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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 are currently pending and under consideration.
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed Feb. 4, 2025 and Oct. 6, 2025 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information regarding JP-6614130-B2 and WO-2023090352-A1 has not been considered.
Drawings
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
The drawings are objected to because 2c in Fig. 6 should be changed to 2d to indicate the shaft. 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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “further” should be added between “apparatus” and “includes” in line 3, between “is” and “operable” in line 5, and between “is” and “configured” in line 7. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “operation unit to receive an operation for the endoscope” in claims 1, 18, and 19; and “first support member to support the end effector such that the end effector is rotatable around a first rotation axis, a second support member to support the first support member such that the first support member is rotatable around a second rotation axis” in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. For “operation unit”, the specification discloses operation units 110 in ¶[0047] and Fig. 11 and will be interpreted as a “handle” and any equivalents thereof. For “first/second support members”, the specification fails to describe any particular structure and will be interpreted as any structure capable of the claimed function.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 7 limitation “first support member to support the end effector such that the end effector is rotatable around a first rotation axis, a second support member to support the first support member such that the first support member is rotatable around a second rotation axis” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not provide enough information to understand the structure needed for the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because “a storage medium” would include transitory signals (not statutory subject matter) and non-transitory forms of storage media. Applicant is recommended to amend the claim to read --A non-transitory computer readable storage media--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando et al. (US 20190328469 A1, published Oct. 31, 2019, hereinafter referred to as “Ando”) in view of Wilson et al. (US 20210177412 A1, published Jun. 17, 2021, hereinafter referred to as “Wilson”).
Regarding claims 1, 18, and 19, Ando teaches a storage medium operable to store a program for a control method (Fig. 1 “executing a program stored in a storage device such as the ROM or the nonvolatile memory 8” ¶[0038]), a control method and a robotic surgical system comprising: a surgical apparatus (Fig. 1 “surgery assisting system 1” ¶[0029]) including a first robot arm (Fig. 1 “medical instrument driving unit 11 includes a driving unit (for example, a robot arm) for controlling the movement of the robot medical instrument 12 and the posture of an end effector 13.” ¶[0033]) to support an endoscope (Fig. 1 “robot medical instrument 12 includes… an endoscope” ¶[0034]); an operation apparatus including an operation unit to receive an operation for the endoscope (Fig. 9 “the control unit 4 determines whether an instruction for switching to the position control mode is received. For example, if the operator sets the manipulation mode to the position control mode via the mode switching unit 3 after the processing in step S2 is complete, the control unit 4 receives an instruction for switching the manipulation mode to the position control mode.” ¶[0050]); and a controller (“control unit 4 for controlling calculations of coordinate conversion, the position of a control target, and the like, and controlling the medical instrument driving unit 11” ¶[0030]) configured or programmed to perform a process to move a control point set by a distance corresponding to a given distance when the operation unit receives an operation to move the endoscope by the given distance (Fig. 9 “In step S6, the control unit 4 moves the reference vector based on the relative moving amount obtained in step S5, thereby determining a target position indicating a position where the control point is supposed to exist. In other words, the target position of the distal end of the virtual shaft obtained in step S4 is determined in accordance with the relative moving amount by which the operator has moved the handheld medical instrument 21.” ¶[0052]).
Ando does not teach the control point is at a virtual position offset ahead of a distal end of the endoscope in an axial direction of the endoscope.
Wilson’s invention relates to the control of end effectors in teleoperated and robotic systems and more specifically to systems and methods for end effector position set point correction (¶[0002]). The control unit is configured to actuate the end effector to a first position using the drive mechanism, determine an actuation level, determine a position offset based on the determined actuation level, adjust a position set point based on the position offset, and actuate the end effector to the adjusted position set point using the drive mechanism (¶[0011]). Further, determine a position of the end effector, identify a nominal position associated with the determined position of the end effector, determine a position offset based on the nominal position and the determined position of the end effector, adjust a position set point based on the position offset, and actuate the end effector to the adjusted position set point using the drive mechanism (¶[0014]). At a process 630, a corrective position offset is determined. In some examples, the actuation level determined during process 620 may be indicative of an amount of elastic deformation in the drive mechanism caused by slipping, flexing, stretching, and/or the like. For example, a higher actuation level due to more force or torque being applied by the actuator to move the DOF to the first position may result in a higher amount of slip, flex, and/or stretch, which results in the DOF not actually reaching the first position. In some examples, the actuation level may be proportional to the amount of slip, flex, and/or stretch and is a measure of an error (e.g., a shortfall) in reaching the first position (¶[0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have a position offset from the end of the device as taught by Wilson in the robotic surgical system and method of Ando to correct the position of the surgical arm.
Claims 2-4, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando and Wilson (hereinafter “modified Ando”), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Zhao et al. (US 20120290134 A1, published Nov. 15, 2012, hereinafter referred to as “Zhao”).
Regarding claim 2, modified Ando teaches the surgical robotic system of claim 1. Modified Ando does not teach wherein the controller is configured or programmed to perform the process to move the control point set at the virtual position by the distance corresponding to the given distance with a pivot position, which serves as a fulcrum for movement of the endoscope, as a fulcrum when the operation unit receives the operation to move the endoscope by the given distance.
Zhao’s invention relates to robotic systems and in particular, to estimation of a position and orientation of a frame used in controlling operator commanded movement of a tool (¶[0001]). The endoscope 304 when positioned with its viewing end 306 directed at the surgical site, also defines a fulcrum coincident with its associated port of entry into the surgical site. The endoscope slave arm 302 can be driven to cause the endoscope 304 to move into a different position during a surgical procedure, to enable the surgeon to view the surgical site from a different position in the course of performing the surgical procedure. It will be appreciated that movement of the viewing end 306 of the endoscope 304 is performed by varying the orientation of the endoscope 304 relative to its pivot center or fulcrum. Operator control of such movement may be performed by switching associations of one or both master control devices 700, 700 from the tools 14, 14 to the endoscope 304 (¶[0049]). The position and orientation of the end effector frame 618 relative to the cart frame 624 is then determined by means of routine calculation using trigonometric relationships (¶[0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have a pivot position as a fulcrum as taught by Zhao in the robotic surgical system of modified Ando to allow the device to move and provide a point of reference for the movement.
Regarding claim 3, Ando teaches wherein the first robot arm is operable to rotate the endoscope around a longitudinal axis of the endoscope; and the control point set at the virtual position is set on the longitudinal axis (“the control unit 4 determines a control reference point to be used as a virtual rotation center. In this embodiment, the control reference point is set in the same position as the rotation center of the handheld medical instrument 21” ¶[0048]). Therefore, when combined with the teachings of Wilson and Zhao, the virtual point would be on the longitudinal axis position.
Regarding claim 4, modified Ando does not teach wherein the controller is configured or programmed to perform the process to move the control point set at the virtual position by the distance corresponding to the given distance based on a relational expression ΔX1 = ΔX x L1/(L1+ L2), where ΔX represents the given distance, ΔX1 represents the distance corresponding to the given distance, L1 represents a distance from the pivot position to the distal end of the endoscope, and L2 represents a distance from the distal end of the endoscope to the virtual position, when the operation unit receives the operation to move the endoscope by the given distance.
Zhao teaches the control system determines the position and orientation of the slave within the camera frame 610 by determining the position and orientation of the slave relative to a cart frame 624 and by determining the orientation and position of the endoscope 304 with reference to the same cart frame 624. The cart frame 624 has an origin indicated by reference numeral 626 in FIG. 5. To determine the position and orientation of the slave relative to the cart frame 624, the position of a fulcrum frame 630 having its origin at the fulcrum 49 is determined within the cart frame 624 as indicated by the arrow 628 in dashed lines. It will be appreciated that the position of the fulcrum 49 normally remains at the same location, coincident with a port of entry into the surgical site, throughout the surgical procedure. The position of the end effector frame 618 on the slave, having its origin at the pivotal connection 60 (as shown in FIG. 3), is then determined relative to the fulcrum frame 630 and the orientation of the end effector frame 618 on the slave is also determined relative to the fulcrum frame 630. The position and orientation of the end effector frame 618 relative to the cart frame 624 is then determined by means of routine calculation using trigonometric relationships (¶[0047]-[0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to derive the claimed formula from known trigonometric properties as taught by Zhao in the robotic surgical system of modified Ando to locate the tools.
Regarding claim 11, modified Ando teaches the surgical robotic system of claim 1. Ando teaches wherein the first robot arm is operable to rotate the endoscope around a longitudinal axis of the endoscope; the control point set at the virtual position is set on the longitudinal axis (“the control unit 4 determines a control reference point to be used as a virtual rotation center. In this embodiment, the control reference point is set in the same position as the rotation center of the handheld medical instrument 21” ¶[0048]) When combined with the teachings of Wilson, the virtual point would be on the longitudinal axis position).
Modified Ando does not disclose the controller is configured or programmed to perform the process to move the control point set at the virtual position by the distance corresponding to the given distance based on a relational expression ΔX1 = ΔX x L1/(L1 + L2), where ΔX represents the given distance, ΔX1 represents the distance corresponding to the given distance, L1 represents a distance from a pivot position, which serves as a fulcrum for movement of the endoscope, to the distal end of the endoscope, and L2 represents a distance from the distal end of the endoscope to the virtual position, when the operation unit receives the operation to move the endoscope by the given distance.
Zhao teaches the control system determines the position and orientation of the slave within the camera frame 610 by determining the position and orientation of the slave relative to a cart frame 624 and by determining the orientation and position of the endoscope 304 with reference to the same cart frame 624. The cart frame 624 has an origin indicated by reference numeral 626 in FIG. 5. To determine the position and orientation of the slave relative to the cart frame 624, the position of a fulcrum frame 630 having its origin at the fulcrum 49 is determined within the cart frame 624 as indicated by the arrow 628 in dashed lines. It will be appreciated that the position of the fulcrum 49 normally remains at the same location, coincident with a port of entry into the surgical site, throughout the surgical procedure. The position of the end effector frame 618 on the slave, having its origin at the pivotal connection 60 (as shown in FIG. 3), is then determined relative to the fulcrum frame 630 and the orientation of the end effector frame 618 on the slave is also determined relative to the fulcrum frame 630. The position and orientation of the end effector frame 618 relative to the cart frame 624 is then determined by means of routine calculation using trigonometric relationships (¶[0047]-[0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to derive the claimed formula from known trigonometric properties as taught by Zhao in the robotic surgical system of modified Ando to locate the tools.
Claims 5-8, 10, 12-13, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Ando, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Ichii et al. (US 20220409317 A1, published Dec. 29, 2022, hereinafter referred to as “Ichii”).
Regarding claim 5, modified Ando does not teach wherein the surgical apparatus includes a second robot arm to support an instrument; the operation unit is operable to receive an operation for the instrument; and the controller is configured or programmed to perform a process to move a control point set at a distal end of the instrument by the distance corresponding to the given distance when the operation unit receives an operation to move the instrument by the given distance.
Ichii’s invention relates to a robotic surgical system and a control method of a robotic surgical system, and more particularly, it relates to a robotic surgical system including an operation unit to receive an operation of an operator, and a control method of the robotic surgical system (¶[0002]). The medical manipulator 1 shown in FIGS. 1 and 2 is arranged in the operating room. The medical manipulator 1 includes the medical cart 3, the positioner 40, the arm base 50, and the plurality of robot arms 60. The arm base 50 is attached to the tip end of the positioner 40. The robot arms 60 support surgical instruments 4 (¶[0052]). Specifically, in surgery, the endoscope 6 is attached to one of four robot arms 60, and the surgical instruments 4 such as pairs of forceps 4b other than the endoscope 6 are attached to the three robot arms 60 (¶[0072]). An operator such as a doctor inputs a command to the remote control apparatus 2 to cause the medical manipulator 1 to perform a desired operation. The remote control apparatus 2 transmits the input command to the medical manipulator 1. The medical manipulator 1 operates based on the received command (¶[0039]). In the operation handle 21, the movement amounts of a robot arm 60 and the surgical instrument 4 are changed with respect to an operation amount received by the operation handle 21. This change is called scaling. For example, when the scale factor of the movement amounts is set to ½ , the surgical instrument 4 is controlled to move ½ of the movement distance of the operation handle 21. Thus, fine surgery can be performed accurately (¶[0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have a second robot arm with an instrument that moves the distal end of the instrument by a distance corresponding to the given distance when the operator operates the device as taught by Ichii in the robotic surgical system of modified Ando to allow fine surgery to be performed accurately.
Regarding claim 6, Ichii also teaches wherein the controller is configured or programmed to perform the process to move the control point by the distance corresponding to the given distance with a pivot position, which serves as a fulcrum for movement of the instrument, as a fulcrum when the operation unit receives the operation to move the instrument by the given distance (“FIG. 9, the arm operation unit 80 includes a pivot button 85 to set a pivot position PP that serves as a fulcrum shown in FIG. 13 for movement of the surgical instrument 4 attached to the robot arm 60” ¶[0071]).
Regarding claim 7, Ichii also teaches wherein the instrument includes an end effector (Fig. 1 “Specifically, in surgery, the endoscope 6 is attached to one of four robot arms 60, and the surgical instruments 4 such as pairs of forceps 4b other than the endoscope 6 are attached to the three robot arms 60.” ¶[0072]), a first support member to support the end effector such that the end effector is rotatable around a first rotation axis, a second support member to support the first support member such that the first support member is rotatable around a second rotation axis, and a shaft to support the second support member (Fig. 7 of Ichii elements 4e, 4f, and 4c are the same as the instant application Fig. 5 elements as described in ¶[0093]); and the control point is set at a distal end of the end effector, an intersection of a longitudinal axis of the shaft with the first rotation axis (“In the first embodiment, as shown in FIG. 24, for the robot arms 60a, 60b, and 60d having tip ends to which the surgical instruments 4 other than the endoscope 6 are attached, the control device 130 performs the translation scaling and the rotation scaling on a virtual axis B on which the surgical instrument 4 rotates about a predetermined point in addition to the plurality of joint axes other than the joint axes involved in opening and closing the jaw member 104a and the jaw member 104b of the surgical instrument 4. The predetermined point refers to a point at which a straight line L1 along the direction in which the shaft 4c extends and a straight line L2 along the vertical direction intersect with each other. That is, the control device 130 performs the translation scaling and the rotation scaling such that the rotation speeds of the joint axes of the robot arm 60 and the surgical instrument 4 become equal to or lower than the limit value when the surgical instrument 4 moves to rotate about the axis B. In other words, the translation scaling and the rotation scaling are performed such that the angular velocity of an angle θ defined by the straight line L1 and the straight line L2 is equal to or less than a limit value.” ¶[0116]).
Regarding claim 8, Ando’s invention moves the end effector/endoscope when commanded to move and Ichii teaches wherein the controller is configured or programmed to: perform a process to scale a received operation amount and actually move the instrument when the operation unit receives an operation to move the instrument; and perform a process to scale the received operation amount by a same amount as when the instrument is moved and actually move the endoscope when the operation unit receives an operation to move the endoscope (¶[0047] scale factor – this can be done for all of the robotic arms including the endoscope).
Regarding claim 10, Ichii teaches wherein the operation unit includes: a right-handed operation unit to be operated by a right hand of an operator; and a left-handed operation unit to be operated by a left hand of the operator (“FIG. 3, the operation unit 120 includes an operation unit 120L located on the left side as viewed from the operator such as a doctor and operated by the operator's left hand, and an operation unit 120R located on the right side and operated by the operator's right hand. The configurations of the operation unit 120L and the operation unit 120R are the same as or similar to each other.” ¶[0041]); an operation to move the instrument is received by one of the right-handed operation unit and the left-handed operation unit (“The operation handle 21 operates a surgical instrument 4. The operation handle 21 includes an operation handle 21L located on the left side as viewed from the operator such as a doctor and operated by the operator's left hand, and an operation handle 21R located on the right side and operated by the operator's right hand.” ¶[0044]); and an operation to move the endoscope is received by both the right-handed operation unit and the left-handed operation unit (“While the camera pedal 22c is being pressed by the operator, the operation handle 21 can operate a robot arm 60 to which an endoscope 6 is attached.” ¶[0049] therefore, both operator hands can move the endoscope).
Regarding claim 12, modified Ando does not disclose wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, when the operation unit receives the operation to move the endoscope by the given distance: perform the process to move the control point set at the virtual position by the distance corresponding to the given distance with a pivot position, which serves as a fulcrum for movement of the endoscope, as a fulcrum; and perform a process to scale a received operation amount and actually move the endoscope.
In Ichii’s invention, an operator such as a doctor inputs a command to the remote control apparatus 2 to cause the medical manipulator 1 to perform a desired operation. The remote control apparatus 2 transmits the input command to the medical manipulator 1. The medical manipulator 1 operates based on the received command (¶[0039]). As shown in FIG. 9, the arm operation unit 80 includes a pivot button 85 to set a pivot position PP that serves as a fulcrum shown in FIG. 13 for movement of the surgical instrument 4 attached to the robot arm 60 (¶[0071]). In the operation handle 21, the movement amounts of a robot arm 60 and the surgical instrument 4 are changed with respect to an operation amount received by the operation handle 21. This change is called scaling. For example, when the scale factor of the movement amounts is set to ½ , the surgical instrument 4 is controlled to move ½ of the movement distance of the operation handle 21. Thus, fine surgery can be performed accurately (¶[0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have a move the distal end of the instrument by a distance corresponding to the given distance and scale the distance and have a fulcrum as taught by Ichii in the robotic surgical system of modified Ando to allow fine surgery to be performed accurately.
Regarding claim 13, Ando teaches wherein the first robot arm is operable to rotate the endoscope around a longitudinal axis of the endoscope; the control point set at the virtual position is set on the longitudinal axis (“the control unit 4 determines a control reference point to be used as a virtual rotation center. In this embodiment, the control reference point is set in the same position as the rotation center of the handheld medical instrument 21” ¶[0048] Therefore, when combined with the teachings of Wilson, the virtual point would be on the longitudinal axis position.), and actually move the endoscope when the operation unit receives an operation to move the endoscope (“in step S4 is determined in accordance with the relative moving amount by which the operator has moved the handheld medical instrument 21. After that, the control unit 4 moves the end effector 13 to the target position by controlling the robot arm, and terminates the series of operations.” ¶[0052]).
Modified Ando does not teach the controller is configured or programmed to perform a process to scale a received operation amount.
In the operation handle 21 of Ichii’s device, the movement amounts of a robot arm 60 and the surgical instrument 4 are changed with respect to an operation amount received by the operation handle 21. This change is called scaling. For example, when the scale factor of the movement amounts is set to ½ , the surgical instrument 4 is controlled to move ½ of the movement distance of the operation handle 21. Thus, fine surgery can be performed accurately (¶[0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to scale the received operation amount as taught by Ichii in the robotic surgical system of modified Ando to allow fine surgery to be performed accurately.
Regarding claim 16, Ando teaches wherein the first robot arm is operable to rotate the endoscope around a longitudinal axis of the endoscope; the control point set at the virtual position is set on the longitudinal axis (“the control unit 4 determines a control reference point to be used as a virtual rotation center. In this embodiment, the control reference point is set in the same position as the rotation center of the handheld medical instrument 21” ¶[0048] Therefore, when combined with the teachings of Wilson, the virtual point would be on the longitudinal axis position).
Modified Ando does not teach the surgical apparatus includes a second robot arm to support an instrument; the operation unit is operable to receive an operation for the instrument; and the controller is configured or programmed to perform the process to move the control point by the distance corresponding to the given distance with a pivot position, which serves as a fulcrum for movement of the instrument, as a fulcrum when the operation unit receives an operation to move the instrument by the given distance.
Ichii’s invention relates to a robotic surgical system and a control method of a robotic surgical system, and more particularly, it relates to a robotic surgical system including an operation unit to receive an operation of an operator, and a control method of the robotic surgical system (¶[0002]). The medical manipulator 1 shown in FIGS. 1 and 2 is arranged in the operating room. The medical manipulator 1 includes the medical cart 3, the positioner 40, the arm base 50, and the plurality of robot arms 60. The arm base 50 is attached to the tip end of the positioner 40. The robot arms 60 support surgical instruments 4 (¶[0052]). Specifically, in surgery, the endoscope 6 is attached to one of four robot arms 60, and the surgical instruments 4 such as pairs of forceps 4b other than the endoscope 6 are attached to the three robot arms 60 (¶[0072]). An operator such as a doctor inputs a command to the remote control apparatus 2 to cause the medical manipulator 1 to perform a desired operation. The remote control apparatus 2 transmits the input command to the medical manipulator 1. The medical manipulator 1 operates based on the received command (¶[0039]). In the operation handle 21, the movement amounts of a robot arm 60 and the surgical instrument 4 are changed with respect to an operation amount received by the operation handle 21. This change is called scaling. For example, when the scale factor of the movement amounts is set to ½ , the surgical instrument 4 is controlled to move ½ of the movement distance of the operation handle 21. Thus, fine surgery can be performed accurately (¶[0047]). In FIG. 9, the arm operation unit 80 includes a pivot button 85 to set a pivot position PP that serves as a fulcrum shown in FIG. 13 for movement of the surgical instrument 4 attached to the robot arm 60 (¶[0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have a second robot arm with an instrument that moves the distal end of the instrument by a distance corresponding to the given distance when the operator operates the device as taught by Ichii in the robotic surgical system of modified Ando to allow fine surgery to be performed accurately.
Regarding claim 17, wherein the first robot arm is operable to rotate the endoscope around a longitudinal axis of the endoscope; the control point set at the virtual position is set on the longitudinal axis (“the control unit 4 determines a control reference point to be used as a virtual rotation center. In this embodiment, the control reference point is set in the same position as the rotation center of the handheld medical instrument 21” ¶[0048] Therefore, when combined with the teachings of Wilson, the virtual point would be on the longitudinal axis position) and actually move the instrument when the operation unit receives an operation to move the instrument (“in step S4 is determined in accordance with the relative moving amount by which the operator has moved the handheld medical instrument 21. After that, the control unit 4 moves the end effector 13 to the target position by controlling the robot arm, and terminates the series of operations.” ¶[0052]).
Modified Ando does not disclose the surgical apparatus includes a second robot arm to support an instrument; the operation unit is operable to receive an operation for the instrument; and the controller is configured or programmed to: perform a process to scale a received operation amount; and perform a process to scale the received operation amount by a same amount as when the instrument is moved and actually move the endoscope when the operation unit receives an operation to move the endoscope.
Ichii’s invention relates to a robotic surgical system and a control method of a robotic surgical system, and more particularly, it relates to a robotic surgical system including an operation unit to receive an operation of an operator, and a control method of the robotic surgical system (¶[0002]). The medical manipulator 1 shown in FIGS. 1 and 2 is arranged in the operating room. The medical manipulator 1 includes the medical cart 3, the positioner 40, the arm base 50, and the plurality of robot arms 60. The arm base 50 is attached to the tip end of the positioner 40. The robot arms 60 support surgical instruments 4 (¶[0052]). Specifically, in surgery, the endoscope 6 is attached to one of four robot arms 60, and the surgical instruments 4 such as pairs of forceps 4b other than the endoscope 6 are attached to the three robot arms 60 (¶[0072]). An operator such as a doctor inputs a command to the remote control apparatus 2 to cause the medical manipulator 1 to perform a desired operation. The remote control apparatus 2 transmits the input command to the medical manipulator 1. The medical manipulator 1 operates based on the received command (¶[0039]). In the operation handle 21, the movement amounts of a robot arm 60 and the surgical instrument 4 are changed with respect to an operation amount received by the operation handle 21. This change is called scaling. For example, when the scale factor of the movement amounts is set to ½ , the surgical instrument 4 is controlled to move ½ of the movement distance of the operation handle 21. Thus, fine surgery can be performed accurately (¶[0047]). In FIG. 9, the arm operation unit 80 includes a pivot button 85 to set a pivot position PP that serves as a fulcrum shown in FIG. 13 for movement of the surgical instrument 4 attached to the robot arm 60 (¶[0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have a second robot arm with an instrument that moves the distal end of the instrument by a distance corresponding to the given distance when the operator operates the device as taught by Ichii in the robotic surgical system of modified Ando to allow fine surgery to be performed accurately. Further, as both the tool and the endoscope move based on operator controls, they can still move in a similar manner in this claimed combination.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Ando and Ichii, as applied to claim 5 above, and in further view of Zhao.
Regarding claim 9, modified Ando and Ichii teach the robotic surgical system of claim 5. Modified Ando and Ichii do not disclose wherein a distance of the virtual position from the distal end of the endoscope is set based on a distance between the control point of the instrument and the distal end of the endoscope.
Zhao teaches that the control system determines the position and orientation of the slave within the camera frame 610 by determining the position and orientation of the slave relative to a cart frame 624 and by determining the orientation and position of the endoscope 304 with reference to the same cart frame 624. The cart frame 624 has an origin indicated by reference numeral 626 in FIG. 5. To determine the position and orientation of the slave relative to the cart frame 624, the position of a fulcrum frame 630 having its origin at the fulcrum 49 is determined within the cart frame 624 as indicated by the arrow 628 in dashed lines. It will be appreciated that the position of the fulcrum 49 normally remains at the same location, coincident with a port of entry into the surgical site, throughout the surgical procedure. The position of the end effector frame 618 on the slave, having its origin at the pivotal connection 60 (as shown in FIG. 3), is then determined relative to the fulcrum frame 630 and the orientation of the end effector frame 618 on the slave is also determined relative to the fulcrum frame 630. The position and orientation of the end effector frame 618 relative to the cart frame 624 is then determined by means of routine calculation using trigonometric relationships. It will be appreciated that the slave arm 302 of the endoscope 304 is constrained to move in similar fashion to the tool slave arm 10. Thus, the endoscope 304 when positioned with its viewing end 306 directed at the surgical site, also defines a fulcrum coincident with its associated port of entry into the surgical site. The endoscope slave arm 302 can be driven to cause the endoscope 304 to move into a different position during a surgical procedure, to enable the surgeon to view the surgical site from a different position in the course of performing the surgical procedure. When the position and orientation of the camera frame 610 relative to the cart frame 624, and the position and orientation of the slave relative to the cart frame 624 have been determined in this manner, the position and the orientation of the slave relative to the camera frame 610 is readily determinable through routine calculation using trigonometric relationships (¶[0047]-[0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to base the virtual point at the distal end of the endoscope based on the distance between the control point of the instrument and the distal end of the endoscope as taught by Zhao in the robotic surgical system of modified Ando and Ichii because these values are easily derivable from each other using trigonometric values and known locations of the device.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Ando, as applied to claim 1 above, and Zhao, as applied to claim 11 above, and in further view of Ichii.
Regarding claim 14, modified Ando teaches the robotic surgical system of claim 1. Ando also teaches actually move the endoscope (“in step S4 is determined in accordance with the relative moving amount by which the operator has moved the handheld medical instrument 21. After that, the control unit 4 moves the end effector 13 to the target position by controlling the robot arm, and terminates the series of operations.” ¶[0052]). Modified Ando does not teach wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, when the operation unit receives the operation to move the endoscope by the given distance: perform the process to move the control point set at the virtual position by the distance corresponding to the given distance based on a relational expression ΔX1 = ΔX x L1/(L1 + L2), where ΔX represents the given distance, ΔX1 represents the distance corresponding to the given distance, L1 represents a distance from a pivot position, which serves as a fulcrum for movement of the endoscope, to the distal end of the endoscope, and L2 represents a distance from the distal end of the endoscope to the virtual position; and perform a process to scale a received operation amount.
Zhao teaches the control system determines the position and orientation of the slave within the camera frame 610 by determining the position and orientation of the slave relative to a cart frame 624 and by determining the orientation and position of the endoscope 304 with reference to the same cart frame 624. The cart frame 624 has an origin indicated by reference numeral 626 in FIG. 5. To determine the position and orientation of the slave relative to the cart frame 624, the position of a fulcrum frame 630 having its origin at the fulcrum 49 is determined within the cart frame 624 as indicated by the arrow 628 in dashed lines. It will be appreciated that the position of the fulcrum 49 normally remains at the same location, coincident with a port of entry into the surgical site, throughout the surgical procedure. The position of the end effector frame 618 on the slave, having its origin at the pivotal connection 60 (as shown in FIG. 3), is then determined relative to the fulcrum frame 630 and the orientation of the end effector frame 618 on the slave is also determined relative to the fulcrum frame 630. The position and orientation of the end effector frame 618 relative to the cart frame 624 is then determined by means of routine calculation using trigonometric relationships (¶[0047]-[0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to derive the claimed formula from known trigonometric properties as taught by Zhao in the robotic surgical system of modified Ando to locate the tools.
Modified Ando and Zhao do not teach perform a process to scale a received operation amount.
In the operation handle 21 of Ichii’s device, the movement amounts of a robot arm 60 and the surgical instrument 4 are changed with respect to an operation amount received by the operation handle 21. This change is called scaling. For example, when the scale factor of the movement amounts is set to ½ , the surgical instrument 4 is controlled to move ½ of the movement distance of the operation handle 21. Thus, fine surgery can be performed accurately (¶[0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to scale the received operation amount as taught by Ichii in the robotic surgical system of modified Ando to allow fine surgery to be performed accurately.
Regarding claim 15, modified Ando and Zhao teach the robotic surgical system of claim 11. Modified Ando and Zhao teach moving the endoscope when commanded, however they do not teach wherein the controller is configured or programmed to perform a process to scale a received operation amount and actually move the endoscope when the operation unit receives an operation to move the endoscope.
Ichii teaches that in the operation handle 21, the movement amounts of a robot arm 60 and the surgical instrument 4 are changed with respect to an operation amount received by the operation handle 21. This change is called scaling. For example, when the scale factor of the movement amounts is set to ½ , the surgical instrument 4 is controlled to move ½ of the movement distance of the operation handle 21. Thus, fine surgery can be performed accurately (¶[0047]). The robot arm 60 is moved according to the operation received by the operation unit 120 of the remote control apparatus 2 (¶[0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to scale the operation amount and move the endoscope as taught by Ichii in the robotic surgical system of modified Ando and Zhao to perform fine surgery accurately.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhou et al. (US 20220061936 A1) – offset control point to maintain a rotation
Kasai et al. (US 20170007342 A1) – controlled constant view with movement
Itkowitz et al. (WO 2019222211 A1) – manipulation of a tool by moving the control point
Tojo et al. (US 20230012535 A1) – claimed device structurally
Nowlin et al. (US 20070013336 A1) – Nowlin teaches a robotic surgical system comprising: a surgical apparatus (Fig. 1a-1b “surgeon's console of a minimally invasive telesurgical system is generally indicated by reference numeral 200” ¶[0056] and “a surgical station is generally indicated by reference numeral 300.” ¶[0057]) including a first robot arm (Fig. 1b “robotic manipulators 304” ¶[0058]) to support an endoscope (“FIGS. 1B and 1C, each of the robotic manipulators supports an associated surgical instrument 306. One or more of the instruments may comprise an image capturing device 308 such as an endoscope or the like.” ¶[0059]); an operation apparatus including an operation unit to receive an operation for the endoscope (“master controls 220 (see FIG. 2)” ¶[0056] and “the movement of all the manipulators may be controlled by manipulation of the master controls” ¶[0059]); and a controller (“A processor 210 of the workstation generates signals in response to the motion of the input devices.” ¶[0056]) configured or programmed to perform a process to move a control point set by a distance corresponding to a given distance when the operation unit receives an operation to move the endoscope by the given distance (Fig. 15 “In accordance with the control system shown in FIG. 15, the processor computes output signals for the manipulators so that the instruments move in conjunction and coordination with the movements of the master input handle.” ¶[0154] and Fig. 16 “Software center module 410 of processor 210 receives an input command corresponding to a desired end effector motion, typically in the form of signal generated in response to a master input handle movement” ¶[0159]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily N Cirulnick whose telephone number is (571)272-9734. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-5:30 and every other F 8-4:30ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Unsu Jung can be reached at (571) 272-8506. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E.N.C./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/ALLEN PORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights