DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action in response to U.S. application 19/102,822. Claims 1-9, 11-12, 16-17, 19, 22-24, 26, and 28-29 are pending.
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 .
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 28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 28 is dependent on cancelled claim 27. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, as the scope of claim 28 is unclear. For examination purposes, claim 28 will be interpreted as being dependent on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9, 12, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Larkin (US 20160235486, IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Larkin teaches a method for controlling a slave device of a robotic system for medical or surgical teleoperation, wherein said robotic system comprises at least one master device adapted to be moved by an operator, at least one slave device, comprising a surgical instrument adapted to be controlled by the master device ([0140] discusses a surgical teleoperation system where a master device is controlling a slave device), and viewing means configured to display to the operator images and/or videos of a viewing space associated with a teleoperation area in which the surgical instrument operates ([0245] discusses the console including a stereoscopic video output display of the teleoperation area), wherein the method comprises:
determining a position of the surgical instrument with respect to said viewing space, to determine whether the surgical instrument is located inside or outside an allowed space correlated to the viewing space ([0279] discusses determining the position of the surgical instrument with respect to the field of view);
controlling the movement of the slave device in a manner dependent on the determined position of the surgical instrument with respect to the allowed space correlated to the viewing space, and so that the movement of the surgical instrument is allowed only if the surgical instrument is located inside the allowed space correlated to the viewing space ([0280] states “Instruments 2924a and 2924b are extended from the distal end of the guide tube and within imaging system 2920's field of view. An “Allowable Volume” is defined to be coincident with the field of view boundaries. The control system prevents any part of instruments 2924a and 2924b from moving outside the Allowable Volume”).
Regarding claim 2, Larkin teaches wherein said allowed space correlated to the viewing space corresponds to the viewing space ([0280] “An “Allowable Volume” is defined to be coincident with the field of view boundaries”).
Regarding claim 3, Larkin teaches wherein said allowed space correlated to the viewing space comprises the viewing space and further comprises an external surrounding extending with a spatial tolerance beyond boundaries of the viewing space ([0281] “A new Allowable Volume is determined to be the newly inserted field of view plus the previously determined Instrument Volume that is outside of the field of view”).
Regarding claim 4, Larkin teaches wherein said allowed space correlated to the viewing space comprises a subset of the viewing space, corresponding to the viewing space from which an internal surrounding extending with a spatial tolerance inside the boundaries of the viewing space is removed ([0281] discusses Fig. 29F where the allowed space is a subset of the viewing space (area within the dotted lines) with the spatial tolerance inside of the viewing space being removed from the allowable space (area outside of the dotted lines)).
Regarding claim 6, Larkin teaches wherein said determining a position of the surgical instrument with respect to the allowed space correlated to the viewing space comprises determining a current position of the surgical instrument and/or presence of the surgical instrument in the allowed space correlated to the viewing space based on digital data derived from the viewing means ([0279] “for stereoscopic imaging systems, field of view boundaries can be determined relative to the instruments by using machine vision algorithms to identify the instruments and their positions in the field of view.”).
Regarding claim 9, Larkin teaches wherein said determining a position of the surgical instrument with respect to the allowed space correlated to the viewing space is performed cyclically and/or continuously in real time, to verify the position or presence of the surgical instrument in the viewing space or in the effective slave workspace in real time ([0281] “Therefore, the control system will allow the surgeon to move an instrument anywhere within the new Allowable Volume. The process may be repeated for further field of view insertions or for guide tube 2922 movements”), and/or
wherein said determining a position of the surgical instrument with respect to the allowed space correlated to the viewing space comprises:
calculating and/or determining a position of a real point belonging to the surgical instrument or a position of a virtual point integral with the surgical instrument, and/or
calculating and/or determining a position of a virtual control point of the slave device, and/or
determining a position of at least one of the tips of the surgical instrument, and/or
determining a position of at least one of the links of a hinged wrist-included in the surgical instrument, and/or
determining a position of a distal portion of a positioning shaft proximate to the hinged wrist of the surgical instrument.
Regarding claim 12, Larkin teaches stopping the teleoperation of the robotic system, or exiting a teleoperation condition of the robotic system, if and when presence of the surgical instrument is not detected within the allowed space correlated to the viewing space or in the effective slave workspace, or if and when said nominal position of the slave device is determined to be outside the allowed space correlated to the viewing space or outside the effective slave workspace ([0280] states “Instruments 2924a and 2924b are extended from the distal end of the guide tube and within imaging system 2920's field of view. An “Allowable Volume” is defined to be coincident with the field of view boundaries. The control system prevents any part of instruments 2924a and 2924b from moving outside the Allowable Volume”) or
further comprising allowing and/or enabling the movement of the surgical instrument only when the presence of the surgical instrument is detected within the allowed space correlated to the viewing space or in the effective slave workspace, or only when said nominal position of the slave device is determined to be within the allowed space correlated to the viewing space or within the effective slave workspace, or
further comprising allowing and/or enabling alignment operations between master device and slave device only when the presence of the surgical instrument is detected within the allowed space correlated to the viewing space or in the effective slave workspace, or only when said nominal position of the slave device is determined to be within the allowed space correlated to the viewing space or within the effective slave workspace, or
wherein the robotic system comprises a plurality of slave devices and respective surgical instruments, and wherein the movement or alignment operations between the master device and the slave device are allowed and/or enabled only for surgical instruments the presence of which is detected within the allowed space correlated to the viewing space or in the effective slave workspace, or only for surgical instruments for which the nominal position of the respective slave device is determined to be within the allowed space correlated to the viewing space or within the effective slave workspace.
Regarding claim 29, Larkin teaches a robotic system for medical or surgical teleoperation, comprising:
at least one master device adapted to be moved by an operator;
at least one slave device comprising a surgical instrument adapted to be controlled by the master device ([0140] discusses a surgical teleoperation system where a master device is controlling a slave device);
viewing means configured to display to the operator images and/or videos of a viewing space associated with a teleoperation area in which the surgical instrument operates, a control unit configured to control the slave device, during a teleoperation, based on master device movements ([0245] discusses the console including a stereoscopic video output display of the teleoperation area), wherein the control unit is further configured to:
determine a position of the surgical instrument with respect to said viewing space, to determine whether the surgical instrument is located inside or outside an allowed space correlated to the viewing space ([0279] discusses determining the position of the surgical instrument with respect to the field of view);
controlling the movement of the slave device in a manner dependent on the determined position of the surgical instrument with respect to the allowed space correlated to the viewing space, and so that the movement of the surgical instrument is allowed only if the surgical instrument is located inside the allowed space correlated to the viewing space ([0280] states “Instruments 2924a and 2924b are extended from the distal end of the guide tube and within imaging system 2920's field of view. An “Allowable Volume” is defined to be coincident with the field of view boundaries. The control system prevents any part of instruments 2924a and 2924b from moving outside the Allowable Volume”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5, 7-8, 11, 23-24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larkin in view of Itkowitz (US 20170165013).
Regarding claim 5, Larkin teaches wherein said viewing space is defined by:
a field of view of the viewing means ([0280] discusses the viewing space as a field of view of the camera head), and/or
a predefined subset of the field of view of the viewing means (Fig. 29F), and/or
Itkowitz teaches a field-of-view workspace, comprising a geometric volume, in a reference coordinate system of the robotic system, associated with said field of view (Fig. 3 shows a field of view workspace comprising a geometric volume 202 in a reference coordinate system of the robotic system), and/or
geometric limits of the field of view, consisting of comprising a boundary surface of said field-of-view workspace, in the reference coordinate system of the robotic system ([0054] discusses Fig. 5 which shows boundary surfaces of the field of view workspace in reference to a coordinate system of the robotic system).
Larkin teaches limiting movement within a field of view workspace. Itkowitz teaches the field of view workspace being based on reference coordinate systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Larkin as the use of reference coordinate systems would ensure reliable operation between the teleoperated instruments and the user.
Regarding claim 7, Larkin teaches limiting movement within a field of view workspace but does not explicitly teach wherein said determining a position of the surgical instrument with respect to the allowed space correlated to the viewing space comprises:
mapping said allowed space correlated to the viewing space in a corresponding slave field-of-view workspace, in a slave reference coordinate system associated with the slave device;
determining the position of the surgical instrument by means of respective position coordinates in said slave reference coordinate system;
determining the position of the surgical instrument with respect to the allowed space correlated to the viewing space based on a comparison between said position coordinates and said slave field-of-view workspace, in the slave reference coordinate system.
Itkowitz teaches wherein said determining a position of the surgical instrument with respect to the allowed space correlated to the viewing space comprises:
mapping said allowed space correlated to the viewing space in a corresponding slave field-of-view workspace, in a slave reference coordinate system associated with the slave device ([0044]-[0045] discuss the field of view or distal end of the imaging instrument having an endoscope coordinate space (slave reference coordinate system));
determining the position of the surgical instrument by means of respective position coordinates in said slave reference coordinate system ([0056] discusses determining the position of the instrument tip within the endoscope coordinate space);
determining the position of the surgical instrument with respect to the allowed space correlated to the viewing space based on a comparison between said position coordinates and said slave field-of-view workspace, in the slave reference coordinate system ([0056] discusses determining the position of the instrument tip within the endoscope coordinate space with [0044] discussing this being used to determine the position of the instrument tip with regard to the field of view).
Larkin teaches limiting movement within a field of view workspace. Itkowitz teaches the field of view workspace being based on reference coordinate systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Larkin as the use of reference coordinate systems would ensure reliable operation between the teleoperated instruments and the user.
Regarding claim 8, Larkin teaches
wherein the step of controlling the slave device movement comprises controlling the slave device movement so that the movement of the surgical instrument is allowed only if the surgical instrument is located inside said effective slave workspace, and so that the movement of the surgical instrument, if allowed, is still confined within said effective slave workspace ([0280] states “Instruments 2924a and 2924b are extended from the distal end of the guide tube and within imaging system 2920's field of view. An “Allowable Volume” is defined to be coincident with the field of view boundaries. The control system prevents any part of instruments 2924a and 2924b from moving outside the Allowable Volume”).
Itkowitz teaches defining, in the slave reference coordinate system, a slave kinematic workspace, based on physical movement limits of the slave device and/or operating constraints not correlated to the viewing means ([0056] discusses defining the instrument kinematic workspace based on evaluation of kinematic body transformations);
defining, in the slave reference coordinate system, an effective slave workspace, corresponding to an intersection of said slave field-of-view workspace and slave kinematic workspace ([0054]-[0055] discuss defining the slave workspace based on the field of view and the kinematic workspace as found in Fig. 7).
Larkin teaches limiting movement within a field of view workspace. Itkowitz teaches the field of view workspace being based on reference coordinate systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Larkin as the use of reference coordinate systems would ensure reliable operation between the teleoperated instruments and the user.
Regarding claim 11, Larkin teaches limiting movement within a field of view workspace but does not explicitly teach wherein determining the position of the surgical instrument comprises determining the position of the surgical instrument based on a nominal position of the slave device, in a workspace of the slave device defined in the slave reference coordinate system, controlled by the master device, or based on a nominal target pose of the slave device, in a workspace of the slave device defined in the slave reference coordinate system, corresponding to a respective pose of the master device in a workspace of the master device.
Itkowitz teaches wherein determining the position of the surgical instrument comprises determining the position of the surgical instrument based on a nominal position of the slave device, in a workspace of the slave device defined in the slave reference coordinate system, controlled by the master device ([0044] discusses the endoscope coordinate system being based on the position of the distal end of the surgical instrument), or based on a nominal target pose of the slave device, in a workspace of the slave device defined in the slave reference coordinate system, corresponding to a respective pose of the master device in a workspace of the master device.
Larkin teaches limiting movement within a field of view workspace. Itkowitz teaches the field of view workspace being based on reference coordinate systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Larkin as the use of reference coordinate systems would ensure reliable operation between the teleoperated instruments and the user.
Regarding claim 23, Larkin teaches wherein the viewing space comprises said field of view of the viewing means, or a predefined subset of the field of view, or said field of view workspace, or said effective slave workspace, wherein the method comprises further defining the limits or edges of the viewing space which in turn define upper and lower thresholds for the allowed movements of the slave device ([0282] discusses Fig. 29F which shows the field of view having further defined limits of the viewing space as upper and lower thresholds (shown as dotted lines)).
Regarding claim 24, Larkin teaches wherein said limits or edges comprise a threshold perimeter on a plane orthogonal to a depth direction of the field of view, wherein said threshold perimeter defines upper/lower thresholds for movements in said plane and/or along orthogonal axes belonging to the plane, wherein said threshold perimeter is calculated depending on a distance of the plane with respect to the viewing means ([0281]-[0282] discuss the new allowable volume within the field of view as defined by the surgeon where Fig. 29F which shows the field of view having further defined limits of the viewing space as a threshold perimeter (shown as dotted lines));
wherein said limits or edges comprise, in addition to the threshold perimeter on a plane, lower/upper thresholds along an axis of the depth direction of the field of view, wherein said lower/upper thresholds along the axis of the depth direction are determined based on a focusing of the viewing means, evaluated and calculated in real time using data provided by the viewing means, or based on the field depth of the viewing means in a given configuration (Fig. 29F shows the limits having a threshold perimeter with lower/upper thresholds along the depth direction based on the field depth of the viewing means).
Regarding claim 26, Larkin teaches providing the operator with visual and auditory warnings when the device is close to the limits or edges of the viewing space or effective slave workspace; and/or
further comprising dynamically adjusting/varying the viewing space, by controlling the viewing means by changing zoom or adjusting a point of view, in order to improve or restore or not lose the view of the surgical instrument through the viewing means.
Itkowitz teaches providing the operator with visual and auditory warnings when the device is close to the limits or edges of the viewing space or effective slave workspace ([0052] discusses a warning indicator provided to indicate the instrument tip is nearing the boundary); and/or
further comprising dynamically adjusting/varying the viewing space, by controlling the viewing means by changing zoom or adjusting a point of view, in order to improve or restore or not lose the view of the surgical instrument through the viewing means.
Larkin teaches limiting movement within a field of view workspace. Itkowitz teaches providing a warning to the user when the instrument is leaving the field of view. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Larkin with the warning of Itkowitz as this would provide more information to the user, improving the user’s experience.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larkin in view of Lu (CN113633387A).
Regarding claim 16, Larkin teaches preventing the end effectors from leaving the allowable volume, but does not explicitly teach the further step of:
modifying a slave nominal trajectory of the slave device, corresponding to a respective master trajectory of the master device, if and when said slave nominal position is determined to be outside the allowed space correlated to the viewing space or outside the effective slave workspace, or if and when said slave nominal trajectory of the slave device exits the allowed space correlated to the viewing space or the effective slave workspace, wherein said modifying step determines a modified slave target trajectory, to extend entirely within the allowed space correlated to the viewing space or the effective slave workspace and/or along edges or limits imposed by the field-of-view workspace;
controlling the slave device so that the slave device tracks and travels along said modified slave target trajectory.
Lu teaches the further step of:
modifying a slave nominal trajectory of the slave device, corresponding to a respective master trajectory of the master device, if and when said slave nominal position is determined to be outside the allowed space correlated to the viewing space or outside the effective slave workspace, or if and when said slave nominal trajectory of the slave device exits the allowed space correlated to the viewing space or the effective slave workspace, wherein said modifying step determines a modified slave target trajectory, to extend entirely within the allowed space correlated to the viewing space or the effective slave workspace and/or along edges or limits imposed by the field-of-view workspace (P. 6 lines 27-33 “when the surgical instrument moves outside the range of the virtual clamp limit, the laparoscopic pose will be adjusted until the surgical instrument tip in the laparoscopic surgical field returns within the virtual clamp limit”);
controlling the slave device so that the slave device tracks and travels along said modified slave target trajectory (P. 6 lines 27-33 “when the surgical instrument moves outside the range of the virtual clamp limit, the laparoscopic pose will be adjusted until the surgical instrument tip in the laparoscopic surgical field returns within the virtual clamp limit”).
Larkin teaches preventing the end effectors from leaving the allowable volume. Lu teaches modifying movement of a laparoscope based on the field of view. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Larkin with the system of Lu as Lu teaches
Larkin teaches preventing the end effectors from leaving the allowable volume. Lu teaches preventing a surgical instrument from leaving the field of view. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Lu as Lu teaches that this prevents the doctor from losing control of the surgical instrument (P. 6 lines 22-25).
Claims 17 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larkin in view of Takahashi (US 20240008931).
Regarding claim 17, Larkin teaches preventing the end effectors from leaving the allowable volume, but does not explicitly teach wherein said modifying a slave nominal trajectory of the slave device comprises:
stopping and/or freezing the surgical instrument when the position of the surgical instrument reaches the limits of said allowed space correlated to the viewing space or said effective slave workspace, wherein said action of stopping and/or freezing the surgical instrument comprises locking all the degrees of freedom of the surgical instrument, i.e., including both translation and orientation degrees of freedom, and exiting the teleoperation, or
wherein said modifying a slave nominal trajectory of the slave device comprises:
stopping and/or freezing the surgical instrument when the position of the surgical instrument reaches the limits of said allowed space correlated to the viewing space or said effective slave workspace, wherein said action of stopping and/or freezing the surgical instrument comprises locking only a subset of the degrees of freedom of the surgical instrument, and allowing to remain in teleoperation.
Takahashi teaches wherein said modifying a slave nominal trajectory of the slave device comprises:
stopping and/or freezing the surgical instrument when the position of the surgical instrument reaches the limits of said allowed space correlated to the viewing space or said effective slave workspace, wherein said action of stopping and/or freezing the surgical instrument comprises locking all the degrees of freedom of the surgical instrument, i.e., including both translation and orientation degrees of freedom, and exiting the teleoperation ([0092]-[0094] discuss upon determining that the distal end of the medical instrument has left the field of view of the endoscope, to prevent movement of the medical instrument and further controlling the energization of the medical instrument so as to prevent electrical supply when the distal end position is located outside the field of view), or
wherein said modifying a slave nominal trajectory of the slave device comprises:
stopping and/or freezing the surgical instrument when the position of the surgical instrument reaches the limits of said allowed space correlated to the viewing space or said effective slave workspace, wherein said action of stopping and/or freezing the surgical instrument comprises locking only a subset of the degrees of freedom of the surgical instrument, and allowing to remain in teleoperation.
Larkin teaches preventing the end effectors from leaving the allowable volume. Takahashi teaches controlling the energization of the medical instrument to prevent the end effector from moving when no longer in the allowable volume. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Larkin with the de-energization of Takahashi as Takahashi teaches that this prevents the tools from performing any commands while outside of the field of view [0094].
Regarding claim 22, Larkin teaches preventing the end effectors from leaving the allowable volume, but does not explicitly teach wherein said modifying a slave nominal trajectory of the slave device comprises:
decreasing a translational speed module of the slave device, in a direction orthogonal to the limits of said viewing space or said effective slave workspace, according to a transfer function dependent on a master device instantaneous speed and/or a master device instantaneous power or energy and/or a distance between a current position of the slave device and the limits of said viewing space or said effective slave workspace; and/or
decreasing the instantaneous power or energy imparted by the master device to the slave device according to a transfer function dependent on the master device instantaneous speed and/or the master device instantaneous power or energy and/or the distance between a current position of the slave device and the limits of said viewing space or said effective slave workspace; and/or
reducing the slave device movements, with respect to the master device movements, according to a dynamically varying scale factor, as a distance of the surgical instrument decreases with respect to the limits of said viewing space or said effective slave workspace.
Takahashi teaches wherein said modifying a slave nominal trajectory of the slave device comprises:
decreasing a translational speed module of the slave device, in a direction orthogonal to the limits of said viewing space or said effective slave workspace, according to a transfer function dependent on a master device instantaneous speed and/or a master device instantaneous power or energy and/or a distance between a current position of the slave device and the limits of said viewing space or said effective slave workspace; and/or
decreasing the instantaneous power or energy imparted by the master device to the slave device according to a transfer function dependent on the master device instantaneous speed and/or the master device instantaneous power or energy and/or the distance between a current position of the slave device and the limits of said viewing space or said effective slave workspace ([0093] “when the distal end position of the medical instrument 4 is located outside the field of view of the endoscope 6, to control the arms 60a, 60b and 60d to move, in response to the movement command, the medical instrument 4 with scaling smaller than a predetermined scaling for the normal operation mode”); and/or
reducing the slave device movements, with respect to the master device movements, according to a dynamically varying scale factor, as a distance of the surgical instrument decreases with respect to the limits of said viewing space or said effective slave workspace.
Larkin teaches preventing the end effectors from leaving the allowable volume. Takahashi teaches controlling the speed of the medical instrument to prevent the end effector from moving when no longer in the allowable volume. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Larkin with the speed of Takahashi as this would allow the doctor to move the instruments back into the field of view at a slower speed to ensure the safety of the patient.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larkin in view of Takahashi and further in view of Lu.
Regarding claim 19, Larkin teaches preventing the end effectors from leaving the allowable volume, but does not explicitly teach wherein said action of stopping and/or freezing the surgical instrument comprises locking all the degrees of freedom of translation of the surgical instrument leaving the degrees of freedom of distal orientation of the surgical instrument enabled, so that, proximate the limits of the viewing space, the surgical instrument or a control point associated with said surgical instrument does not follow the master device in translation and follows the master device in orientation, and/or
wherein said action of stopping and/or freezing the surgical instrument comprises locking the degree or degrees of freedom of translation associated with an exit direction from the boundary of the allowed space correlated to the viewing space, and keeping the other degrees of freedom of translation active, and/or
wherein, when the movement imposed by the master device returns the slave device and the surgical instrument in a direction or to a position within the allowed space correlated to the viewing space, said stopping and/or freezing action is interrupted, so as to again allow the movement of the surgical instrument according to all the degrees of freedom.
Lu teaches wherein said action of stopping and/or freezing the surgical instrument comprises locking all the degrees of freedom of translation of the surgical instrument leaving the degrees of freedom of distal orientation of the surgical instrument enabled, so that, proximate the limits of the viewing space, the surgical instrument or a control point associated with said surgical instrument does not follow the master device in translation and follows the master device in orientation, and/or
wherein said action of stopping and/or freezing the surgical instrument comprises locking the degree or degrees of freedom of translation associated with an exit direction from the boundary of the allowed space correlated to the viewing space, and keeping the other degrees of freedom of translation active, and/or
wherein, when the movement imposed by the master device returns the slave device and the surgical instrument in a direction or to a position within the allowed space correlated to the viewing space, said stopping and/or freezing action is interrupted, so as to again allow the movement of the surgical instrument according to all the degrees of freedom (P.6 lines 11-14 “Construct a circular forbidden area virtual fixture based on the surgical field image. When the distance between the two-dimensional position and the center point position of the surgical field image is greater than the radius of the circular forbidden area virtual fixture, generate Resistance directed to the center point of the surgical field image and applied to the main operator device” where it is interpreted that the surgical instruments have resistance applied when about to exit the field of view to redirect the surgeon to move toward the field of view).
Larkin teaches preventing the end effectors from leaving the allowable volume. Lu teaches preventing a surgical instrument from leaving the field of view. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Lu as Lu teaches that this prevents the doctor from losing control of the surgical instrument (P. 6 lines 22-25).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larkin in view of Alvarez (US 20230310104).
Regarding claim 28, as best understood according to the 112b rejection, Larkin teaches preventing the end effectors from leaving the allowable volume but does not explicitly teach the steps of storing a first zoom value related to a first viewing space and a second zoom value related to a second viewing space, wherein the first zoom value is greater than the second zoom value, and the first viewing space is smaller than the second viewing space,
wherein the self-adjustment of the zoom upon reaching the limits imposed by the viewing space is variable between said first zoom value and said second zoom value and related first viewing space and second viewing space, and/or
wherein said varying zoom self-adjustment is an intermediate variation between the two values calculated and evaluated based on a target position of the instrument or upon reaching the limits, generating intermediate viewing spaces contained between the first and second viewing spaces, or is one of the two zoom values, and/or
wherein said self-adjustment comprises switching from one zoom value to another zoom value when the instrument is outside or inside said first viewing space.
Alvarez teaches the steps of storing a first zoom value related to a first viewing space and a second zoom value related to a second viewing space, wherein the first zoom value is greater than the second zoom value, and the first viewing space is smaller than the second viewing space ([0271] discusses adjusting the zoom value of the field of view based on the scale of the instrument within the field of view therefore it is interpreted that different scales would have different zoom values),
wherein the self-adjustment of the zoom upon reaching the limits imposed by the viewing space is variable between said first zoom value and said second zoom value and related first viewing space and second viewing space, and/or
wherein said varying zoom self-adjustment is an intermediate variation between the two values calculated and evaluated based on a target position of the instrument or upon reaching the limits, generating intermediate viewing spaces contained between the first and second viewing spaces, or is one of the two zoom values ([0271] discusses adjusting the zoom in and out values of the field of view based on the scale of the instrument within the field of view therefore it is interpreted that this would be evaluated based on the instrument’s position within the limits of the field of view and intermediate viewing spaces would be contained based on the scale with [0243] further discussing a predefined boundary of a fraction of the field of view), and/or
wherein said self-adjustment comprises switching from one zoom value to another zoom value when the instrument is outside or inside said first viewing space.
Larkin teaches preventing the end effectors from leaving the allowable volume. Alvarez teaches adjusting the zoom based on the scale of the instrument within the field of view. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Larkin with the zoom scaling of Alvarez as this allows the system to maintain the instruments within the field of view providing a more reliable field of view to the operator.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Kishi (US 20080234866) teaches a master-slave robot that zooms in and out of a visual field of view; Wu (US 20240173088) teaches maintaining a surgical instrument within a field of view; and Frimer (US 20160015473) teaches restricting movements within an allowed volume.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE M JACKSON whose telephone number is (303) 297-4364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-4:30 MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached at (571) 270-3976. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.M.J./ Examiner, Art Unit 3657 /ABBY LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights