B1, IDS) in view of Deane et. al. (US 20210106395 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Sunaoshi discloses:
A grip force controller for controlling grip force of an instrument in a surgical robotic system, (See at least ¶0006 via "The present invention provides a manipulator system and a control method that can stably and accurately control the applied force, such as gripping force." and ¶0011/Figure 1 which shows a medical manipulator system)
the instrument having an end effector comprising a plurality of jaws and the drive assembly being for transferring drive to the plurality of jaws of the instrument to drive the jaws relative to each other in a closing direction for gripping an object between the jaws and in an opening direction for releasing a gripped object, (See at least Figure 3 which illustrates the instrument having an end effector [4] comprising a plurality of jaws [working members 325 and 326] and ¶0029, additionally see ¶0012 via "a drive unit 6 that generates the driving force for the action unit 4", and also see ¶0030 via "first and second working members 325 and 326 that constitute an opening and closing function (gripping mechanism: gripper)")
the grip force controller being configured to: control a force applied between the jaws according to a (See at least Figure 3 and ¶0067 via "The manipulated variable update unit 58 sends the gripper axis target value θg to the inverse kinematic calculation unit 53 according to the determination result from the maximum closing angle determination unit 57, and updates the gripper axis target value θg" **Wherein the gripper axis target value "θg" is being interpreted as corresponding to the demanded spread that is a commanded jaw-position value used to control jaw movement)
determine an occurrence of a gripping event as the jaws are driven relative to each other in the closing direction so as to apply a grip force between the jaws; (See at least ¶0056 via "When controlling gripping force by gripping angle, that is, when controlling gripping force by angle control, it is necessary to recognize the gripper angle at which the object is actually gripped". Additionally see at least ¶0080 which describes the grip start estimation observer [51], as well as ¶0082 via "…T1 is earlier than the time T2 in Figure 10(b) when the start of gripping is recognized, indicating that the start of gripping can be estimated quickly and accurately" and S26 in ¶0090 via "If fa ≥ f1, it is determined that gripping has started…" **Wherein the determination of the grip starting s being interpreted as corresponds to the gripping event**)
determine an (See at least ¶0065-¶0066 where Sunaoshi discloses the demanded ‘spread’ via "The closest closed angle determination unit 57 calculates the closest closed angle θc of the gripper shaft by subtracting the set gripping angle θh from the gripping start angle θt, based on the following equation (3)…θc=θt−θh…(3)" **Wherein the gripping start angle "θt" Is being interpreted as corresponding to the spread at the beginning of gripping, and θc is interpreted as the demanded spread calculated using the gripping angle and gripping start angle. Further, under BRI, the the demanded spread "θc" corresponds to being used in the determination of a measure of demanded grip force beyond being limited to only representing physical jaw separation)
However, Sunaoshi does not explicitly disclose the robotic system base or the plurality of joints in the way the claim's structure is written.
Nevertheless, Hariri--who is directed towards a system and method for controlling a robotic wrist--discloses: surgical robotic system comprising a robot having a base and an arm extending from the base (See at least Figures 2 and 3A-3B which illustrates a base and an arm extending from the base, as well as Col. 5 Lines. 64-67 via "As shown in FIGS. 3A and 3B, in one variation, the tool drive 210 may include an elongated base (or “stage”) 310 having longitudinal tracks 312 and a tool carriage 320, which is slidingly engaged with the longitudinal tracks 312.")
the arm comprising a plurality of joints whereby the configuration of the arm can be altered, (See at least Column 5 lines 43-47 and Figure 2 which illustrates a plurality of joints)
PNG
media_image1.png
602
754
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Sunaoshi in view of Hariri in order to provide a plurality of joints that enable e configuration of the robotic arm to be altered in order to expand the ways the arm can be controlled and increase the number of configurations for operating a surgical instrument: "The joint modules may include various types, such as a pitch joint or a roll joint, which may substantially constrain the movement of the adjacent links around certain axes relative to others" [Col. 5 Lines. 47-50].
However, although Modified Sunaoshi discloses the control being based on the spread, Sunaoshi does not explicitly disclose the control based on the demanded force.
Nevertheless, Deane--who is directed towards controlling a surgical instrument--discloses: control a force applied between the jaws according to a demanded force; (See at least ¶0006 via "respond to a closing motion of the surgeon input device by commanding maximum forces to be applied to the first and second pairs of driving elements")
determine an indication of a demanded force between the jaws (See at least ¶0062 via "the control system responds to detecting a gripping configuration of the hand controller (for a gripping instrument) or a closing motion of the hand controller (for a cutting instrument) by commanding a maximum force to be applied to the driving elements so as to cause a maximum closing force of the end effector elements" **Wherein the commanded maximum force is being interpreted as corresponding to the demanded force)
set the determined demanded force as a maximum demanded force limit for the jaws; and (See at least ¶0064 via "The control system commands a first maximum force to be applied to the driving element driving rotation of the first end effector element towards the second end effector element. In the example of FIG. 2, the control system commands a first maximum force to be applied to A2 to drive end effector element 209 to rotate towards end effector element 210. The control system commands a second maximum force to be applied to the driving element driving rotation of the second end effector element towards the first end effector element. In the example of FIG. 2, the control system commands a second maximum force to be applied to B1 to drive end effector element 210 to rotate towards end effector element 209.")
control the force applied between the jaws using the maximum demanded force limit so as to control grip force applied by the jaws (See at least ¶0062 via "As another example, if the end effector is a pair of scissors, then a high closing force is desirable to enable successful cutting of tissue. Thus, the control system responds to detecting a gripping configuration of the hand controller (for a gripping instrument) or a closing motion of the hand controller (for a cutting instrument) by commanding a maximum force to be applied to the driving elements so as to cause a maximum closing force of the end effector elements. Referring to FIG. 2, the control system responds by commanding a maximum force to be applied to A2 and a maximum force to be applied to B1. This results in the end effector elements 209 and 210 rotating towards each other with a maximum closing force, and thereby enabling the end effector to grip/cut with maximum force").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Sunaoshi in view of Deane's control using the maximum demanded force limit in order to sufficiently control the end effector/jaws, especially in a situation where the instrument(s) might be different and require a different amount of force for sufficient control: "The value of the first maximum force and the value of the second maximum force may be dependent on the instrument type…For example, if the end effector elements are different, then the first maximum driving force applied to the first end effector element may be different to the second maximum driving force applied to the second end effector element in order to achieve the desired maximum closing force of the end effector elements. An example of this would be an asymmetric instrument such as a stapler" [Deane ¶0065].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shelton, IV et. al. (US 20190201018 A1)
Itkowitz et. al. (US 20230329817 A1)
Ergueta Tejerina et. al. (US 20220096184 A1)
Gassner et. al. (US 20220192768 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA RENEE DOROS whose telephone number is (703)756-1415. The examiner can normally be reached Generally: M-F (8-5) EST.
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, Abby Lin can be reached on (571) 270-3976. 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.
/K.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ESVINDER SINGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights