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
The Office Action is in response to the application filed 03/28/2025. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/01/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-9, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itkowitz et al. US 20200146764 A1 (“Itkowitz”).
Regarding Claim 1. Itkowitz teaches a computer-assisted system comprising:
a manipulator assembly configured to support a first instrument and an imaging device (FIG. 2 shows a manipulator device with a tool shown at 270 and/or tool tip at 276 [paragraphs 43-44]. An imaging device, such as an endoscope, can be mounted on the articulated arm as well, with a camera coordinate frame at 363 of FIG. 3 [paragraph 50]);
a first input device configured to be manipulated by an operator relative to an input device coordinate frame (Surgical table 170 may also be coupled to control unit 130 via a corresponding interface. The interface may include one or more wireless links, cables, connectors, and/or buses and may further include one or more networks with one or more network switching and/or routing devices. In some embodiments, surgical table 170 may be coupled to a different control unit than control unit 130. In some examples, motion control application 160 may include one or more application programming interfaces (APIs) for receiving position, motion, and/or other sensor information associated with surgical table 170 and/or table top 180 [paragraph 23]. Although not shown in FIG. 2, the computer-assisted device 210 and the surgical table 280 may be coupled together using one or more interfaces and one or more control units so that at least kinematic information about the surgical table 280 is known to the motion control application being used to perform motion of the articulated arms of the computer-assisted device 210 [paragraph 24]); and
a control system communicatively coupled to the first input device and the manipulator assembly (paragraphs 23-24), the control system being configured to:
determine a first roll orientation of the imaging device;
record the first roll orientation of the imaging device in response to enablement of a first teleoperational control session of the first instrument by the first input device (In some examples, the pose of the tools and/or tool tips may be controlled via teleoperation by a surgeon at an operator console [paragraph 53]. As shown in FIG. 3, the kinematic model 300 includes coordinate frames and transforms for three articulated arms, although one of ordinary skill would understand that different computer-assisted devices may include fewer and/or more articulated arms. Consistent with the configuration of the links and joints of the computer-assisted device 210 of FIG. 2, each of the articulated arms may be modeled using a manipulator mount coordinate frame, a remote center coordinate frame, and a tool or camera coordinate frame, depending on a type of instrument mounted to the distal end of the articulated arm [paragraph 41], meaning that a camera coordinate frame is included. At the distal end of the shaft 272 is a tool or tool tip 276. The degrees of freedom in the manipulator 260 due to the joints 264 and the links 266 may permit at least control of the roll, pitch, and yaw of the shaft 272 and/or the tool tip 276 relative to the manipulator mount 262 [paragraph 31]. While not explicit, if the system can record the roll, pitch, and yaw of the tool tip or the shaft, it would be an obvious modification to apply the same technique to the camera coordinate frame in paragraph 41, as it would have been obvious to try and would have a highly predictable chance of success); and
during the first teleoperational control session:
determine a first transformation between the input device coordinate frame and a workspace coordinate frame based on the first roll orientation of the imaging device (A simplified diagram kinematic model is shown in FIG. 3 at 300, which can transform the positions and/or orientations between the various coordinate frames [paragraph 40]);
receive inputs from the first input device to cause the manipulator assembly to manipulate the first instrument relative to the workspace coordinate frame based on the first transformation (the device in 110 of FIG. 1 may be coupled to an operator workstation (not shown), which may include one or more master controls for operating the device 110, the one or more articulated arms 120, and/or the end effectors [paragraph 17]);
determine a current roll orientation of the imaging device;
determine a difference between the current roll orientation and the first roll orientation (At a process 440, differences between the actual transform and the reference transform are determined. The differences between the actual transform and the reference transform represent errors that are being introduced into the pose of the tool by the disturbance [paragraph 62]. Combined with the rest of the disclosure, the pose would include roll orientation);
determine whether or not the difference between the current roll orientation and the first roll orientation exceeds a first threshold (this is not taught explicitly. However, it is inherent that the amount of error would have to be large enough to be noticeable, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try setting a threshold error amount, even if the error amount was any number greater than zero, with a highly predictable chance of success); and
in response to the difference between the current roll orientation and the first roll orientation exceeding the first threshold, perform a mitigation action (At a process 450, compensating joint changes are determined based on the differences. Using the differences between the actual transform and the reference transform determined during process 440, changes in the one or more compensating joints are determined [paragraph 63], which reads on a mitigating action).
Regarding Claim 2. Itkowitz teaches the computer-assisted system of claim 1.
Itkowitz also teaches:
wherein the mitigation action includes terminating, by the control system, the first teleoperational control session (FIG. 4 is a simplified diagram of the method 400 of maintaining the pose of a tool during movement of one or more joints proximal to the tool according to some embodiments [paragraph 57]. According to some embodiments, additional conditions may result in premature termination of method 400 such as by returning control of the computer-assisted device to an operator and/or by suspension of operation of the computer-assisted device. In some examples, the additional conditions may include inability to complete the compensated movement, manual intervention and/or override from an operator using one or more controls on an operator workstation and/or the articulated arms, detection of operator disengagement with the operator workstation using one or more safety interlocks, position tracking errors in the computer-assisted device, system faults, and/or the like [paragraph 68]).
Regarding Claim 6. Itkowitz teaches the computer-assisted system of claim 1.
Itkowitz also teaches:
wherein the mitigating action includes:
a visual indicator on a display of the computer-assisted system; or
an instruction for the operator to exit the first teleoperation control session and reestablish teleoperational control (In some examples, the ability of one or more of the compensating joints to compensate for the errors in the pose of the tool may be limited by range of motion (ROM) limits of the one or more compensating joints, and an error may be indicated to the operator using one or more visible and/or audible error cues [paragraph 65]).
Regarding Claim 7. Itkowitz teaches the computer-assisted system of claim 1.
Itkowitz also teaches:
wherein the mitigating action includes preventing, by the control system, movement of the manipulator assembly (paragraph 67).
Regarding Claim 8. Itkowitz teaches the computer-assisted system of claim 1.
Itkowitz also teaches:
wherein the control system is configured to determine the first roll orientation of the imaging device at the time of or during the process of enabling the first teleoperational session (FIG. 4 shows determining a reference coordinate frame for a tool at 410, which is performed during movement of one or more joints proximal to the tool (the first teleoperational session) [paragraph 57]).
Regarding Claim 9. Itkowitz teaches the computer-assisted system of claim 8.
Itkowitz also teaches:
wherein the control system is configured to determine the first roll orientation of the imaging device during an operation to match an orientation of the first input device in the input device coordinate frame to an orientation of the first instrument in the workspace coordinate frame (In paragraph 37, the kinematic model includes a table top coordinate frame that may be used to model positions and/or orientations in a coordinate frame representative of a table top of the surgical table, such as the table top at 284 of FIG. 2. In some examples, one or more kinematic models of an articulated structure of the surgical table, such as articulated structure 290, along with past and/or current joint sensor readings is used to determine the table base to table top coordinate transform 315 [paragraph 37]. As shown in FIG. 3, the registration may be used to determine a registration transform 325 between the table top coordinate frame 310 and the device base coordinate from 320. In some examples, because the table base and the device base are typically located on the same level floor surface, the registration transform 325 may model just the rotational relationship of the device base to the table base about the z-axis of the table base coordinate frame 305 [paragraph 39]).
Regarding Claim 13. Itkowitz teaches the computer-assisted system of claim 1.
Itkowitz does not teach:
wherein the first threshold is an angular value greater than 10 degrees.
However, this element would have been obvious to try for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, and would have had a high predictability of success.
Regarding Claim 14. Itkowitz teaches the computer-assisted system of claim 1.
Itkowitz also teaches:
wherein the control system is configured to determine the first roll orientation and the current roll orientation based on one or more sensors in a portion of the manipulator assembly that supports the imaging device (the information associated with the position and/or orientation of the joints may be derived from one or more sensors, such as encoders, measuring the linear positions of prismatic joints and the rotational positions of revolute joints [paragraph 34]).
Regarding Claim 15. Itkowitz teaches the computer-assisted system of claim 14.
Itkowitz also teaches:
wherein the control system is configured to determine the first roll orientation and the current roll orientation by obtaining an encoder value from the one or more sensors (paragraph 34 explicitly mentions encoders being used to provide orientation information).
Regarding Claim 16. Itkowitz teaches the computer-assisted system of claim 14.
Itkowitz also teaches:
wherein the control system is configured to calculate the first roll orientation and the current roll orientation based on configuration information of the manipulator assembly (The kinematic model 300 further includes a series of coordinate frames and transforms associated with each of the articulated arms of the computer-assisted device. As shown in FIG. 3, the kinematic model 300 includes coordinate frames and transforms for three articulated arms, although one of ordinary skill would understand that different computer-assisted devices may include fewer and/or more articulated arms. Consistent with the configuration of the links and joints of the computer-assisted device 210 of FIG. 2, each of the articulated arms may be modeled using a manipulator mount coordinate frame, a remote center coordinate frame, and a tool or camera coordinate frame, depending on a type of instrument mounted to the distal end of the articulated arm [paragraph 41]. Given the broadness of the language “configuration information” in the claim language, this disclosure of Itkowitz reads on the claim as written).
Regarding Claim 17. Itkowitz teaches the computer-assisted system of claim 14.
Itkowitz also teaches:
wherein the control system is configured to monitor the current roll orientation during the first teleoperational control session (FIG. 4 is a diagram of the method of maintaining the pose of a tool during movement of one or more joints proximal to the tool according to some embodiments [paragraph 14], and during this process, the position and orientation of the tool, manipulators, end effectors, and articulated arms are known to the computer-assisted device [paragraph 58]).
Regarding Claim 18. Itkowitz teaches the computer-assisted system of claim 17.
Itkowitz also teaches:
wherein the control system is configured to continuously monitor the current roll orientation based on a processing rate of a processing kernel associated with a portion of the manipulator assembly that supports the imaging device (The movement of the one or more disturbed joints is monitored and the same one or more kinematic models used during process 420 are again applied using current joint positions and/or orientations to determine the actual transform of the tool in the reference coordinate frame [paragraph 61]).
Regarding Claim 19. Itkowitz teaches a method of operating a computer-assisted system including a manipulator assembly configured to support a first instrument and an imaging device (FIG. 2 shows a manipulator device with a tool shown at 270 and/or tool tip at 276 [paragraphs 43-44]. An imaging device, such as an endoscope, can be mounted on the articulated arm as well, with a camera coordinate frame at 363 of FIG. 3 [paragraph 50]), a first input device configured to be manipulated by an operator relative to an input device coordinate frame (Surgical table 170 may also be coupled to control unit 130 via a corresponding interface. The interface may include one or more wireless links, cables, connectors, and/or buses and may further include one or more networks with one or more network switching and/or routing devices. In some embodiments, surgical table 170 may be coupled to a different control unit than control unit 130. In some examples, motion control application 160 may include one or more application programming interfaces (APIs) for receiving position, motion, and/or other sensor information associated with surgical table 170 and/or table top 180 [paragraph 23]. Although not shown in FIG. 2, the computer-assisted device 210 and the surgical table 280 may be coupled together using one or more interfaces and one or more control units so that at least kinematic information about the surgical table 280 is known to the motion control application being used to perform motion of the articulated arms of the computer-assisted device 210 [paragraph 24]), and a control system communicatively coupled to the first input device and the manipulator assembly (paragraphs 23-24), the method comprising:
determining a first roll orientation of the imaging device;
recording the first roll orientation of the imaging device in response to enablement of a first teleoperational control session of the first instrument by the first input device (In some examples, the pose of the tools and/or tool tips may be controlled via teleoperation by a surgeon at an operator console [paragraph 53]. As shown in FIG. 3, the kinematic model 300 includes coordinate frames and transforms for three articulated arms, although one of ordinary skill would understand that different computer-assisted devices may include fewer and/or more articulated arms. Consistent with the configuration of the links and joints of the computer-assisted device 210 of FIG. 2, each of the articulated arms may be modeled using a manipulator mount coordinate frame, a remote center coordinate frame, and a tool or camera coordinate frame, depending on a type of instrument mounted to the distal end of the articulated arm [paragraph 41], meaning that a camera coordinate frame is included. At the distal end of the shaft 272 is a tool or tool tip 276. The degrees of freedom in the manipulator 260 due to the joints 264 and the links 266 may permit at least control of the roll, pitch, and yaw of the shaft 272 and/or the tool tip 276 relative to the manipulator mount 262 [paragraph 31]. While not explicit, if the system can record the roll, pitch, and yaw of the tool tip or the shaft, it would be an obvious modification to apply the same technique to the camera coordinate frame in paragraph 41, as it would have been obvious to try and would have a highly predictable chance of success); and
during the first teleoperational control session:
determining a first transformation between the input device coordinate frame and a workspace coordinate frame based on the first roll orientation of the imaging device (A simplified diagram kinematic model is shown in FIG. 3 at 300, which can transform the positions and/or orientations between the various coordinate frames [paragraph 40]);
receiving inputs from the first input device to cause the manipulator assembly to manipulate the first instrument relative to the workspace coordinate frame based on the first transformation;
determining a current roll orientation of the imaging device;
determining a difference between the current roll orientation and the first roll orientation (At a process 440, differences between the actual transform and the reference transform are determined. The differences between the actual transform and the reference transform represent errors that are being introduced into the pose of the tool by the disturbance [paragraph 62]. Combined with the rest of the disclosure, the pose would include roll orientation);
determine whether or not the difference between the current roll orientation and the first roll orientation exceeds a first threshold (this is not taught explicitly. However, it is inherent that the amount of error would have to be large enough to be noticeable, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try setting a threshold error amount, even if the error amount was any number greater than zero, with a highly predictable chance of success); and
in response to the difference between the current roll orientation and the first roll orientation exceeding the first threshold, performing a mitigating action (At a process 450, compensating joint changes are determined based on the differences. Using the differences between the actual transform and the reference transform determined during process 440, changes in the one or more compensating joints are determined [paragraph 63], which reads on a mitigating action).
Regarding Claim 20. Itkowitz teaches a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising a plurality of machine-readable instructions executed by one or more processors associated with a computer-assisted system including a manipulator assembly configured to support a first instrument and an imaging device (FIG. 2 shows a manipulator device with a tool shown at 270 and/or tool tip at 276 [paragraphs 43-44]. An imaging device, such as an endoscope, can be mounted on the articulated arm as well, with a camera coordinate frame at 363 of FIG. 3 [paragraph 50]. Consistent with some embodiments, a non-transitory machine-readable medium including a plurality of machine-readable instructions which when executed by one or more processors associated with a medical device are adapted to cause the one or more processors to perform a method. The method includes determining a pose of a tool of the medical device and maintaining the pose of the tool during movement of one or more first joints of an articulated arm proximal to the tool using one or more second joints proximal to the tool [paragraph 10]), a first input device configured to be manipulated by an operator relative to an input device coordinate frame (Surgical table 170 may also be coupled to control unit 130 via a corresponding interface. The interface may include one or more wireless links, cables, connectors, and/or buses and may further include one or more networks with one or more network switching and/or routing devices. In some embodiments, surgical table 170 may be coupled to a different control unit than control unit 130. In some examples, motion control application 160 may include one or more application programming interfaces (APIs) for receiving position, motion, and/or other sensor information associated with surgical table 170 and/or table top 180 [paragraph 23]. Although not shown in FIG. 2, the computer-assisted device 210 and the surgical table 280 may be coupled together using one or more interfaces and one or more control units so that at least kinematic information about the surgical table 280 is known to the motion control application being used to perform motion of the articulated arms of the computer-assisted device 210 [paragraph 24]), and a control system communicatively coupled to the first input device and the manipulator assembly (paragraphs 23-24), the plurality of machine-readable instructions causing the one or more processors to:
determine a first roll orientation of the imaging device;
record the first roll orientation of the imaging device in response to enablement of a first teleoperational control session of the first instrument by the first input device (In some examples, the pose of the tools and/or tool tips may be controlled via teleoperation by a surgeon at an operator console [paragraph 53]. As shown in FIG. 3, the kinematic model 300 includes coordinate frames and transforms for three articulated arms, although one of ordinary skill would understand that different computer-assisted devices may include fewer and/or more articulated arms. Consistent with the configuration of the links and joints of the computer-assisted device 210 of FIG. 2, each of the articulated arms may be modeled using a manipulator mount coordinate frame, a remote center coordinate frame, and a tool or camera coordinate frame, depending on a type of instrument mounted to the distal end of the articulated arm [paragraph 41], meaning that a camera coordinate frame is included. At the distal end of the shaft 272 is a tool or tool tip 276. The degrees of freedom in the manipulator 260 due to the joints 264 and the links 266 may permit at least control of the roll, pitch, and yaw of the shaft 272 and/or the tool tip 276 relative to the manipulator mount 262 [paragraph 31]. While not explicit, if the system can record the roll, pitch, and yaw of the tool tip or the shaft, it would be an obvious modification to apply the same technique to the camera coordinate frame in paragraph 41, as it would have been obvious to try and would have a highly predictable chance of success); and
during the first teleoperational control session:
determine a first transformation between the input device coordinate frame and a workspace coordinate frame based on the first roll orientation of the imaging device (A simplified diagram kinematic model is shown in FIG. 3 at 300, which can transform the positions and/or orientations between the various coordinate frames [paragraph 40]);
receive inputs from the first input device to cause the manipulator assembly to manipulate the first instrument relative to the workspace coordinate frame based on the first transformation (the device in 110 of FIG. 1 may be coupled to an operator workstation (not shown), which may include one or more master controls for operating the device 110, the one or more articulated arms 120, and/or the end effectors [paragraph 17]);
determine a current roll orientation of the imaging device;
determine a difference between the current roll orientation and the first roll orientation (At a process 440, differences between the actual transform and the reference transform are determined. The differences between the actual transform and the reference transform represent errors that are being introduced into the pose of the tool by the disturbance [paragraph 62]. Combined with the rest of the disclosure, the pose would include roll orientation);
determine whether or not the difference between the current roll orientation and the first roll orientation exceeds a first threshold (this is not taught explicitly. However, it is inherent that the amount of error would have to be large enough to be noticeable, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try setting a threshold error amount, even if the error amount was any number greater than zero, with a highly predictable chance of success); and
in response to the difference between the current roll orientation and the first roll orientation exceeding the first threshold, perform a mitigating action (At a process 450, compensating joint changes are determined based on the differences. Using the differences between the actual transform and the reference transform determined during process 440, changes in the one or more compensating joints are determined [paragraph 63], which reads on a mitigating action).
Claim(s) 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itkowitz et al. US 20200146764 A1 (“Itkowitz”) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Stricko III, et al. US 20220287776 A1 (“Stricko III”).
Regarding Claim 3. Itkowitz teaches the computer-assisted system of claim 2.
Itkowitz also teaches:
wherein, after terminating the first teleoperational control session, the control system is configured to:
determine an updated roll orientation of the imaging device (In some examples, the compensating joints may include just the roll, pitch, and yaw joints of the manipulator [paragraph 67]. As shown in FIG. 4, the process from 430-460 repeats, which means that the process of determining the actual transformation of the manipulator can be repeated as many times as necessary. This would include updating the roll orientation of whichever coordinate frame (such as the imaging device) is currently being used).
Itkowitz does not teach:
in response to enablement of a second teleoperational control session of the first instrument by the first input device, record the updated roll orientation of the imaging device.
However, Stricko III teaches:
in response to enablement of a second teleoperational control session of the first instrument by the first input device, record the updated roll orientation of the imaging device (it will be understood that the surgical session throughout which computer-assisted surgical system 204 may be employed may not only include an operative phase of a surgical procedure, as is illustrated in FIG. 13, but may also include preoperative, postoperative, and/or other suitable phases of the surgical procedure. A surgical procedure may include any procedure in which manual and/or instrumental techniques are used on a patient to investigate or treat a physical condition of the patient [paragraph 85]. Surgical instrument at 1442 of FIG. 14 includes an elongate shaft 1444 that is coupled between manipulator 1408 and an end effector 1446 via an optional articulated wrist 1448. The degrees of freedom in the manipulator 1408 may permit at least control of the roll, pitch, and yaw of the elongate shaft 1444 relative to the distal end of the set-up joints 1406 [paragraph 99], wherein the target workspace may be determined using kinematic models of the corresponding surgical instrument and end effector [paragraph 110], which would naturally involve recording the position and orientation of the of an imaging device, such as an endoscope in paragraph 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Itkowitz with in response to enablement of a second teleoperational control session of the first instrument by the first input device, record the updated roll orientation of the imaging device as taught by Stricko III so as to allow the system to work with multiple control sessions, such as the various medical procedures listed in paragraph 99 of Stricko III.
Regarding Claim 4. Itkowitz in combination with Stricko III teaches the computer-assisted system of claim 3.
Itkowitz also teaches:
wherein the control system is configured to determine the updated roll orientation of the imaging device during an operation to match an orientation of the first input device in the input device coordinate frame to an orientation of the first instrument in the workspace coordinate frame (In paragraph 37, the kinematic model includes a table top coordinate frame that may be used to model positions and/or orientations in a coordinate frame representative of a table top of the surgical table, such as the table top at 284 of FIG. 2. In some examples, one or more kinematic models of an articulated structure of the surgical table, such as articulated structure 290, along with past and/or current joint sensor readings is used to determine the table base to table top coordinate transform 315 [paragraph 37]. As shown in FIG. 3, the registration may be used to determine a registration transform 325 between the table top coordinate frame 310 and the device base coordinate from 320. In some examples, because the table base and the device base are typically located on the same level floor surface, the registration transform 325 may model just the rotational relationship of the device base to the table base about the z-axis of the table base coordinate frame 305 [paragraph 39]).
Regarding Claim 5. Itkowitz in combination with Stricko III teaches the computer-assisted system of claim 3.
Itkowitz also teaches:
wherein the control system is configured to:
determine a updated transformation between the input device coordinate frame and a workspace coordinate frame based on the updated roll orientation of the imaging device (In paragraph 37, the kinematic model includes a table top coordinate frame that may be used to model positions and/or orientations in a coordinate frame representative of a table top of the surgical table, such as the table top at 284 of FIG. 2. In some examples, one or more kinematic models of an articulated structure of the surgical table, such as articulated structure 290, along with past and/or current joint sensor readings is used to determine the table base to table top coordinate transform 315 [paragraph 37]. As shown in FIG. 3, the registration may be used to determine a registration transform 325 between the table top coordinate frame 310 and the device base coordinate from 320. In some examples, because the table base and the device base are typically located on the same level floor surface, the registration transform 325 may model just the rotational relationship of the device base to the table base about the z-axis of the table base coordinate frame 305 [paragraph 39]);
receive inputs from the first input device to cause the manipulator assembly to manipulate the first instrument relative to the workspace coordinate frame based on the updated transformation (The instrument a 270 may be any number of surgical tools, or an imaging device such as an endoscope [paragraph 31], which can be manipulated by the computer-assisted device [paragraph 32]. In the kinematic model 300, the kinematic relationships of a first one of the articulated arms is captured using a manipulator mount coordinate frame 341, a remote center coordinate frame 342, a tool coordinate frame 343, a gantry to mount transform 344, a mount to remote center transform 345, and a remote center to tool transform 346 [paragraph 42], meaning that the manipulator assembly can upon receiving inputs from the user to manipulate the first instrument relative to the workspace coordinate frame. In combination with the updating process shown in FIG. 4, and Itkowitz reads on manipulating the first instrument based on the updated transformation).
Claim(s) 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itkowitz et al. US 20200146764 A1 (“Itkowitz”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Itkowitz et al. US 20170333142 A1 (“Itkowitz_2”).
Regarding Claim 10. Itkowitz teaches the computer-assisted system of claim 1.
Itkowitz does not teach:
further comprising:
a second input device configured to be manipulated by the operator relative to the input device coordinate frame, wherein the manipulator assembly is configured to support a second instrument;
wherein the control system is configured to:
determine a second roll orientation of the imaging device;
record the second roll orientation of the imaging device in response to enablement of a second teleoperational control session of the second instrument by the second input device; and
during the second teleoperational control session:
determine a second transformation between the input device coordinate frame and a workspace coordinate frame based on the second roll orientation of the imaging device;
receive inputs from the second input device to cause the manipulator assembly to manipulate the second instrument relative to the workspace coordinate frame based on the second transformation;
determine a difference between the current roll orientation and the second roll orientation;
determine whether or not the difference between the current roll orientation and the second roll orientation exceeds a second threshold; and
in response to the difference between the current roll orientation and the second roll orientation exceeding the second threshold, perform another mitigating action.
However, Itkowitz_2 teaches:
further comprising:
a second input device configured to be manipulated by the operator relative to the input device coordinate frame, wherein the manipulator assembly is configured to support a second instrument (FIG. 1 shows two separate articulated arms, one at each number 120, and each one is shown holding a tool. In the kinematic model 300, the kinematic relationships of a second one of the articulated arms is captured using a manipulator mount coordinate frame 351, a remote center of motion coordinate frame 352, an instrument coordinate frame 353 (or “instrument reference frame 353”), an arm mounting platform to manipulator mount transform 354, a manipulator mount to remote center of motion transform 355, and a remote center of motion to instrument transform 356 [paragraph 66]);
wherein the control system is configured to:
determine a second roll orientation of the imaging device (In the kinematic model 300, the kinematic relationships of a third one of the articulated arms is captured using a manipulator mount coordinate frame 361, a remote center of motion coordinate frame 362, a camera coordinate frame 363, an arm mounting platform to manipulator mount transform 364, a manipulator mount to remote center of motion transform 365, and a remote center of motion to camera transform 366 [paragraph 69], which includes the orientation (roll) of the camera);
record the second roll orientation of the imaging device in response to enablement of a second teleoperational control session of the second instrument by the second input device (In the kinematic model 300, the kinematic relationships of a third one of the articulated arms is captured using a manipulator mount coordinate frame 361, a remote center of motion coordinate frame 362, a camera coordinate frame 363, an arm mounting platform to manipulator mount transform 364, a manipulator mount to remote center of motion transform 365, and a remote center of motion to camera transform 366 [paragraph 69], which includes the orientation (roll) of the camera); and
during the second teleoperational control session:
determine a second transformation between the input device coordinate frame and a workspace coordinate frame based on the second roll orientation of the imaging device (FIG. 3);
receive inputs from the second input device to cause the manipulator assembly to manipulate the second instrument relative to the workspace coordinate frame based on the second transformation (FIG. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Itkowitz with further comprising: a second input device configured to be manipulated by the operator relative to the input device coordinate frame, wherein the manipulator assembly is configured to support a second instrument; wherein the control system is configured to: determine a second roll orientation of the imaging device; record the second roll orientation of the imaging device in response to enablement of a second teleoperational control session of the second instrument by the second input device; and during the second teleoperational control session: determine a second transformation between the input device coordinate frame and a workspace coordinate frame based on the second roll orientation of the imaging device; receive inputs from the second input device to cause the manipulator assembly to manipulate the second instrument relative to the workspace coordinate frame based on the second transformation as taught by Itkowitz_2 primarily because it is mere duplication of parts, but also to allow the system to work with multiple robotic manipulators with different instruments.
Itkowitz_2 does not expressly teach:
determine a difference between the current roll orientation and the second roll orientation;
determine whether or not the difference between the current roll orientation and the second roll orientation exceeds a second threshold; and
in response to the difference between the current roll orientation and the second roll orientation exceeding the second threshold, perform another mitigating action.
However, Itkowitz teaches determine a difference between the current roll orientation and the second roll orientation (At a process 440, differences between the actual transform and the reference transform are determined. The differences between the actual transform and the reference transform represent errors that are being introduced into the pose of the tool by the disturbance [paragraph 62]. Combined with the rest of the disclosure, the pose would include roll orientation); determine whether or not the difference between the current roll orientation and the second roll orientation exceeds a second threshold (this is not taught explicitly. However, it is inherent that the amount of error would have to be large enough to be noticeable, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try setting a threshold error amount, even if the error amount was any number greater than zero, with a highly predictable chance of success); and in response to the difference between the current roll orientation and the second roll orientation exceeding the second threshold, perform another mitigating action (At a process 450, compensating joint changes are determined based on the differences. Using the differences between the actual transform and the reference transform determined during process 440, changes in the one or more compensating joints are determined [paragraph 63], which reads on a mitigating action).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Itkowitz with determine a difference between the current roll orientation and the second roll orientation; determine whether or not the difference between the current roll orientation and the second roll orientation exceeds a second threshold; and in response to the difference between the current roll orientation and the second roll orientation exceeding the second threshold, perform another mitigating action as this is mere duplication of parts, and allowing the difference and compensation disclosure of Itkowitz to be applied to a second teleoperation.
Regarding Claim 11. Itkowitz in combination with Itkowitz_2 teaches the computer-assisted system of claim 10.
Itkowitz also teaches:
wherein the control system is configured to independently terminate different teleoperational control sessions for the first instrument and the second instrument (FIG. 4 is a simplified diagram of the method 400 of maintaining the pose of a tool during movement of one or more joints proximal to the tool according to some embodiments [paragraph 57]. According to some embodiments, additional conditions may result in premature termination of method 400 such as by returning control of the computer-assisted device to an operator and/or by suspension of operation of the computer-assisted device. In some examples, the additional conditions may include inability to complete the compensated movement, manual intervention and/or override from an operator using one or more controls on an operator workstation and/or the articulated arms, detection of operator disengagement with the operator workstation using one or more safety interlocks, position tracking errors in the computer-assisted device, system faults, and/or the like [paragraph 68]).
Regarding Claim 12. Itkowitz in combination with Itkowitz_2 teaches the computer-assisted system of claim 10.
Itkowitz does not explicitly teach:
wherein the second threshold is the same as the first threshold.
However, this element would have been obvious as mere duplication of parts, with no modifications to the existing disclosure, with a high predictability of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON G CAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7009. The examiner can normally be reached Monday: 7:30am - 4:30pm EST to Friday 7:30pm - 4:30am.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/AARON G CAIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights