DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hourtash (US 20160213435 A1) in view of Conti (US 20100032255 A1)
Regarding claim 21, Hourtash teaches A robotic system, comprising: ([0010] Embodiments of the present invention generally provide improved robotic and/or surgical devices, systems, and methods. In one embodiment, a method for controlling the movement of a mechanical body is disclosed)
an instrument having an end effector; (Fig. 6a instrument 604 [0020] FIG. 6A is a perspective view of a robotic surgery tool that includes an end effector having opposing clamping jaws in accordance with an embodiment.)
a robotic arm configured to control movement of the end effector; ([0084] The control system may include one or more processors for effecting control between the master control device input and responsive robotic arm and surgical instrument output and for effecting control between robotic arm and surgical instrument input and responsive master control output in the case of, e.g., force feedback)
an input device configured to receive an input for controlling movement of the end effector ([0080] FIG. 7A is a perspective view of a master control input device 700 that may be part of a surgeon's console 16 (FIG. 1A) in accordance with an embodiment. The master control 700 includes a gimbal or wrist 720 that is operatively coupled to an articulated arm 740.), the instrument being capable of moving in fewer number of degrees-of- freedom (DOFs) than the input device; ([0082] In some embodiments, input device 700 may have a sufficient number of degrees of freedom to fully control the position of an end effector. For example, the input device 700 may have six degrees of freedom that may independently control the three translation and three orientation degrees of freedom of an end effector of the instrument 511. In some cases, even though the input device 700 has such a sufficient number of degrees of freedom, the manipulator assembly (e.g., manipulator arm 500) has a number of degrees of freedom that is insufficient to independently control the three translation and three orientation degrees of freedom of the end effector. For example, the manipulator arm 500 may have only five degrees of freedom)
at least one processor; and ([0011] he system also includes a processor coupled to the actuators, the processor being operable to generate movement commands for actuating at least one of the actuators based on information identifying a desired motion of a second number of degrees of freedom greater than the first number of degrees of freedom.)
at least one computer-readable memory in communication with the at least one processor and having stored thereon computer-executable instructions to cause the at least one processor to: ([0174] The operations described in this application may be implemented as software code to be executed by one or more processors using any suitable computer language such as, for example, Java, C, C++ or Perl using, for example, conventional, sequential, or object-oriented techniques. The software code may be stored as a series of instructions, or commands on a computer-readable medium, such as a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), a magnetic medium such as a hard-drive or a floppy disk, flash memory, or an optical medium such as a CD-ROM.)
determine a robotic arm command for achieving the movement of the end effector indicated by the input; and ([0152] The kinematic Jacobian is the matrix of partial derivatives of Cartesian space position elements of the end effector with respect to joint space position elements. In this way, the kinematic Jacobian captures the kinematic relationship between the end effector and the joints of the manipulator assembly. In other words, the kinematic Jacobian captures the effect of joint motion on the end effector. The kinematic Jacobian (J) can be used to map joint-space velocities (dq/dt) to Cartesian space end effector velocities (dx/dt)…Thus, even when there is no closed-form mapping between input and output positions, mappings of the velocities can iteratively be used, such as in a Jacobian-based controller, to implement a movement of the manipulator from a commanded user input)
Hourtash does not expressly disclose but Conti discloses cause force feedback to the input device that constrains movement of the input device to the fewer number of DOFs. ([0003] there is provided a force-feedback apparatus, comprising a first member, a first kinematics bond being coupled with said first member; said first kinematics bond being constructed to provide at least one degree of freedom for movements of said first member, said first kinematics bond comprising a braking device being constructed to constrain movements of the said first member in at least one of said at least one degree of freedom;)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Hourtash with the teachings of Conti with a reasonable expectation of success by determining a force required to move the member in at least one constraint degree of freedom as taught by Conti ([0005]).
Regarding claim 22, Hourtash teaches The robotic system of Claim 21, the robotic arm command being determined based on a Jacobian matrix. ([0152] The kinematic Jacobian is the matrix of partial derivatives of Cartesian space position elements of the end effector with respect to joint space position elements. In this way, the kinematic Jacobian captures the kinematic relationship between the end effector and the joints of the manipulator assembly. In other words, the kinematic Jacobian captures the effect of joint motion on the end effector. The kinematic Jacobian (J) can be used to map joint-space velocities (dq/dt) to Cartesian space end effector velocities (dx/dt)…Thus, even when there is no closed-form mapping between input and output positions, mappings of the velocities can iteratively be used, such as in a Jacobian-based controller, to implement a movement of the manipulator from a commanded user input)
Regarding claim 23, Hourtash teaches The robotic system of Claim 21, the input device comprising a gimbal. ([0080] FIG. 7A is a perspective view of a master control input device 700 that may be part of a surgeon's console 16 (FIG. 1A) in accordance with an embodiment. The master control 700 includes a gimbal or wrist 720 that is operatively coupled to an articulated arm 740.)
Regarding claim 24, Hourtash teaches The robotic system of Claim 21, the input device having 6 DOFs and the instrument having 5 DOFs. ([0082] In some embodiments, input device 700 may have a sufficient number of degrees of freedom to fully control the position of an end effector. For example, the input device 700 may have six degrees of freedom that may independently control the three translation and three orientation degrees of freedom of an end effector of the instrument 511. In some cases, even though the input device 700 has such a sufficient number of degrees of freedom, the manipulator assembly (e.g., manipulator arm 500) has a number of degrees of freedom that is insufficient to independently control the three translation and three orientation degrees of freedom of the end effector. For example, the manipulator arm 500 may have only five degrees of freedom)
Regarding claim 25, Hourtash teaches The robotic system of Claim 21, the instrument being a surgical stapler, suction irrigator, straight harmonic tool, or articulating harmonic tool. ([0079] The surgical tool 600, endoscope 620, and overtube 30 are various tools that include a variety of components. However, it will be appreciated by those of ordinary skill in the art that these tools could operate equally well by having fewer or a greater number of components than are illustrated in FIGS. 6A to 6C. Further, it would will also be appreciated that other tools may also or alternatively be used, such as gripping devices, electrosurgical paddles, vacuums, irrigators, staplers, scissors, knifes, etc. Thus, the depiction of surgical tools in FIGS. 6A to 6C should be taken as being illustrative in nature, and not limiting to the scope of the disclosure)
Regarding claim 26, Hourtash teaches The robotic system of Claim 21, the instrument being a surgical stapler having 5 DOFs. ([0079] The surgical tool 600, endoscope 620, and overtube 30 are various tools that include a variety of components. However, it will be appreciated by those of ordinary skill in the art that these tools could operate equally well by having fewer or a greater number of components than are illustrated in FIGS. 6A to 6C. Further, it would will also be appreciated that other tools may also or alternatively be used, such as gripping devices, electrosurgical paddles, vacuums, irrigators, staplers, scissors, knifes, etc. Thus, the depiction of surgical tools in FIGS. 6A to 6C should be taken as being illustrative in nature, and not limiting to the scope of the disclosure [0082] In some embodiments, input device 700 may have a sufficient number of degrees of freedom to fully control the position of an end effector. For example, the input device 700 may have six degrees of freedom that may independently control the three translation and three orientation degrees of freedom of an end effector of the instrument 511. In some cases, even though the input device 700 has such a sufficient number of degrees of freedom, the manipulator assembly (e.g., manipulator arm 500) has a number of degrees of freedom that is insufficient to independently control the three translation and three orientation degrees of freedom of the end effector. For example, the manipulator arm 500 may have only five degrees of freedom)
Regarding claim 27, Hourtash teaches The robotic system of Claim 21, wherein the instrument being a suction irrigator having at least 4 DOFs. ([0163] For example, in some embodiments, there may only be four inputs at the manipulator assembly, where three are typically used to control movement such as roll, pitch, and yaw, and the fourth is typically used to control a single actuation of an instrument (e.g. suction activation))
Regarding claim 28, Hourtash teaches The robotic system of The robotic system of the instrument being incapable of movement in a yaw DOF of the end effector, and the force feedback restricting movement of the input device in a yaw DOF of the input device. ([0078] The non-wristed endoscope has a reduced number of degrees of freedom compared to the wristed endoscope, and in this particular example, non-wristed endoscope 640 does not have a wrist pitch or wrist yaw.)
Regarding claim 29, Hourtash teaches The robotic system of Claim 21, the input device being capable of movement in a DOF in which the instrument is incapable of movement, and the force feedback restricting movement of the input device in the DOF in which the instrument is incapable of movement. ([0048] For example, where the remote tool is a rigid endoscope extending through a minimally invasive aperture (so that the endoscope pivots at the aperture), two manipulator degrees of freedom may not be available (those often associated with a tool wrist adjacent the end effector, e.g., wrist pitch and yaw. Each of these two missing manipulator degrees of freedom affects both translations and orientations of the end effector.)
Regarding claim 30, Hourtash teaches A method comprising: (Claim 2. A method of moving a surgical instrument)
receiving, via an input device, an input for controlling movement of a medical instrument ([0080] FIG. 7A is a perspective view of a master control input device 700 that may be part of a surgeon's console 16 (FIG. 1A) in accordance with an embodiment. The master control 700 includes a gimbal or wrist 720 that is operatively coupled to an articulated arm 740.), the medical instrument having a fewer number of degrees-of-freedom (DOFs) than the input device; ([0082] In some embodiments, input device 700 may have a sufficient number of degrees of freedom to fully control the position of an end effector. For example, the input device 700 may have six degrees of freedom that may independently control the three translation and three orientation degrees of freedom of an end effector of the instrument 511. In some cases, even though the input device 700 has such a sufficient number of degrees of freedom, the manipulator assembly (e.g., manipulator arm 500) has a number of degrees of freedom that is insufficient to independently control the three translation and three orientation degrees of freedom of the end effector. For example, the manipulator arm 500 may have only five degrees of freedom)
determining a robotic arm command for achieving the movement of the medical instrument indicated by the input; and ([0152] The kinematic Jacobian is the matrix of partial derivatives of Cartesian space position elements of the end effector with respect to joint space position elements. In this way, the kinematic Jacobian captures the kinematic relationship between the end effector and the joints of the manipulator assembly. In other words, the kinematic Jacobian captures the effect of joint motion on the end effector. The kinematic Jacobian (J) can be used to map joint-space velocities (dq/dt) to Cartesian space end effector velocities (dx/dt)…Thus, even when there is no closed-form mapping between input and output positions, mappings of the velocities can iteratively be used, such as in a Jacobian-based controller, to implement a movement of the manipulator from a commanded user input)
Hourtash does not expressly disclose but Conti discloses providing force feedback to the input device that constrains motion of the input device to the fewer number of degrees of freedom. ([0003] there is provided a force-feedback apparatus, comprising a first member, a first kinematics bond being coupled with said first member; said first kinematics bond being constructed to provide at least one degree of freedom for movements of said first member, said first kinematics bond comprising a braking device being constructed to constrain movements of the said first member in at least one of said at least one degree of freedom;)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Hourtash with the teachings of Conti with a reasonable expectation of success by determining a force required to move the member in at least one constraint degree of freedom as taught by Conti ([0005]).
Regarding claim 31, Hourtash teaches The method of Claim 30, the input device comprising a gimbal. ([0080] FIG. 7A is a perspective view of a master control input device 700 that may be part of a surgeon's console 16 (FIG. 1A) in accordance with an embodiment. The master control 700 includes a gimbal or wrist 720 that is operatively coupled to an articulated arm 740.)
Regarding claim 32, Hourtash teaches The method of Claim 30, the input device having 6 DOFs and the medical instrument having 5 DOFs. ([0082] In some embodiments, input device 700 may have a sufficient number of degrees of freedom to fully control the position of an end effector. For example, the input device 700 may have six degrees of freedom that may independently control the three translation and three orientation degrees of freedom of an end effector of the instrument 511. In some cases, even though the input device 700 has such a sufficient number of degrees of freedom, the manipulator assembly (e.g., manipulator arm 500) has a number of degrees of freedom that is insufficient to independently control the three translation and three orientation degrees of freedom of the end effector. For example, the manipulator arm 500 may have only five degrees of freedom)
Regarding claim 33, Hourtash teaches The method of The method of the medical instrument having an end effector incapable of movement in a yaw DOF, and the force feedback restricting movement of the input device in a yaw DOF of the input device. ([0078] The non-wristed endoscope has a reduced number of degrees of freedom compared to the wristed endoscope, and in this particular example, non-wristed endoscope 640 does not have a wrist pitch or wrist yaw.)
Regarding claim 34, Hourtash teaches The method of Claim 30, the input device being capable of movement in a DOF in which the medical instrument is incapable of movement, and the force feedback restricting movement of the input device in the DOF in which the medical instrument is incapable of movement. ([0048] For example, where the remote tool is a rigid endoscope extending through a minimally invasive aperture (so that the endoscope pivots at the aperture), two manipulator degrees of freedom may not be available (those often associated with a tool wrist adjacent the end effector, e.g., wrist pitch and yaw. Each of these two missing manipulator degrees of freedom affects both translations and orientations of the end effector.)
Regarding claim 35, Hourtash teaches A robotic system, comprising: ([0010] Embodiments of the present invention generally provide improved robotic and/or surgical devices, systems, and methods. In one embodiment, a method for controlling the movement of a mechanical body is disclosed)
a gimbal configured to receive an input for controlling movement of an end effector of an instrument via a robotic manipulator([0080] FIG. 7A is a perspective view of a master control input device 700 that may be part of a surgeon's console 16 (FIG. 1A) in accordance with an embodiment. The master control 700 includes a gimbal or wrist 720 that is operatively coupled to an articulated arm 740.), the end effector having fewer degrees-of-freedom (DOFs) than the gimbal; ([0082] In some embodiments, input device 700 may have a sufficient number of degrees of freedom to fully control the position of an end effector. For example, the input device 700 may have six degrees of freedom that may independently control the three translation and three orientation degrees of freedom of an end effector of the instrument 511. In some cases, even though the input device 700 has such a sufficient number of degrees of freedom, the manipulator assembly (e.g., manipulator arm 500) has a number of degrees of freedom that is insufficient to independently control the three translation and three orientation degrees of freedom of the end effector. For example, the manipulator arm 500 may have only five degrees of freedom)
at least one processor; and([0011] he system also includes a processor coupled to the actuators, the processor being operable to generate movement commands for actuating at least one of the actuators based on information identifying a desired motion of a second number of degrees of freedom greater than the first number of degrees of freedom.)
at least one computer-readable memory in communication with the at least one processor and having stored thereon computer-executable instructions to cause the at least one processor to: ([0174] The operations described in this application may be implemented as software code to be executed by one or more processors using any suitable computer language such as, for example, Java, C, C++ or Perl using, for example, conventional, sequential, or object-oriented techniques. The software code may be stored as a series of instructions, or commands on a computer-readable medium, such as a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), a magnetic medium such as a hard-drive or a floppy disk, flash memory, or an optical medium such as a CD-ROM.)
determine a robotic arm command for achieving the movement of the instrument indicated by the input; and ([0152] The kinematic Jacobian is the matrix of partial derivatives of Cartesian space position elements of the end effector with respect to joint space position elements. In this way, the kinematic Jacobian captures the kinematic relationship between the end effector and the joints of the manipulator assembly. In other words, the kinematic Jacobian captures the effect of joint motion on the end effector. The kinematic Jacobian (J) can be used to map joint-space velocities (dq/dt) to Cartesian space end effector velocities (dx/dt)…Thus, even when there is no closed-form mapping between input and output positions, mappings of the velocities can iteratively be used, such as in a Jacobian-based controller, to implement a movement of the manipulator from a commanded user input)
Hourtash does not expressly disclose but Conti discloses cause force feedback to the gimbal that constrains motion of the gimbal to the fewer DOFs of the end effector. ([0003] there is provided a force-feedback apparatus, comprising a first member, a first kinematics bond being coupled with said first member; said first kinematics bond being constructed to provide at least one degree of freedom for movements of said first member, said first kinematics bond comprising a braking device being constructed to constrain movements of the said first member in at least one of said at least one degree of freedom;)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Hourtash with the teachings of Conti with a reasonable expectation of success by determining a force required to move the member in at least one constraint degree of freedom as taught by Conti ([0005]).
Regarding claim 36, Hourtash teaches The robotic system of Claim 35, the gimbal being capable of movement in a DOF in which the end effector is incapable of movement, and the force feedback restricting movement of the gimbal in the DOF in which the instrument is incapable of movement. ([0048] For example, where the remote tool is a rigid endoscope extending through a minimally invasive aperture (so that the endoscope pivots at the aperture), two manipulator degrees of freedom may not be available (those often associated with a tool wrist adjacent the end effector, e.g., wrist pitch and yaw. Each of these two missing manipulator degrees of freedom affects both translations and orientations of the end effector.)
Regarding claim 37, Hourtash teaches The robotic system of Claim 35, the end effector being incapable of yaw movement, and the force feedback restricting yaw movement of the gimbal. ([0078] The non-wristed endoscope has a reduced number of degrees of freedom compared to the wristed endoscope, and in this particular example, non-wristed endoscope 640 does not have a wrist pitch or wrist yaw.)
Regarding claim 38, Hourtash teaches The robotic system of Claim 35, the gimbal having 6 DOFS, and the end effector having 5 DOFs. ([0082] In some embodiments, input device 700 may have a sufficient number of degrees of freedom to fully control the position of an end effector. For example, the input device 700 may have six degrees of freedom that may independently control the three translation and three orientation degrees of freedom of an end effector of the instrument 511. In some cases, even though the input device 700 has such a sufficient number of degrees of freedom, the manipulator assembly (e.g., manipulator arm 500) has a number of degrees of freedom that is insufficient to independently control the three translation and three orientation degrees of freedom of the end effector. For example, the manipulator arm 500 may have only five degrees of freedom)
Regarding claim 39, Hourtash teaches The robotic system of Claim 35, the gimbal being supported by a positioning platform that allows the gimbal to be manipulated in 6 DOFs, the force feedback restricting manipulation of the gimbal to fewer than 6 DOFs during the controlling of the movement of the instrument. ([0082] In some embodiments, input device 700 may have a sufficient number of degrees of freedom to fully control the position of an end effector. For example, the input device 700 may have six degrees of freedom that may independently control the three translation and three orientation degrees of freedom of an end effector of the instrument 511. In some cases, even though the input device 700 has such a sufficient number of degrees of freedom, the manipulator assembly (e.g., manipulator arm 500) has a number of degrees of freedom that is insufficient to independently control the three translation and three orientation degrees of freedom of the end effector. For example, the manipulator arm 500 may have only five degrees of freedom)
Regarding claim 40, Hourtash teaches The robotic system of Claim 35, the robotic arm command being determined based on a Jacobian matrix. ([0152] The kinematic Jacobian is the matrix of partial derivatives of Cartesian space position elements of the end effector with respect to joint space position elements. In this way, the kinematic Jacobian captures the kinematic relationship between the end effector and the joints of the manipulator assembly. In other words, the kinematic Jacobian captures the effect of joint motion on the end effector. The kinematic Jacobian (J) can be used to map joint-space velocities (dq/dt) to Cartesian space end effector velocities (dx/dt)…Thus, even when there is no closed-form mapping between input and output positions, mappings of the velocities can iteratively be used, such as in a Jacobian-based controller, to implement a movement of the manipulator from a commanded user input)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH TRAN whose telephone number is (313)446-6642. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm M-F.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/S.A.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights