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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/31/2024.The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicants claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f). The certified copy has been filed in parent application GB2209738.0 filed on 07/01/2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 18, 21, 23, 24, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Veitch (WO2022003331, from IDS) in view of Lovati (US20220368257) and Weir (US20220047342, from IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Veitch teaches a method configured to instrument interface element of a surgical instrument attached to the surgical robot arm to thereby drive a distal end effector of the surgical instrument (at least pages 7-9 disclosing the surgical instrument with a drive that drives the instrument distal end),
Veitch does not teach calibrate using a calibration rig; the calibration rig comprising a rig interface element which engages with and is driven by the drive interface element, the method comprising: running a test sequence comprising: controlling a set of test motor currents to be applied to the motor, each test motor current causing the motor to drive the drive interface element to move; and for each test motor current of the set of test motor currents, receiving a
measured resistive force applied by a calibration rig, the calibration rig applying the resistive force in response to the rig interface element being driven by the drive interface element; determining a relationship between the set of test motor currents and the resistive force measurements; determining calibration value(s) from: (i) the determined relationship, and (ii) a known relationship between the resistive force applied by the calibration rig and the driving force applied by the drive interface element; and controlling the calibration value(s) to be applied to subsequent motor currents applied to the motor so as to cause the motor to drive the drive interface element to apply desired driving forces to an instrument interface element of an attached surgical instrument. calibrate using a calibration rig; the calibration rig comprising a rig interface element which engages with and is driven by the drive interface element, the method comprising:
Lovati teaches calibrate using a calibration rig; the calibration rig comprising a rig interface element which engages with and is driven by the drive interface element, the method comprising: running a test sequence comprising: controlling a set of test motor currents to be applied to the motor, each test motor current causing the motor to drive the drive interface element to move ([0083]-[0100] disclosing the placement of the actuator “motor” to be coupled with a calibration rig “see fig. 13” and rotating the motor by a current); and
for each test motor current of the set of test motor currents, receiving a
measured resistive force applied by a calibration rig, the calibration rig applying the resistive force in response to the rig interface element being driven by the drive interface element ([0083]-[0100] disclosing obtaining the measurements by a sensor on the rig which is a resistive force measured);
determining a relationship between the set of test motor currents and the resistive force measurements ([0091]-[0100] disclosing the relationship wherein a target force based on the current is the target force, thus if the resistive force is the target, the actuator is calibrated correctly otherwise the recalibration of the current is needed. Alternatively or additionally, the current test values are determined based on a table and equations. see table 1);
determining calibration value(s) from: (i) the determined relationship, and (ii) a
known relationship between the resistive force applied by the calibration rig and the driving force applied by the drive interface element ([0080]-[0100] disclosing the calibration based on the force applied, the resistive force determined and the target force that is indicative of a calibrated target force for the motor current, see table 1 indicative of relationship between force and current);
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teaching of Lovati of calibration based on resistive force in order to ensure the actuator is calibrated to a target force as taught by Lovati.
Weir teaches controlling the calibration value(s) to be applied to subsequent motor currents applied to the motor so as to cause the motor to drive the drive interface element to apply desired driving forces to an instrument interface element of an attached surgical instrument (abstract and [0100]-[0115] disclosing the motor currents applied to the surgical instruments are adjusted based on the calibrated parameters).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Weir and to apply the parameters of calibration to a surgical device thus ensuring the safety of a patient when no force values are exceeded.
Regarding claim 3, Veitch as modified by Lovati and Weir method of claim 1, further comprising, for each test motor current measuring the resistive force applied by the calibration rig at the calibration rig.
Lovati further teaches for each test motor current measuring the resistive force applied by the calibration rig at the calibration rig (Lovati [0080]-[00100] disclosing the resistive force is measured at the calibration rig).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teaching of Lovati of calibration based on resistive force in order to ensure the actuator is calibrated to a target force as taught by Lovati.
Regarding claim 4, Veitch as modified by Lovati and Weir teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the resistive force applied by the calibration rig is proportional to the velocity of the drive interface element, and the determined relationship is a linear relationship, the calibration value(s) being a factor and/or offset.
Lovati further teaches wherein the resistive force applied by the calibration rig is proportional to the velocity of the drive interface element, and the determined relationship is a linear relationship, the calibration value(s) being a factor and/or offset (Lovati [0068] disclosing proportional relationship. [0080]-[0100] and table 1 discloses a linear relationship between the force and the speed of the motor, [0099] disclosing the parameter being an interpolate, i.e., offset or factor of the values).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teaching of Lovati of calibration based on resistive force in order to ensure the actuator is calibrated to a target force as taught by Lovati.
Regarding claim 6, Veitch as modified by Lovati and Weir teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the resistive force applied by the calibration rig is the same as the driving force applied by the drive interface element.
Lovati further teaches wherein the resistive force applied by the calibration rig is the same as the driving force applied by the drive interface element (Lovati [0068]-[0069] and [0080]-[0100] disclosing the target value as the value that is used for the driving force when the target value is corrected or when trying the values, the motor speed and thus the force are chosen based on a measured value “resistive force applied”).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teaching of Lovati of calibration based on resistive force in order to ensure the actuator is calibrated to a target force as taught by Lovati.
Regarding claim 10, Veitch as modified by Lovati and Weir teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising setting up the robot arm in a predetermined test configuration prior to running the test sequence.
Lovati further teaches further comprising setting up the robot arm in a predetermined test configuration prior to running the test sequence (Lovati [0080]-[0100][ disclosing the coupling of the actuator and the rig).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teaching of Lovati of with the arm of Veitch in order to apply the test when the actuator is coupled to the rig to enable result measurements yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, Veitch as modified by Lovati and Weir method of claim 1, wherein the surgical robot arm comprises a further motor configured to drive for driving a further drive interface element, the further drive interface element configured to drive a further instrument interface element of the surgical instrument (Veitch figure 4-5, summary and pages 7-9 disclosing plural motors to drive the instrument interface elements including more than one effector),
Lovati further teaches the method further comprising repeating the steps of claim 1 to calibrate the further motor ([0080]-[0100] disclosing the rig tests many actuators).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Lovati in order to optimize all actuators thus improving robotic control and thus safety.
Regarding claim 12, Veitch as modified by Lovati and Weir teaches the method of claim 11, comprising implementing the steps of claim 1 for the motor and the further motor concurrently.
Lovati further teaches or the motor and the further motor concurrently ([0080]-[0100] disclosing the ability to test multiple actuators concurrently).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Lovati in order to optimize all actuators thus improving robotic control and thus safety.
Regarding claim 18, Veitch as modified by Lovati and Weir teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
comparing the measured resistive force to a predetermined force limit, and
halting the test sequence if the measured resistive force exceeds the predetermined
force limit (Lovati [0080]-[0090] disclosing comparing the value of the force to predetermined force limit, to end the test).
It would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Lovati of ending the test in order to avoid the damage of the actuator or the test rig thus improving safety.
Regarding claim 21, Veitch as modified by Lovati and Weir teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising verifying the motor calibration by:
Specifically, Lovati teaches applying a verification motor current to the motor to drive the drive interface element ([0080]-[0100] disclosing the applied current, i.e., any of the applied current is for verification of the calibration,);
to move at a verification velocity ([0080]-[0100] disclosing the movement velocity);
for that verification motor current, measuring the verification resistive force applied
by the calibration rig; and comparing the measured verification resistive force to a target force ([0080]-[0100] disclosing the measurement of the resistive force and comparing it to the target value).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teaching of Lovati of calibration based on resistive force in order to ensure the actuator is calibrated to a target force as taught by Lovati.
Regarding claim 24, Veitch teaches a surgical robot arm, the motor configured to drive a drive interface element of the surgical robot arm, the drive interface element configured to drive an instrument interface element of a surgical instrument attached to the surgical robot arm to thereby drive a distal end effector of the surgical instrument, (at least pages 7-9 disclosing the surgical instrument with a drive that drives the instrument distal end):
Veitch does not teach calibration rig configured to calibrate a motor, the calibration rig comprising a rig interface element shaped so as to engage with and be driven by the drive interface element; a damper configured to provide a resistive force in response to the rig interface element being driven by the drive interface element; and a rig force sensor configured to measure the resistive force applied by the damper, for each of a set of test motor currents that is applied to the motor to drive the drive interface element to move. rig configured to calibrate a motor, the calibration rig comprising:
a rig interface element shaped so as to engage with and be driven by the drive
interface element; a damper configured to provide a resistive force in response to the rig interface element being driven by the drive interface element; and a rig force sensor configured to measure the resistive force applied by the damper, for each of a set of test motor currents that is applied to the motor to drive the drive interface element to move.
Lovati teaches a calibration rig configured to calibrate a motor, the calibration rig comprising a rig interface element shaped so as to engage with and be driven by the drive interface element;
a damper configured to provide a resistive force in response to the rig interface
element being driven by the drive interface element ([0083]-[0100] disclosing the placement of the actuator “motor” to be coupled with a calibration rig “see fig. 13” and rotating the motor by a current); and
a rig force sensor configured to measure the resistive force applied by the damper, for each of a set of test motor currents that is applied to the motor to drive the drive interface element to move ([0080]-[0100] disclosing determining the test currents to the drive motor , the calibration based on the force applied, the resistive force determined and the target force that is indicative of a calibrated target force for the motor current, see table 1 indicative of relationship between force and current);
rig configured to calibrate a motor, the calibration rig comprising:
a rig interface element shaped so as to engage with and be driven by the drive
interface element ([0083]-[0100] disclosing the placement of the actuator “motor” to be coupled with a calibration rig “see fig. 13” and rotating the motor by a current);
a damper configured to provide a resistive force in response to the rig interface
element being driven by the drive interface element ([0080]-[0100] disclosing the damper at the end as a sensor that stops the movement and measures the force); and
a rig force sensor configured to measure the resistive force applied by the damper, for each of a set of test motor currents that is applied to the motor to drive the drive interface element to move ([0080]-[0100] disclosing the sensor measures the force at contact)
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teaching of Lovati of calibration based on resistive force in order to ensure the actuator is calibrated to a target force as taught by Lovati.
Weir teaches controlling the calibration value(s) to be applied to subsequent motor currents applied to the motor so as to cause the motor to drive the drive interface element to apply desired driving forces to an instrument interface element of an attached surgical instrument (abstract and [0100]-[0115] disclosing the motor currents applied to the surgical instruments are adjusted based on the calibrated parameters).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Weir and to apply the parameters of calibration to a surgical device thus ensuring the safety of a patient when no force values are exceeded.
Regarding claim 29, Veitch as modified by Lovati and Weir teaches the calibration rig as claimed in claim 24, Specifically Lovati further teaches further comprising a further rig interface element shaped so as to engage with and be driven by a further drive interface element (Lovati [0080]-[0100] disclosing the further sensor assembly as a rig, see different figures showing different design interpreted as further sensor or damper wherein the measurement of the force is accomplished by the sensor);
a further damper configured to provide a resistive force in response to the further rig interface element being driven by the further drive interface element (Lovati [0080]-[0100] disclosing the further sensor assembly as a rig, see different figures showing different design interpreted as further sensor or damper wherein the measurement of the force is accomplished by the sensor); and
a further rig force sensor configured to measure the resistive force applied by the
further damper element ( Lovati [0080]-[0100] disclosing the further sensor assembly as a rig, see different figures showing different design interpreted as further sensor or damper wherein the measurement of the force is accomplished by the sensor);.
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teaching of Lovati of calibration based on resistive force in order to ensure the actuator is calibrated to a target force as taught by Lovati. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Veitch (WO2022003331, from IDS) in view of Lovati (US20220368257) and Weir (US20220047342, from IDS) and Stampfli (US20220234205).
Regarding claim 19, Veitch as modified by Lovati and Weir method of claim 1, further comprising, but does not teach for each test motor current of the set of test motor currents, measuring a constant velocity of the drive interface element; and the distance travelled by the drive interface element while the drive interface element moves at a constant velocity.
Stampfli teaches for each test motor current of the set of test motor currents, measuring a constant velocity of the drive interface element; and the distance travelled by the drive interface element while the drive interface element moves at a constant velocity (Stampfli [0060]-[0085] teaches the current is determined at the constant velocity and per distance travelled) .
It would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Stampfli to the calibration of Veitch as modified by Lovati and Weir in order to obtain a relationship between force and speed and distance travelled and current applied which assists in further calibration of the device as taught by Stampfli.
Claims 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Veitch (WO2022003331, from IDS) in view of Lovati (US20220368257) and Weir (US20220047342, from IDS) and Junio (US20220192701).
Regarding claim 22, Veitch as modified by Lovati and Weir teaches the method of claim 21, but does not teach further comprising verifying the arm force sensor calibration by: for the verification motor current, measuring the verification driving force at the arm force sensor; and comparing the measured verification resistive force to the verification driving force.
Junio teaches for the verification motor current, measuring the verification driving force at the arm force sensor; and comparing the measured verification resistive force to the verification driving force ([0110]-[0115] disclosing measuring the current and force and comparing the force to a resistive force).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the teaching of Junio yielding predictable results in order to allow the surgical robot to keep holding an object such as a guidewire by applying equal force thus improving the robotic control.
Claims 25, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Veitch (WO2022003331, from IDS) in view of Lovati (US20220368257) and Weir (US20220047342, from IDS) and Tojo (US20180256271).
Regarding claim 25, Veitch as modified by Lovati and Weir teaches the calibration rig as claimed in claim 24, wherein the damper is a linear damper configured to provide a resistive force proportional to the constant velocity of the driven drive interface element, wherein the linear damper is configured to only provide the resistive force in one linear direction.
Tojo teaches wherein the damper is a linear damper configured to provide a resistive force proportional to the constant velocity of the driven drive interface element ([0050]-[0060] disclosing the reactive force when hitting the surface that acts as a damper wherein the force is a reactive force, resistive. And proportional to velocity of the arm),
wherein the linear damper is configured to only provide the resistive force in one linear direction ([0050]-[0060] disclosing the resistant force in z direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/substitute the method of determining the reaction force as taught by Tojo in order to obtain the relationship between the velocity and a virtual force to enable the robot to estimate the external force, yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 27, Veitch as modified by Lovati and Weir and Tojo further teaches the calibration rig as claimed in claim 25, wherein the
Specifically, Lovati teaches wherein the linear damper is configured to provide the resistive force in two opposing linear directions ([0080]-[0100] disclosing the ability to measure the forces in two opposite direction via the sensor and the rig).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Lovati thus improving the control of the robot in multiple directions thus improving the robotic control.
damper is a linear damper configured to provide a resistive force proportional to the constant velocity of the driven drive interface element ([0050]-[0060] disclosing the reactive force when hitting the surface that acts as a damper wherein the force is a reactive force, resistive. And proportional to velocity of the arm),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/substitute the method of determining the reaction force as taught by Tojo in order to obtain the relationship between the velocity and a virtual force to enable the robot to estimate the external force, yielding predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 15-17, 23 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 and if rewritten to overcome any 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112b rejections on record.
Claim 13 would be allowable for disclosing the method of claim 1, wherein the surgical robot arm comprises an arm force sensor configured to measure the driving force applied by the motor to the drive interface element, wherein the method further comprises:
for each test motor current of the set of test motor currents, measuring the driving
force at the arm force sensor; determining a further relationship between the set of test motor currents and the driving force measurements; determining further calibration value(s) from the determined further relationship; and applying the calibration value(s) to the arm force sensor, wherein the determined further relationship is a linear relationship, the calibration value(s) being a factor and/or offset.
Claims 15, 16, 17 would be allowable for depending on claim 13.
Claim 23 would be allowable for disclosing the method of calibrating an arm force sensor of a surgical robot arm using a calibration rig, the arm force sensor configured to measure the driving force applied by a motor of the robot arm to a drive interface element of the robot arm, the drive interface element configured to drive an instrument interface element of a surgical instrument attached to the surgical robot arm to thereby drive a distal end effector of the surgical instrument, the calibration rig comprising a rig interface element which engages with and is driven by the drive interface element, the method comprising: running a test sequence comprising:
controlling a set of test motor currents to be applied to the motor, each test
motor current causing the motor to drive the drive interface element to move; and
for each test motor current of the set of test motor currents, receiving (i) a
measured resistive force applied by the calibration rig, the calibration rig applying the
resistive force in response to the rig interface element being driven by the drive interface element, and (ii) a measured driving force at the arm force sensor;
determining a relationship between the resistive force measurements and the driving
force measurements;
determining calibration value(s) from the determined relationship; and
controlling the calibration value(s) to be applied to the arm force sensor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in PTO-892 and not mentioned above disclose related devices and methods.
US20200306995 discloses a rig for robotic calibration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7734. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 6:30-4:30.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658B
Prosecution Insights