DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is in excess of 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-12, 14, 20, and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Brisson (US 20170095301 A1).
Claim 1
Brisson teaches
A control system for a surgical robotic system,
(Brisson - [0003] The present invention generally provides improved surgical and/or robotic devices, systems, and methods.)
the surgical robotic system comprising a surgical robot arm,
(Brisson - [0006] The servomechanism used for telesurgery will often accept input from two master controllers (one for each of the surgeon's hands) and may include two or more robotic arms or manipulators.)
wherein the surgical robot arm comprises a plurality of joints by which its configuration can be altered,
(Brisson - [0013] … An example method includes: receiving a first manipulation command to move a distal end effector of a manipulator arm to a desired first position within a workspace, the manipulator arm extending between a proximal base and the distal end effector and including a plurality of joints having sufficient degrees of freedom to allow a range of joint states for a given state of the distal end effector;
wherein the control system is configured to:
receive an input which indicates a desired motion of the surgical robot arm when the surgical robotic system is operating in a mode in which the surgical robot arm is controlled in accordance with an objective, wherein the objective is to control a particular part of the surgical robot arm to have a desired position and/or orientation;
(Brisson - [0013] The methods described herein may be utilize to calculate appropriate, more intuitive force feedback on a master manipulator when the teleoperated slave manipulator reaches a range-of-motion limit. An example method includes: receiving a first manipulation command to move a distal end effector of a manipulator arm to a desired first position within a workspace, the manipulator arm extending between a proximal base and the distal end effector and including a plurality of joints having sufficient degrees of freedom to allow a range of joint states for a given state of the distal end effector;)
determine that the desired motion of the surgical robot arm would cause a limit to be exceeded; and
(Brisson - [0057] … In one aspect, the methods lock certain joints when it is determined that the respective joints are at their associated joint limits, which may be determined in response to saturation of the joint or from output variable associated with states or relative states between joints.
in response to determining that the desired motion of the surgical robot arm would cause the limit to be exceeded:
generate a control signal for controlling the surgical robot arm; and
cause the generated control signal to be sent to the surgical robot arm in order to control the surgical robot arm;
(Brisson - [0013] The methods described herein may be utilize to calculate appropriate, more intuitive force feedback on a master manipulator when the teleoperated slave manipulator reaches a range-of-motion limit. An example method includes: … locking at least one joint of the plurality of joints when the at least one joint is at a joint range-of-motion (ROM) limit of the at least one joint,
[0018] FIG. 2 is a perspective view illustrating a master surgeon console or workstation for inputting surgical procedure commands in the surgical system of FIG. 1A, the console including a processor for generating manipulator command signals in response to the input commands.
[0082] In some embodiments, the joint movements of the manipulator are controlled by driving one or more joints by a controller using motors of the system, the joints being driven according to coordinated and joint movements calculated by a processor of the controller. Mathematically, the controller may perform at least some of the calculations of the joint commands using vectors and/or matrices, some of which may have elements corresponding to configurations or velocities of the joints.)
wherein the control signal is generated, in response to determining that the desired motion of the surgical robot arm would cause the limit to be exceeded, such that:
(i) movement of a first set of the joints of the surgical robot arm is restricted, and
(ii) movement of a second set of one or more of the joints of the surgical robot arm is not restricted,
wherein the first set of the joints comprises a plurality of joints, and wherein the limit is associated with at least one, but not all, of the joints of the first set of joints of the surgical robot arm.
(Brisson - [0014] In another aspect, methods for controlling joint movements when a joint is at its limit so as to express joint limits to a user in a more predictable, intuitive manner are provided. An example method includes: … determining a constraint based on a relationship between joint movement of a first set of joints and second set of joints; and applying the constraint within the inverse kinematics when the first set of joints is at a joint range of motion (ROM) limit. Each of the first and second set of joints comprises one or more joints.
[0093] In one aspect, the system considers one or more joints of a particular manipulator as “locked,” when the one or more joints is at its respective joint ROM limit. In certain embodiments, when the change in joint position (d θ) becomes saturated, the joint is at its limit and the joint is “locked.”)
Claim 2
Brisson teaches the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Brisson further teaches
wherein the limit is associated with one of the joints of the surgical robot arm,
and wherein the control system is configured to determine that the desired motion of the surgical robot arm would cause the limit to be exceeded by determining that said one of the joints of the surgical robot arm has reached the limit.
(Brisson - [0093] In one aspect, the system considers one or more joints of a particular manipulator as “locked,” when the one or more joints is at its respective joint ROM limit. In certain embodiments, when the change in joint position (d θ) becomes saturated, the joint is at its limit and the joint is “locked.”
[0094] Once one or more joints of the manipulator are locked, there are various approaches to determine when some or all of the locked joints should be unlocked and utilized in subsequent joint movements. In some embodiments, the joint may remain locked for a predetermined duration, such as for one or more subsequent servo cycles. In some embodiments, the “locked” joints are unlocked when movement of the joint, if allowed to move, to effect a desired end effector state, would move the joint away from its respective joint ROM limit.)
Claim 3
Brisson teaches the limitations of claim 2 as outlined above. Brisson further teaches
wherein said one of the joints that has reached the limit is in the first set of the joints of the surgical robot arm.
(Brisson - [0014] In another aspect, methods for controlling joint movements when a joint is at its limit so as to express joint limits to a user in a more predictable, intuitive manner are provided. An example method includes: … determining a constraint based on a relationship between joint movement of a first set of joints and second set of joints; and applying the constraint within the inverse kinematics when the first set of joints is at a joint range of motion (ROM) limit. Each of the first and second set of joints comprises one or more joints.
[0093] In one aspect, the system considers one or more joints of a particular manipulator as “locked,” when the one or more joints is at its respective joint ROM limit. In certain embodiments, when the change in joint position (d θ) becomes saturated, the joint is at its limit and the joint is “locked.”)
Claim 7
Brisson teaches the limitations of claim 2 as outlined above. Brisson further teaches
wherein the limit is a limit on the position of the surgical robot arm for preventing the surgical robot arm from entering a keep out region.
(Brisson - [0087] FIG. 14 graphically illustrates a range of movement provided by an instrument wrist of an example manipulator arm, the wrist having a pitch and yaw of 60 degrees in each direction, such that the wrist joints have a square range of motion. In this example, when the wrist is backed into a corner region of its range of motion, movement becomes impaired since turning of the wrist becomes difficult, if not impossible, in the extreme corner regions, which may result in movement that fails to achieve the desired tool tip position or other impaired joint movements. For each goal position, there is a maximum joint motion associated with a given joint (e.g. a joint can only move so far). To avoid this problem, the system software can enforce an artificial joint limit 610, a Cartesian-based range of motion limit, in which the wrist movement is confined.
EXAMINER NOTE: See fig. 14. The boundary 610 defines an artificial motion limit (keep out region).
PNG
media_image1.png
328
395
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 8
Brisson teaches the limitations of claim 7 as outlined above. Brisson further teaches
further configured to define the keep out region dynamically based on positions of one or more other components in the surgical robotic system.
(Brisson - [0087] … For each goal position, there is a maximum joint motion associated with a given joint (e.g. a joint can only move so far). To avoid this problem, the system software can enforce an artificial joint limit 610, a Cartesian-based range of motion limit, in which the wrist movement is confined.)
EXAMINER NOTE: The keep out region defined by 610 depends on the goal position of the tool tip.
Claim 9
Brisson teaches the limitations of claim 7 as outlined above. Brisson further teaches
configured to determine that the desired motion of the surgical robot arm would cause the limit to be exceeded by detecting a clash indicating that the surgical robot arm has reached the edge of the keep out region.
(Brisson - [0013] … An example method includes: … calculating first joint movements of the plurality of joints that provide the desired first position of the distal end effector using inverse kinematics of the manipulator arm; and locking at least one joint of the plurality of joints when the at least one joint is at a joint range-of-motion (ROM) limit of the at least one joint, …)
Claim 10
Brisson teaches the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Brisson further teaches
wherein the control signal is generated, in response to determining that the desired motion of the surgical robot arm would cause the limit to be exceeded, such that:
(i) movement of the first set of the joints of the surgical robot arm is prevented, and
(ii) movement of the second set of one or more of the joints of the surgical robot arm is allowed.
(Brisson - [0014] In another aspect, methods for controlling joint movements when a joint is at its limit so as to express joint limits to a user in a more predictable, intuitive manner are provided. An example method includes: receiving a manipulation command to move a distal end effector of a manipulator arm to a desired position within a workspace, the manipulator arm extending between a proximal base and the distal end effector and including a plurality of joints having sufficient degrees of freedom to allow a range of joint states for a given state of the distal end effector; calculating joint movements of the plurality of joints that provide the desired position of the distal end effector using inverse kinematics of the manipulator arm; determining a constraint based on a relationship between joint movement of a first set of joints and second set of joints; and applying the constraint within the inverse kinematics when the first set of joints is at a joint range of motion (ROM) limit. Each of the first and second set of joints comprises one or more joints. In some embodiments, the relationship is defined between a translational joint movement and a rotational joint movement in the first and second set of joints. In certain embodiments, the relationship is based on a relationship of static loads, such as applied forces and torques, on the first and second joints when the first set of joints reaches its joint ROM limit. In other embodiments, the constraint includes a relationship that conserves a total energy of the joints when one or more joints are locked at their respective joint ROM limit and the total kinetic energy in the joints within the calculated joint movements to effect a desired goal position of a tool tip or end effector without movement of the locked joints. )
Claim 11
Brisson teaches the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Brisson further teaches
wherein the control signal is generated, in response to determining that the desired motion of the surgical robot arm would cause the limit to be exceeded, such that:
(i) movement of the first set of the joints of the surgical robot arm is restricted so as to:
(a) allow motion of the first set of joints which would cause the surgical robot arm to move away from the limit without exceeding the limit, and
(Brisson - [0057] … In certain embodiments, after certain joints have been locked, the system unlocks the joints in response to a determination that a subsequent movement of the joints in response to achieve a desired tool tip location would move the respective joints away from their joint limits, were the joint included in the inverse kinematics to achieve the desired tool tip location. )
(b) prevent motion of the first set of joints which would cause the surgical robot arm to move beyond the limit, and
(Brisson - [0089] Therefore, to avoid calculation of a joint movement for a joint that beyond its joint ROM limit, such joints may be “locked” within the inverse kinematics used in calculation of joint movements for a desired end effector position.)
(ii) movement of the second set of one or more of the joints of the surgical robot arm is not restricted.
(Brisson - [0014] In another aspect, methods for controlling joint movements when a joint is at its limit so as to express joint limits to a user in a more predictable, intuitive manner are provided. An example method includes: receiving a manipulation command to move a distal end effector of a manipulator arm to a desired position within a workspace, the manipulator arm extending between a proximal base and the distal end effector and including a plurality of joints having sufficient degrees of freedom to allow a range of joint states for a given state of the distal end effector; calculating joint movements of the plurality of joints that provide the desired position of the distal end effector using inverse kinematics of the manipulator arm; determining a constraint based on a relationship between joint movement of a first set of joints and second set of joints; and applying the constraint within the inverse kinematics when the first set of joints is at a joint range of motion (ROM) limit. Each of the first and second set of joints comprises one or more joints. In some embodiments, the relationship is defined between a translational joint movement and a rotational joint movement in the first and second set of joints. In certain embodiments, the relationship is based on a relationship of static loads, such as applied forces and torques, on the first and second joints when the first set of joints reaches its joint ROM limit. In other embodiments, the constraint includes a relationship that conserves a total energy of the joints when one or more joints are locked at their respective joint ROM limit and the total kinetic energy in the joints within the calculated joint movements to effect a desired goal position of a tool tip or end effector without movement of the locked joints. )
Claim 12
Brisson teaches the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Brisson further teaches
wherein the surgical robot arm satisfying the objective is independent of the angle of each of the one or more joints of the second set.
(Brisson - [0010] … The joints of the robotic manipulators supporting the end effectors allow the manipulator to move throughout a range of different configurations for a given end effector position and/or a given pivot point location. A manipulator may include additional redundant joints to allow for a range of alternative configurations and movements while effecting a desired movement of a tool tip or end effector.
[0068] … In certain aspects, an example manipulator includes a plurality of joints having redundant degrees of freedom such that the joints of the manipulator arm can be driven into a range of differing configurations for a given end effector position. This may be the case for any of the embodiments of manipulator arms disclosed herein.
[0069] … For example, the manipulator arm of FIGS. 5A-5D may be maneuvered into differing configurations while the distal member 511 (such as a cannula through which the tool 512 or instrument shaft extends) supported within the instrument holder 510 maintains a particular state and may include a given position or velocity of the end effector.)
Claim 14
Brisson teaches the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Brisson further teaches
wherein the particular part of the surgical robot arm is a wrist of the surgical robot arm.
(Brisson - [0098] In one approach, the system determines the closest allowable position of the locked joint to the goal location in the Cartesian-coordinate system. This may be achieved by use of a position priority calculation, weighting between position and orientation; by solving inverse kinematics without limits, then saturating the joints; and/or by calculating joints movements so that a wrist of the manipulator achieves a desired orientation of the distal tool tip, while the manipulator arm proximal the wrist achieves the tool tip position.)
Claim 20
Brisson teaches the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Brisson further teaches
further configured to determine which of the joints of the surgical robot arm are in the first set and which of the joints of the surgical robot arm are in the second set in dependence upon one or both of:
(i) a mode in which the surgical robotic system is operating, and
(ii) a current pose of the surgical robot arm.
(Brisson - [0014] In another aspect, methods for controlling joint movements when a joint is at its limit so as to express joint limits to a user in a more predictable, intuitive manner are provided. An example method includes: … determining a constraint based on a relationship between joint movement of a first set of joints and second set of joints; and applying the constraint within the inverse kinematics when the first set of joints is at a joint range of motion (ROM) limit.
[0087] … For each goal position, there is a maximum joint motion associated with a given joint (e.g. a joint can only move so far). To avoid this problem, the system software can enforce an artificial joint limit 610, a Cartesian-based range of motion limit, in which the wrist movement is confined.)
EXAMINER NOTE: Determination of a joint being near its range of motion is dependent on the pose of the robot arm.
(Brisson - [0013] The methods described herein may be utilize to calculate appropriate, more intuitive force feedback on a master manipulator when the teleoperated slave manipulator reaches a range-of-motion limit. An example method includes: … calculating first joint movements of the plurality of joints that provide the desired first position of the distal end effector using inverse kinematics of the manipulator arm; and locking at least one joint of the plurality of joints when the at least one joint is at a joint range-of-motion (ROM) limit of the at least one joint, … . In another aspect, methods include unlocking one or more locked joints when it is determined that the movement provided by the locked joint, if included in calculated joint movements to effect a desired end effector position, would move away from the respective joint range of motion limit or would move the tool tip toward the goal position …)
EXAMINER NOTE: Joints are locked (first set of joints restricted) when at their respective ROM limits. As shown above, this depends on the pose of the robot arm. Joints may be unlocked (second set of joints) if they are not at the range of motion limit or if the commanded motion moves away from the range of motion limit.
Claim 23
Brisson teaches a control system as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Brisson further teaches
a surgical robot arm comprising a plurality of joints by which its configuration can be altered, the surgical robot arm having an attachment for a surgical instrument at a distal end of the surgical robot arm; and
(Brisson - [0010] … The joints of the robotic manipulators supporting the end effectors allow the manipulator to move throughout a range of different configurations for a given end effector position and/or a given pivot point location. A manipulator may include additional redundant joints to allow for a range of alternative configurations and movements while effecting a desired movement of a tool tip or end effector.
[0069] … For example, the manipulator arm of FIGS. 5A-5D may be maneuvered into differing configurations while the distal member 511 (such as a cannula through which the tool 512 or instrument shaft extends) supported within the instrument holder 510 maintains a particular state and may include a given position or velocity of the end effector.)
Claim 24
Brisson teaches
wherein the surgical robot arm comprises a plurality of joints by which its configuration can be altered,
(Brisson - [0013] … An example method includes: receiving a first manipulation command to move a distal end effector of a manipulator arm to a desired first position within a workspace, the manipulator arm extending between a proximal base and the distal end effector and including a plurality of joints having sufficient degrees of freedom to allow a range of joint states for a given state of the distal end effector;
The method comprising:
receiving an input which indicates a desired motion of the surgical robot arm when the surgical robotic system is operating in a mode in which the surgical robot arm is controlled in accordance with an objective, wherein the objective is to control a particular part of the surgical robot arm to have a desired position and/or orientation;
(Brisson - [0013] The methods described herein may be utilize to calculate appropriate, more intuitive force feedback on a master manipulator when the teleoperated slave manipulator reaches a range-of-motion limit. An example method includes: receiving a first manipulation command to move a distal end effector of a manipulator arm to a desired first position within a workspace, the manipulator arm extending between a proximal base and the distal end effector and including a plurality of joints having sufficient degrees of freedom to allow a range of joint states for a given state of the distal end effector;)
determining that the desired motion of the surgical robot arm would cause a limit to be exceeded; and
(Brisson - [0057] … In one aspect, the methods lock certain joints when it is determined that the respective joints are at their associated joint limits, which may be determined in response to saturation of the joint or from output variable associated with states or relative states between joints.
in response to determining that the desired motion of the surgical robot arm would cause the limit to be exceeded:
generating a control signal for controlling the surgical robot arm; and
causing the generated control signal to be sent to the surgical robot arm in order to control the surgical robot arm;
(Brisson - [0013] The methods described herein may be utilize to calculate appropriate, more intuitive force feedback on a master manipulator when the teleoperated slave manipulator reaches a range-of-motion limit. An example method includes: … locking at least one joint of the plurality of joints when the at least one joint is at a joint range-of-motion (ROM) limit of the at least one joint,
[0018] FIG. 2 is a perspective view illustrating a master surgeon console or workstation for inputting surgical procedure commands in the surgical system of FIG. 1A, the console including a processor for generating manipulator command signals in response to the input commands.
[0082] In some embodiments, the joint movements of the manipulator are controlled by driving one or more joints by a controller using motors of the system, the joints being driven according to coordinated and joint movements calculated by a processor of the controller. Mathematically, the controller may perform at least some of the calculations of the joint commands using vectors and/or matrices, some of which may have elements corresponding to configurations or velocities of the joints.)
wherein the control signal is generated, in response to determining that the desired motion of the surgical robot arm would cause the limit to be exceeded, such that:
(i) movement of a first set of the joints of the surgical robot arm is restricted, and
(ii) movement of a second set of one or more of the joints of the surgical robot arm is not restricted,
wherein the first set of the joints comprises a plurality of joints, and wherein the limit is associated with at least one, but not all, of the joints of the first set of joints of the surgical robot arm.
(Brisson - [0014] In another aspect, methods for controlling joint movements when a joint is at its limit so as to express joint limits to a user in a more predictable, intuitive manner are provided. An example method includes: … determining a constraint based on a relationship between joint movement of a first set of joints and second set of joints; and applying the constraint within the inverse kinematics when the first set of joints is at a joint range of motion (ROM) limit. Each of the first and second set of joints comprises one or more joints.
[0093] In one aspect, the system considers one or more joints of a particular manipulator as “locked,” when the one or more joints is at its respective joint ROM limit. In certain embodiments, when the change in joint position (d θ) becomes saturated, the joint is at its limit and the joint is “locked.”)
Claim 25
Brisson teaches the method of claim 24. Brisson further teaches
A computer readable storage medium having stored thereon computer readable instructions that, when executed at a control system for a surgical robotic system, cause the control system to perform the method of claim 24
(Brisson - [0018] FIG. 2 is a perspective view illustrating a master surgeon console or workstation for inputting surgical procedure commands in the surgical system of FIG. 1A, the console including a processor for generating manipulator command signals in response to the input commands.)
EXAMINER NOTE: While not explicitly mentioned, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Brisson's system must operate with a storage medium in order for the processor to function as described.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mottram (US-20210122041-A1).
Claim 1
Mottram teaches
A control system for a surgical robotic system,
the surgical robotic system comprising a surgical robot arm,
wherein the surgical robot arm comprises a plurality of joints by which its configuration can be altered,
(Mottram - [0015] According to an aspect of the present invention there is provided a method for limiting joint velocity of a plurality of joints of a surgical robotic system, the surgical robotic system comprising a robot having a base and an arm extending from the base to an attachment for an instrument, the arm comprising a plurality of joints whereby the configuration of the arm can be altered, …)
wherein the control system is configured to:
receive an input which indicates a desired motion of the surgical robot arm when the surgical robotic system is operating in a mode in which the surgical robot arm is controlled in accordance with an objective,
wherein the objective is to control a particular part of the surgical robot arm to have a desired position and/or orientation;
(Mottram - [0006] A known strategy for the control system is as follows:
[0007] 1. Receive information indicating a desired position of the end effector.
[0008] 2. Determine a set of target configurations of the joints of the robot that will result in the end effector being in that position. This is known as inverse kinematics.
[0009] 3. Receive information indicating the current configuration of each joint in the robot, compare those current configurations to the target configurations and calculate a set of torques or forces required at each joint in order to reduce the error between the respective joint's current and target positions.
[0010] 4. Send drive signals to the actuators in the robot in order to impose those torques or forces at the respective joints.)
determine that the desired motion of the surgical robot arm would cause a limit to be exceeded; and in response to determining that the desired motion of the surgical robot arm would cause the limit to be exceeded:
generate a control signal for controlling the surgical robot arm; and
cause the generated control signal to be sent to the surgical robot arm in order to control the surgical robot arm;
(Mottram - [0096] This common joint velocity limit can be applied in any suitable way. For example, the common joint velocity limit can be passed to the kinematics controller, which can take this common joint velocity limit into account when determining the desired pose of the arm in response to the commanded pose. The kinematics controller can use the common joint velocity limit to limit the velocity of each of joints J1 to J4 individually. For instance, the kinematics controller can use the common joint velocity limit, as applied to the position of the wrist (i.e. the position at which the axes of J6 and J7 intersect), when calculating the velocities of multiple joints of the arm. Limiting the positional velocity of the wrist can cause limits to be placed on the velocities of the individual joints J1 to J4.)
wherein the control signal is generated, in response to determining that the desired motion of the surgical robot arm would cause the limit to be exceeded, such that:
(i) movement of a first set of the joints of the surgical robot arm is restricted, and
(ii) movement of a second set of one or more of the joints of the surgical robot arm is not restricted,
wherein the first set of the joints comprises a plurality of joints, and wherein the limit is associated with at least one, but not all, of the joints of the first set of joints of the surgical robot arm.
(Mottram - [0015] … the method comprising: [0016] obtaining joint states for a first group of k joints of the arm, where k>1; [0017] for each of the k joints: [0018] determining from the obtained joint state a permitted range of motion for that joint; [0019] deriving, using the permitted range of motion, a joint velocity limit for that joint; [0020] selecting the minimum joint velocity limit of the k joints to be a common joint velocity limit used to limit each of the k joints individually; and [0021] calculating drive signals for driving the k joints wherein the velocity of each of the k joints is limited using the common joint velocity limit.)
[0091] Performing these calculations for each of joints J1 to J4 will result in four joint velocity limits—one for each joint. In the present techniques, the most critical of these, e.g. the minimum joint velocity limit is considered. Thus, the minimum of the four joint velocity limits is selected to be a common joint velocity limit. The common joint velocity limit is a limit that can be applied to each of the four joints, J1 to J4, individually. )
EXAMINER NOTE: All velocity-limited joints are limited based on the limit of one joint. Joints J1-J4 correspond to a first set of joints, while the remaining joints may correspond to a second set of joints (Mottram appears to indicate that limiting of joints J5-J7 is optional).
Claim 4
Mottram teaches the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Mottram further teaches
wherein the surgical robot arm comprises an attachment for a surgical instrument at a distal end of the surgical robot arm,
wherein the most distal joint of the surgical robot arm is a roll joint that is arranged such that, when a surgical instrument comprising a shaft is attached to the attachment, an axis of rotation of the roll joint is collinear with a longitudinal axis of the shaft of the surgical instrument,
(Mottram - [0076] … The most distal limb 302c carries an attachment 305 for a surgical instrument 306.
[0080] … These subsequent joints may be the following type of joints: J5 (roll joint); J6 (pitch joint); J7 (yaw joint); J8 (roll joint).)
EXAMINER NOTE: See annotated Fig. 3 below. The shaft of instrument 306 is coaxial with roll joint J8, which is the most distal joint of the robot arm.
PNG
media_image2.png
514
671
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and wherein the roll joint is in the second set of one or more joints of the surgical robot arm.
(Mottram - [0091] Performing these calculations for each of joints J1 to J4 will result in four joint velocity limits—one for each joint. In the present techniques, the most critical of these, e.g. the minimum joint velocity limit is considered. Thus, the minimum of the four joint velocity limits is selected to be a common joint velocity limit. The common joint velocity limit is a limit that can be applied to each of the four joints, J1 to J4, individually. The common joint velocity limit can be applied to a joint more distal from joint J4, for example the wrist (i.e. J6/J7 intersection). Applying the common joint velocity limit to this more distal joint can cause the velocity of joints J1 to J4 to be limited.
[0105] It is also possible to limit the angular velocity of a joint distal of J4, for example the wrist joint. One way that this can be achieved is to consider a second Jacobian matrix (and inverse matrix, as described above with reference to deriving the common joint velocity limit) based on the joint angles of joints distal of J4, for example J5 to J7. The joint angle of J8 may also be taken into account, as desired.)
EXAMINER NOTE: While Mottrom indicates that J8 may be taken into account, Mottram's disclosure focuses on the case that J8 is not limited.
Claim 5
Mottram teaches the limitations of claim 4 as outlined above. Mottram further teaches
wherein said roll joint is the only joint in the second set of one or more joints of the surgical robot arm.
EXAMINER NOTE: See rejection of claim 4 above. While Mottrom indicates that J8 may be taken into account, Mottram's disclosure focuses on the case that J8 is not limited. This teaching anticipates cases where the only non-limited joint (joint of the second set) is the roll joint J8.
Claim 6
Mottram teaches the limitations of claim 4 as outlined above. Mottram further teaches
wherein the first set of joints comprises all of the joints of the surgical robot arm except for said roll joint.
EXAMINER NOTE: See rejection of claim 4 above. While Mottrom indicates that J8 may be taken into account, Mottram's disclosure focuses on the case that J8 is not limited. This teaching anticipates cases where the only non-limited joint (joint of the second set) is the roll joint J8. Because J8 is the only joint in the second set and the other joints J1-J7 are limited, each of the other joints must be part of the first set.
Claim 19
Mottram teaches the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Mottram further teaches
wherein the surgical robot arm comprises an attachment for a surgical instrument at a distal end of the surgical robot arm,
(Mottram - [0076] … The most distal limb 302c carries an attachment 305 for a surgical instrument 306.)
wherein a first plurality of the joints of the surgical robot arm form a first group of joints which are controllable to control a position of a wrist of the surgical robot arm,
(Mottram - [0080] A specific example of the present approach will now be described. This example refers to a surgical robot arm of the type illustrated in FIG. 3. In one example the robot arm comprises 8 joints. The first four joints from the base (J1 to J4), i.e. the four joints proximal to the base, enable a more distal portion of the arm to be positioned in 3D Cartesian space along the three orthogonal axes of that space.)
and wherein a second plurality of the joints of the surgical robot arm form a second group of joints which are controllable to control an orientation of the surgical instrument relative to the wrist,
(Mottram - [0080] … Subsequent joints, in this example the fifth to the eighth joints (J5 to J8) enable the portion of the arm distal of the fourth joint to be angularly rotated about that position.)
EXAMINER NOTE: For ease of reference, annotated Fig. 3 is again reproduced below
PNG
media_image2.png
514
671
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein if the limit would be exceeded due to desired motion of one of the joints in the first group of joints then the first group of joints is said first set of joints, and the second group of joints is said second set of one or more joints, and
wherein if the limit would be exceeded due to desired motion of one of the joints in the second group of joints then the second group of joints is said first set of joints, and the first group of joints is said second set of one or more joints.
(Mottram - [0091] Performing these calculations for each of joints J1 to J4 will result in four joint velocity limits—one for each joint. In the present techniques, the most critical of these, e.g. the minimum joint velocity limit is considered. Thus, the minimum of the four joint velocity limits is selected to be a common joint velocity limit. The common joint velocity limit is a limit that can be applied to each of the four joints, J1 to J4, individually. The common joint velocity limit can be applied to a joint more distal from joint J4, for example the wrist (i.e. J6/J7 intersection). Applying the common joint velocity limit to this more distal joint can cause the velocity of joints J1 to J4 to be limited.
[0105] It is also possible to limit the angular velocity of a joint distal of J4, for example the wrist joint. One way that this can be achieved is to consider a second Jacobian matrix (and inverse matrix, as described above with reference to deriving the common joint velocity limit) based on the joint angles of joints distal of J4, for example J5 to J7. The joint angle of J8 may also be taken into account, as desired.
[0106] The approach taken to calculate a further common joint velocity limit (or a common joint angular velocity limit) can be the same as described herein with respect to calculating the common joint velocity limit, where joints J5 to J7 are considered in place of joints J1 to J4. Where the further common joint velocity is applied to joints J5 to J7 individually, the scaling factor may be applied in a similar manner to that described elsewhere herein with reference to joints J1 to J4.)
EXAMINER NOTE: Separate limits are calculated for joints J1-J4 (first group) and J5-7 (second group), which anticipates one group being limited (first set) while the other is not limited (second set).
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) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brisson in view of Mottram664 (WO-2021198664-A1).
Claim 16
Brisson teaches the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Brisson may not explicitly teach the following limitations in combination. However, Mottram664 teaches
wherein the mode is a compliant mode in which the received input which indicates a desired motion of the surgical robot arm is indicative of a force that a user has applied to the surgical robot arm,
(Mottram664 - [p.11, ln 21-25] In the compliant mode, the control system commands the surgical robot arm such that its configuration can be altered in response to an externally applied force or torque. In this way, an operating room nurse can push or pull any part of the robot arm to a desired position, and the part will move to that desired position and stay in that position notwithstanding the effect of gravity on it and on any parts depending from it. )
and wherein the control system is configured to generate a control signal for controlling the surgical robot arm to move in accordance with the force.
(Mottram664 - [p. 10, ln 32 thru p. 11, ln 9] Members of the operating room staff (e.g. an operating room nurse) can interact with the surgical robotic arm 301 - before, during and after an invasive medical procedure. In order to improve the ease and safety with which such interactions take place, the control system (e.g. control system 224 in Figure 2) can control the configuration of the robot arm 301 in response to forces applied directly to a robot arm by members of the operating room staff (e.g. by pushing a joint of the robot arm). The control system 224 is configured to receive sensory data from the force or torque sensors 308a-h indicative of a sensed force or torque at the surgical robot arm resulting from the externally applied force or torque, process the received sensory data, and send a command signal to the surgical robot arm to drive the robot arm such that the configuration of the robot arm is altered so as to comply with the externally applied force or torque.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Brisson by implementing Mottram664's suggestion to utilize force controls in order to improve the ease and safety with which staff interact with the robot.
Claim 17
The combination of Brisson and Mottram664 teaches the limitations of claim 16 as outlined above. Brisson further teaches
wherein the surgical robot arm comprises an attachment for a surgical instrument at a distal end of the surgical robot arm, and wherein the mode is an instrument change mode or an instrument adjust mode in which the control system is configured to control the surgical robot arm such that movement of a surgical instrument attached to the surgical robot arm is constrained to maintain an intersection between the surgical instrument and a pivot point.
(Brisson - [0076] FIGS. 7A-7B illustrate an additional redundant joint for use with exemplary manipulator arms—a first joint coupling a proximal portion of the manipulator arm to the base. The first joint is a proximal revolute joint J.sub.t that revolves the manipulator arm about a joint axis of joint J.sub.t. The proximal revolute includes a link 501 that offsets joint J.sub.t from the proximal revolute J.sub.t by a pre-determined distance or angle. The link 501 can be a curved linkage, as shown in FIG. 7A, or a linear or angled linkage, as shown in FIG. 7B. The joint axis of the joint J.sub.t may be aligned with the remote center RC or insertion point of the tool tip, as shown in the embodiment of FIG. 7A. In various embodiments, the joint axis of joint J.sub.t passes through the remote center, as does each other revolute joint axis in the manipulator arm, to prevent motion at the body wall and can therefore be moved during surgery.
[0079] Another advantage of the distal revolute joint J7 is that it may reduce the patient clearance cone, which is the swept volume of the distal portion of the manipulator arm proximal of the insertion point that should clear the patient to avoid collision between the patient and the instrument holder or distal linkages of the manipulator arm. FIG. 11A illustrates the patient clearance cone of the proximal portion of the manipulator arm while the angular displacement of the distal revolute joint remains at 0°. FIG. 11B illustrates the reduced patient clearance cone of the proximal portion of the manipulator arm while the distal revolute joint is shown having an angular displacement of 90° about its axis. Thus, in procedures having minimal patient clearance near the insertion point, use of the joint J7 in accordance with the present invention may provide additional clearance while maintaining the remote center location or the position of the end effector as desired.)
EXAMINER NOTE: Brisson provides at least the above examples of control in which the instrument maintains its intersection with a remote center (insertion point or pivot point).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hourtash (US 20230263585 A1) discusses ways in which various sets of joints (drivable structures in their disclosure) may be limited under various circumstances.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES MILLER WATTS whose telephone number is (703)756-1249. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-TH.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 571-270-5376. 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.
/JAMES MILLER WATTS III/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights