Medical robotic system providing an auxiliary view including range of motion limitations for articulatable instruments extending out of a distal end of an entry guide

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 11382702
  • Patent Number
    11,382,702
  • Date Filed
    Wednesday, June 19, 2019
    4 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, July 12, 2022
    a year ago
Abstract
A medical robotic system includes an entry guide with surgical tools and a camera extending out of its distal end. To supplement the view provided by an image captured by the camera, an auxiliary view including articulatable arms of the surgical tools and/or camera is generated from sensed or otherwise determined information about their positions and orientations are displayed along with indications of range of motion limitations on a display screen from the perspective of a specified viewing point.
Description
FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention generally relates to medical robotic systems and in particular, to a medical robotic system providing an auxiliary view including range of motion limitations for articulatable instruments extending out of a distal end of an entry guide.


BACKGROUND

Medical robotic systems such as teleoperative systems used in performing minimally invasive surgical procedures offer many benefits over traditional open surgery techniques, including less pain, shorter hospital stays, quicker return to normal activities, minimal scarring, reduced recovery time, and less injury to tissue. Consequently, demand for such medical robotic systems is strong and growing.


One example of such a medical robotic system is the da Vinci® Surgical System from Intuitive Surgical, Inc., of Sunnyvale, Calif., which is a minimally invasive robotic surgical system. The da Vinci® Surgical System has a number of robotic arms that move attached medical devices, such as an image capturing device and Intuitive Surgical's proprietary EndoWrist® articulating surgical instruments, in response to movement of input devices by a surgeon viewing images captured by the image capturing device of a surgical site. Each of the medical devices is inserted through its own minimally invasive incision into the patient and positioned to perform a medical procedure at the surgical site. The incisions are placed about the patient's body so that the surgical instruments may be used to cooperatively perform the medical procedure and the image capturing device may view it without their robotic arms colliding during the procedure.


To perform certain medical procedures, it may be advantageous to use a single entry aperture, such as a minimally invasive incision or a natural body orifice, to enter a patient to perform a medical procedure. For example, an entry guide may first be inserted, positioned, and held in place in the entry aperture. Instruments such as an articulatable camera and a plurality of articulatable surgical tools, which are used to perform the medical procedure, may then be inserted into a proximal end of the entry guide so as to extend out of its distal end. Thus, the entry guide provides a single entry aperture for multiple instruments while keeping the instruments bundled together as it guides them toward the work site. The entry guide may be either rigid or flexible.


Since the entry guide generally has a relatively small diameter in order to fit through a minimally invasive incision or a natural body orifice, a number of problems may arise while teleoperating the surgical tools to perform the medical procedure and the camera to view it. For example, because the camera is bundled with the surgical tools, it is limited in its positioning relative to the surgical tools and consequently, its view of the surgical tools.


Thus, although the tips of the articulatable surgical tools may be kept in the field of view of the camera, controllable linkages which facilitate the articulatability of the surgical tools may not be in the field of view of the camera. As a consequence, the controllable linkages of the surgical tools may inadvertently collide with each other (or with a link of the camera) during the performance of a medical procedure and as a result, cause harm to the patient or otherwise adversely impact the performance of the medical procedure.


Also, since the articulatable camera is generally incapable of viewing its own controllable linkage, operator movement of the camera is especially a concern where collisions with the surgical tool links are to be avoided. Further, when intuitive control is provided to assist the operator in teleoperatively moving the surgical tools and camera, the motions of the linkages required to produce such intuitive motions of the tips of the tools and camera may not be obvious or intuitive to the operator, thus making it even more difficult for the operator to avoid collisions between linkages that are outside the field of view of the camera.


Well positioned placements of the entry guide and the articulatable instruments extending out of its distal end allow unencumbered movement and wide range of motion for the instruments so that they may be used to perform a medical procedure at a target site. Due to the restricted view provided by the camera, however, it may be difficult for an operator to determine such a well positioned placement of the entry guide or well positioned placement of the articulatable instruments extending out of its distal end. Further, such a bundled instrument arrangement is prone to getting into non-optimal tool working orientations in ordinary use due in large part to the camera instrument's abilities to pan and tilt.


OBJECTS AND BRIEF SUMMARY

Accordingly, one object of one or more aspects of the present invention is a method that provides an auxiliary view to an operator to assist the operator in performing a medical procedure on a patient using a medical robotic system having articulatable instruments extending out of a distal end of an entry guide inserted through a single entry aperture in the patient.


Another object of one or more aspects of the present invention is a method implemented in such a medical robotic system that provides a visual indication to an operator that indicates when controllable joints of the articulatable instruments are nearing limitations in their respective ranges of motion.


Another object of one or more aspects of the present invention is a method implemented in a medical robotic system that provides a visual indication to an operator that indicates when joints and/or links and/or portions thereof of the articulatable instruments are nearing an undesirable or desirable event or condition.


These and additional objects are accomplished by the various aspects of the present invention, wherein briefly stated, the embodiments of the invention are summarized by the claims that follow below.


Additional objects, features and advantages of the various aspects of the present invention will become apparent from the following description of its preferred embodiment, which description should be taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS


FIG. 1 illustrates a top view of an operating room employing a medical robotic system utilizing aspects of the present invention.



FIG. 2 illustrates a block diagram of components for controlling and selectively associating device manipulators to left and right hand-manipulatable input devices in a medical robotic system utilizing aspects of the present invention.



FIGS. 3-4 respectively illustrate top and side views of an articulatable camera and a pair of articulatable surgical tools extending out of a distal end of an entry guide as used in a medical robotic system utilizing aspects of the present invention.



FIG. 5 illustrates a perspective view of an entry guide and its four degrees-of-freedom movement as used in a medical robotic system utilizing aspects of the present invention.



FIG. 6 illustrates a cross-sectional view of an entry guide with passages defined therein that extend between its proximal and distal ends as used in a medical robotic system utilizing aspects of the present invention.



FIG. 7 illustrates a block diagram of interacting components of an entry guide manipulator as used in a medical robotic system utilizing aspects of the present invention.



FIG. 8 illustrates a block diagram of interacting components of an articulatable instrument manipulator and an articulatable instrument as used in a medical robotic system utilizing aspects of the present invention.



FIG. 9 illustrates a flow diagram of a method for providing a computer generated auxiliary view, utilizing aspects of the present invention.



FIG. 10 illustrates a data and processing flow diagram to determine instrument link positions and orientations using instrument joint positions and forward kinematics, as used in a medical robotic system utilizing aspects of the present invention.



FIG. 11 illustrates a data and processing flow diagram to determine instrument joint positions using a sensed instrument tip position and inverse kinematics, as used in a medical robotic system utilizing aspects of the present invention.



FIGS. 12-13 respectively illustrate top and side auxiliary views as generated and displayed on a display screen by a method implemented in a medical robotic system utilizing aspects of the present invention.



FIG. 14 illustrates top and side auxiliary views as generated and displayed in separate windows on a display screen by a method implemented in a medical robotic system utilizing aspects of the present invention.



FIG. 15 illustrates an auxiliary view displayed adjacent to an image captured by the articulatable camera on a monitor in a medical robotic system utilizing aspects of the present invention.



FIG. 16 illustrates an auxiliary side view of an articulatable camera having a frustum as generated and displayed by a method implemented in a medical robotic system utilizing aspects of the present invention on a display screen.



FIG. 17 illustrates a combined display of an auxiliary view of a pair of articulatable surgical tools from a viewing point of a camera, along with an image captured by the camera, as generated and displayed by a method implemented in a medical robotic system utilizing aspects of the present invention on a display screen.



FIG. 18 illustrates a flow diagram of a method for providing auxiliary viewing modes that correspond to device control modes in a medical robotic system, utilizing aspects of the present invention.



FIG. 19 illustrates a diagram of a side view of an articulatable instrument extending out of a distal end of an entry guide in a medical robotic system utilizing aspects of the present invention.



FIG. 20 illustrates an auxiliary view of articulatable instruments retracted into an entry guide along with indications of range of motion limitations utilizing aspects of the present invention.



FIG. 21 illustrates an auxiliary view of articulatable instruments extending out of an entry guide along with indications of range of motion limitations utilizing aspects of the present invention.



FIGS. 22-25 illustrate various graphical displays indicating the extension of an articulatable instrument out of a distal end of an entry guide as used in a medical robotic system utilizing aspects of the present invention.



FIG. 26 illustrates a graphical representation of grippers as used in a medical robotic system utilizing aspects of the present invention.



FIG. 27 illustrates a graphical representation of an articulatable camera as used in a medical robotic system utilizing aspects of the present invention.



FIG. 28 illustrates a simplified auxiliary view of a poorly positioned entry guide with respect to articulatable instruments extending out of its distal end in a medical robotic system utilizing aspects of the present invention.



FIG. 29 illustrates a simplified auxiliary view of a repositioned entry guide with articulatable instruments extending out of its distal end in a medical robotic system utilizing aspects of the present invention.



FIG. 30 illustrates auxiliary views of articulatable instruments extending out of an entry guide along with an image captured by one of the instruments as displayed on a monitor in a medical robotic system utilizing aspects of the present invention.





DETAILED DESCRIPTION


FIG. 1 illustrates, as an example, a top view of an operating room in which a medical robotic system 100 is being utilized by a Surgeon 20 for performing a medical procedure on a Patient 40 who is lying face up on an operating table 50. One or more Assistants 30 may be positioned near the Patient 40 to assist in the procedure while the Surgeon 20 performs the procedure teleoperatively by manipulating input devices 108, 109 on a surgeon console 10.


In the present example, an entry guide (EG) 200 is inserted through a single entry aperture 150 into the Patient 40. Although the entry aperture 150 is a minimally invasive incision in the present example, in the performance of other medical procedures, it may instead be a natural body orifice. The entry guide 200 is held and manipulated by a robotic arm assembly 130.


As with other parts of the medical robotic system 100, the illustration of the robotic arm assembly 130 is simplified in FIG. 1. In one example of the medical robotic system 100, the robotic arm assembly 130 includes a setup arm and an entry guide manipulator. The setup arm is used to position the entry guide 200 at the entry aperture 150 so that it properly enters the entry aperture 150. The entry guide manipulator is then used to robotically insert and retract the entry guide 200 into and out of the entry aperture 150. It may also be used to robotically pivot the entry guide 200 in pitch, roll and yaw about a pivot point located at the entry aperture 150. An example of such an entry guide manipulator is the entry guide manipulator 202 of FIG. 2 and an example of the four degrees-of-freedom movement that it manipulates the entry guide 200 with is shown in FIG. 5.


The console 10 includes a 3-D monitor 104 for displaying a 3-D image of a surgical site to the Surgeon, left and right hand-manipulatable input devices 108, 109, and a processor (also referred to herein as a “controller”) 102. The input devices 108, 109 may include any one or more of a variety of input devices such as joysticks, gloves, trigger-guns, hand-operated controllers, or the like. Other input devices that are provided to allow the Surgeon to interact with the medical robotic system 100 include a foot pedal 105, a conventional voice recognition system 160 and a Graphical User Interface (GUI) 170.


An auxiliary display screen 140 is coupled to the console 10 (and processor 102) for providing auxiliary views to the Surgeon to supplement those shown on the monitor 104. A second auxiliary display screen 140′ is also coupled to the console 10 (and processor 102) for providing auxiliary views to the Assistant(s). An input device 180 is also coupled to the console to allow the Assistant(s) to select between available auxiliary views for display on the second auxiliary display screen 140′.


The console 10 is usually located in the same room as the Patient so that the Surgeon may directly monitor the procedure, is physically available if necessary, and is able to speak to the Assistant(s) directly rather than over the telephone or other communication medium. However, it will be understood that the Surgeon can also be located in a different room, a completely different building, or other remote location from the Patient allowing for remote surgical procedures. In such a case, the console 10 may be connected to the second auxiliary display screen 140′ and input device 180 through a network connection such as a local area network, wide area network, or the Internet.


As shown in FIGS. 3-4, the entry guide 200 has articulatable instruments such as articulatable surgical tools 231, 241 and an articulatable stereo camera 211 extending out of its distal end. Although only two tools 231, 241 are shown, the entry guide 200 may guide additional tools as required for performing a medical procedure at a work site in the Patient. For example, as shown in FIG. 4, a passage 351 is available for extending another articulatable surgical tool through the entry guide 200 and out through its distal end. Each of the surgical tools 231, 241 is associated with one of the input devices 108, 109 in a tool following mode. The Surgeon performs a medical procedure by manipulating the input devices 108, 109 so that the controller 102 causes corresponding movement of their respectively associated surgical tools 231, 241 while the Surgeon views the work site in 3-D on the console monitor 104 as images of the work site are being captured by the articulatable camera 211.


Preferably, input devices 108, 109 will be provided with at least the same degrees of freedom as their associated tools 231, 241 to provide the Surgeon with telepresence, or the perception that the input devices 108, 109 are integral with the tools 231, 241 so that the Surgeon has a strong sense of directly controlling the tools 231, 241. To this end, the monitor 104 is also positioned near the Surgeon's hands so that it will display a projected image that is oriented so that the Surgeon feels that he or she is actually looking directly down onto the work site and images of the tools 231, 241 appear to be located substantially where the Surgeon's hands are located.


In addition, the real-time image on the monitor 104 is preferably projected into a perspective image such that the Surgeon can manipulate the end effectors 331, 341 of the tools 231, 241 through their corresponding input devices 108, 109 as if viewing the work site in substantially true presence. By true presence, it is meant that the presentation of an image is a true perspective image simulating the viewpoint of an operator that is physically manipulating the end effectors 331, 341. Thus, the processor 102 may transform the coordinates of the end effectors 331, 341 to a perceived position so that the perspective image being shown on the monitor 104 is the image that the Surgeon would see if the Surgeon was located directly behind the end effectors 331, 341.


The processor 102 performs various functions in the system 100. One important function that it performs is to translate and transfer the mechanical motion of input devices 108, 109 through control signals over bus 110 so that the Surgeon can effectively manipulate devices, such as the tools 231, 241, camera 211, and entry guide 200, that are selectively associated with the input devices 108, 109 at the time. Another function is to perform various methods and controller functions described herein.


Although described as a processor, it is to be appreciated that the processor 102 may be implemented in practice by any combination of hardware, software and firmware. Also, its functions as described herein may be performed by one unit or divided up among different components, each of which may be implemented in turn by any combination of hardware, software and firmware. Further, although being shown as part of or being physically adjacent to the console 10, the processor 102 may also comprise a number of subunits distributed throughout the system.


For additional details on the construction and operation of various aspects of a medical robotic system such as described herein, see, e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 6,493,608 “Aspects of a Control System of a Minimally Invasive Surgical Apparatus,” and U.S. Pat. No. 6,671,581 “Camera Referenced Control in a Minimally Invasive Surgical Apparatus,” which are incorporated herein by reference.



FIG. 2 illustrates, as an example, a block diagram of components for controlling and selectively associating device manipulators to the input devices 108, 109. Various surgical tools such as graspers, cutters, and needles may be used to perform a medical procedure at a work site within the Patient. In this example, two surgical tools 231, 241 are used to robotically perform the procedure and the camera 211 is used to view the procedure. The tools 231, 241 and camera 211 are inserted through passages in the entry guide 200. As described in reference to FIG. 1, the entry guide 200 is inserted into the Patient through entry aperture 150 using the setup portion of the robotic arm assembly 130 and maneuvered by the entry guide manipulator (EGM) 202 of the robotic arm assembly 130 towards the work site where the medical procedure is to be performed.


Each of the devices 231, 241, 211, 200 is manipulated by its own manipulator. In particular, the camera 211 is manipulated by a camera manipulator (ECM) 212, the first surgical tool 231 is manipulated by a first tool manipulator (PSM1) 232, the second surgical tool 241 is manipulated by a second tool manipulator (PSM2) 242, and the entry guide 200 is manipulated by an entry guide manipulator (EGM) 202. So as to not overly encumber the figure, the devices 231, 241, 211, 200 are not shown, only their respective manipulators 232, 242, 212, 202 are shown in the figure.


Each of the instrument manipulators 232, 242, 212 is a mechanical assembly that carries actuators and provides a mechanical, sterile interface to transmit motion to its respective articulatable instrument. Each instrument 231, 241, 211 is a mechanical assembly that receives the motion from its manipulator and, by means of a cable transmission, propagates the motion to its distal articulations (e.g., joints). Such joints may be prismatic (e.g., linear motion) or rotational (e.g., they pivot about a mechanical axis). Furthermore, the instrument may have internal mechanical constraints (e.g., cables, gearing, cams, belts, etc.) that force multiple joints to move together in a pre-determined fashion. Each set of mechanically constrained joints implements a specific axis of motion, and constraints may be devised to pair rotational joints (e.g., joggle joints). Note also that in this way the instrument may have more joints than the available actuators.


In contrast, the entry guide manipulator 202 has a different construction and operation. A description of the parts and operation of the entry guide manipulator 202 is described below in reference to FIG. 7.


In this example, each of the input devices 108, 109 may be selectively associated with one of the devices 211, 231, 241, 200 so that the associated device may be controlled by the input device through its controller and manipulator. For example, by placing switches 258, 259 respectively in tool following modes “T2” and “T1”, the left and right input devices 108, 109 may be respectively associated with the first and second surgical tools 231, 241, which are telerobotically controlled through their respective controllers 233, 243 (preferably implemented in the processor 102) and manipulators 232, 242 so that the Surgeon may perform a medical procedure on the Patient while the entry guide 200 is locked in place.


When the camera 211 or the entry guide 200 is to be repositioned by the Surgeon, either one or both of the left and right input devices 108, 109 may be associated with the camera 211 or entry guide 200 so that the Surgeon may move the camera 211 or entry guide 200 through its respective controller (213 or 203) and manipulator (212 or 202). In this case, the disassociated one(s) of the surgical tools 231, 241 is locked in place relative to the entry guide 200 by its controller. For example, by placing switches 258, 259 respectively in camera positioning modes “C2” and “C1”, the left and right input devices 108, 109 may be associated with the camera 211, which is telerobotically controlled through its controller 213 (preferably implemented in the processor 102) and manipulator 212 so that the Surgeon may position the camera 211 while the surgical tools 231, 241 and entry guide 200 are locked in place by their respective controllers 233, 243, 203. If only one input device is to be used for positioning the camera, then only one of the switches 258, 259 is placed in its camera positioning mode while the other one of the switches 258, 259 remains in its tool following mode so that its respective input device may continue to control its associated surgical tool.


On the other hand, by placing switches 258, 259 respectively in entry guide positioning modes “G2” and “G1”, the left and right input devices 108, 109 may be associated with the entry guide 200, which is telerobotically controlled through its controller 203 (preferably implemented in the processor 102) and manipulator 202 so that the Surgeon may position the entry guide 200 while the surgical tools 231, 241 and camera 211 are locked in place relative to the entry guide 200 by their respective controllers 233, 243, 213. As with the camera positioning mode, if only one input device is to be used for positioning the entry guide, then only one of the switches 258, 259 is placed in its entry guide positioning mode while the other one of the switches 258, 259 remains in its tool following mode so that its respective input device may continue to control its associated surgical tool.


The selective association of the input devices 108, 109 to other devices in this example may be performed by the Surgeon using the GUI 170 or the voice recognition system 160 in a conventional manner. Alternatively, the association of the input devices 108, 109 may be changed by the Surgeon depressing a button on one of the input devices 108, 109 or depressing the foot pedal 105, or using any other well known mode switching technique.



FIGS. 3-4 respectively illustrate, as examples, top and right side views of a distal end of the entry guide 200 with the camera 211 and surgical tools 231, 241 extending outward. As shown in a perspective view of a simplified (not to scale) entry guide 200 in FIG. 5, the entry guide 200 is generally cylindrical in shape and has a longitudinal axis X′ running centrally along its length. The pivot point, which is also referred to as a remote center “RC”, serves as an origin for both a fixed reference frame having X, Y and Z axes as shown and an entry guide reference frame having X′, Y′ and Z′ axes as shown. When the system 100 is in the entry guide positioning mode, the entry guide manipulator 202 is capable of pivoting the entry guide 200 in response to movement of one or more associated input devices about the Z axis (which remains fixed in space) at the remote center “RC” in yaw ψ. In addition, the entry guide manipulator 202 is capable of pivoting the entry guide 200 in response to movement of the one or more input devices about the Y′ axis (which is orthogonal to the longitudinal axis X′ of the entry guide 200) in pitch θ, capable of rotating the entry guide 200 about its longitudinal axis X′ in roll Φ, and linearly moving the entry guide 200 along its longitudinal axis X′ in insertion/retraction or in/out “I/O” directions in response to movement of the one or more associated input devices. Note that unlike the Z-axis which is fixed in space, the X′ and Y′ axes move with the entry guide 200.


As shown in FIG. 7, the entry guide manipulator (EGM) 202 has four actuators 701-704 for actuating the four degrees-of-freedom movement of the entry guide 200 (i.e., pitch θ, yaw ψ, roll Φ, and in/out I/O) and four corresponding assemblies 711-714 to implement them.


Referring back to FIGS. 3-4, the articulatable camera 211 extends through passage 321 and the articulatable surgical tools 231, 241 respectively extend through passages 431, 441 of the entry guide 200. The camera 211 includes a tip 311 (which houses a stereo camera connected to a camera controller and a fiber-optic cable connected to an external light source), first, second, and third links 322, 324, 326, first and second joint assemblies (also referred to herein simply as “joints”) 323, 325, and a wrist assembly 327. The first joint assembly 323 couples the first and second links 322, 324 and the second joint assembly 325 couples the second and third links 324, 326 so that the second link 324 may pivot about the first joint assembly 323 in pitch and yaw while the first and third links 322, 326 remain parallel to each other.


The first and second joints 323, 325 are referred to as “joggle joints”, because they cooperatively operate together so that as the second link 324 pivots about the first joint 323 in pitch and/or yaw, the third link 326 pivots about the second joint 325 in a complementary fashion so that the first and third links 322, 326 always remain parallel to each other. The first link 322 may also rotate around its longitudinal axis in roll as well as move in and out (e.g., insertion towards the work site and retraction from the worksite) through the passage 321. The wrist assembly 327 also has pitch and yaw angular movement capability so that the camera's tip 311 may be oriented up or down and to the right or left, and combinations thereof.


The joints and links of the tools 231, 241 are similar in construction and operation to those of the camera 211. In particular, the tool 231 includes an end effector 331 (having jaws 338, 339), first, second, and third links 332, 334, 336, first and second joint assemblies 333, 335, and a wrist assembly 337 that are driven by actuators such as described in reference to FIG. 8 (plus an additional actuator for actuating the end effector 331). Likewise, the tool 241 includes an end effector 341 (having jaws 348, 349), first, second, and third links 342, 344, 346, first and second joint assemblies 343,345, and a wrist assembly 347 that are also driven by actuators such as described in reference to FIG. 8 (plus an additional actuator for actuating the end effector 341).



FIG. 8 illustrates, as an example, a diagram of interacting parts of an articulatable instrument (such as the articulatable camera 211 and the articulatable surgical tools 231, 241) and its corresponding instrument manipulator (such as the camera manipulator 212 and the tool manipulators 232, 242). Each of the instruments includes a number of actuatable assemblies 821-823, 831-833, 870 for effectuating articulation of the instrument (including its end effector), and its corresponding manipulator includes a number of actuators 801-803, 811-813, 860 for actuating the actuatable assemblies.


In addition, a number of interface mechanisms may also be provided. For example, pitch/yaw coupling mechanisms 840, 850 (respectively for the joggle joint pitch/yaw and the wrist pitch/yaw) and gear ratios 845, 855 (respectively for the instrument roll and the end effector actuation) are provided in a sterile manipulator/instrument interface to achieve the required range of motion of the instrument joints in instrument joint space while both satisfying compactness constraints in the manipulator actuator space and preserving accurate transmissions of motion across the interface. Although shown as a single block 840, the coupling between the joggle joint actuators 801, 802 (differentiated as #1 and #2) and joggle joint pitch/yaw assemblies 821, 822 may include a pair of coupling mechanisms—one on each side of the sterile interface (i.e., one on the manipulator side of the interface and one on the instrument side of the interface). Likewise, although shown as a single block 850, the coupling between the wrist actuators 812, 813 (differentiated as #1 and #2) and wrist pitch/yaw joint assemblies 832, 833 may also comprise a pair of coupling mechanisms—one on each side of the sterile interface.


Both the joggle joint pitch assembly 821 and the joggle joint yaw assembly 822 share the first, second and third links (e.g., links 322, 324, 326 of the articulatable camera 211) and the first and second joints (e.g., joints 322, 325 of the articulatable camera 211). In addition to these shared components, the joggle joint pitch and yaw assemblies 821, 822 also include mechanical couplings that couple the first and second joints (through joggle coupling 840) to the joggle joint pitch and yaw actuators 801, 802 so that the second link may controllably pivot about a line passing through the first joint and along an axis that is latitudinal to the longitudinal axis of the first link (e.g., link 322 of the articulatable camera 211) and the second link may controllably pivot about a line passing through the first joint and along an axis that is orthogonal to both the latitudinal and longitudinal axes of the first link.


The in/out (I/O) assembly 823 includes the first link (e.g., link 322 of the articulatable camera 211) and interfaces through a drive train coupling the in/out (I/O) actuator 803 to the first link so that the first link is controllably moved linearly along its longitudinal axis by actuation of the I/O actuator 803. The roll assembly 831 includes the first link and interfaces through one or more gears (i.e., having the gear ratio 845) that couple a rotating element of the roll actuator 811 (such as a rotor of a motor) to the first link so that the first link is controllably rotated about its longitudinal axis by actuation of the roll actuator 811.


The instrument manipulator (e.g., camera manipulator 212) includes wrist actuators 812, 813 that actuate through wrist coupling 850 pitch and yaw joints 832, 833 of the wrist assembly (e.g., wrist 327 of the articulatable camera 211) so as to cause the instrument tip (e.g., camera tip 311) to controllably pivot in an up-down (i.e., pitch) and side-to-side (i.e., yaw) directions relative to the wrist assembly. The grip assembly 870 includes the end effector (e.g., end effector 331 of the surgical tool 231) and interfaces through one or more gears (i.e., having the gear ratio 855) that couple the grip actuator 860 to the end effector so as to controllably actuate the end effector.



FIG. 9 illustrates, as an example, a flow diagram of a method implemented in controller 102 of the medical robotic system 100 for providing a computer generated auxiliary view including articulatable instruments, such as the articulatable camera 211 and/or one or more of the articulatable surgical tools 231, 241, extending out of the distal end of the entry guide 200. For the purposes of this example, it is assumed that the articulatable camera 211 and surgical tools 231, 241 extend out of the distal end of the entry guide 200 and are included in the auxiliary view. However, it is to be appreciated that the method is applicable to any combination of articulatable instruments, including those without an articulatable camera and/or those with an alternative type of image capturing device such as an ultrasound probe. It is further to be appreciated that the method is applicable to articulatable instruments with more or less controllable joints than those described herein. In particular, the method is also applicable to highly jointed or otherwise bendable instruments and/or entry guides such as those that may be used to controllably navigate through various twists and turns in a patient's body to a target site for performing a medical procedure.


In 901, the method determines whether or not an auxiliary view is to be generated. If the determination in 901 is NO, then the method loops back to periodically check to see whether the situation has changed. On the other hand, if the determination in 901 is YES, then the method proceeds to 902. The indication that an auxiliary view is to be generated may be programmed into the controller 102, created automatically or created by operator command.


In 902, the method receives state information, such as positions and orientations, for each of the instruments 211, 231, 241 and the entry guide 200. This information may be provided by encoders coupled to the actuators in their respective manipulators 212, 232, 242, 202. Alternatively, the information may be provided by sensors coupled to joints and/or links of the instruments 211, 231, 241 and the entry guide manipulator 202, or the coupling mechanisms, gears and drive trains of the interface between corresponding manipulators and instruments, so as to measure their movement. In this second case, the sensors may be included in the instruments 211, 231, 241 and entry guide manipulator 202 such as rotation sensors that sense rotational movement of rotary joints and linear sensors that sense linear movement of prismatic joints in the instruments 211, 231, 241 and entry guide manipulator 202. Other sensors may also be used for providing information of the positions and orientations of the instruments 211, 231, 241 and entry guide 200 such as external sensors that sense and track trackable elements, which may be active elements (e.g., radio frequency, electromagnetic, etc.) or passive elements (e.g., magnetic, etc.), placed at strategic points on the instruments 211, 231, 241, the entry guide 200 and/or the entry guide manipulator 202 (such as on their joints, links and/or tips).


In 903, the method generates a three-dimensional computer model of the articulatable camera 211 and articulatable surgical tools 231, 241 extending out of the distal end of the entry guide 200 using the information received in 902 and the forward kinematics and known constructions of the instruments 211, 231, 241, entry guide 200, and entry guide manipulator 202. The generated computer model in this example may be referenced to the remote center reference frame (X, Y, Z axes) depicted in FIG. 5. Alternatively, the generated computer model may be referenced to a reference frame defined at the distal end of the entry guide 200. In this latter case, if the orientation and extension of the entry guide 200 from the remote center does not have to be accounted for in the auxiliary view that is being generated by the method, then the position and orientation information for the entry guide 200 may be omitted in 902.


For example, referring to FIG. 10, if the state information received in 902 is the instruments' joint positions 1001, then this information may be applied to the instruments' forward kinematics 1002 using the instruments' kinematic models 1003 to generate the instruments' link positions and orientations 1005 relative to reference frame 1004. The same process may also be generally applied if the state information received in 902 is sensed states of the joggle coupling and gear mechanisms in the manipulator/instrument interfaces.


On the other hand, referring to FIG. 11, if the state information received in 902 is the instruments' tip positions 1101 (in the reference frame 1004), then this information may be applied to the instruments' inverse kinematics 1102 using the instruments' kinematic models 1003 and the sensor reference frame to generate the instruments' joint positions 1001. The instruments' joint positions 1001 may then be applied as described in reference to FIG. 10 to generate the instruments' link positions and orientations 1005 relative to reference frame 1004.


Alternatively, also referring to FIG. 11, if the state information provided in 902 is limited to only the camera's tip position, then the positions of the tips of the surgical tools 231, 241 may be determined relative to the camera reference frame by identifying the tips in the image captured by the camera 211 using conventional image processing techniques and then translating their positions to the reference frame 1004, so that the positions of the camera and tool tips may be applied as described in reference to FIGS. 10, 11 to generate the instruments' link positions and orientations 1005 relative to the reference frame 1004.


In 904, the method adjusts the view of the computer model of the articulatable camera 211 and articulatable surgical tools 231, 241 extending out of the distal end of the entry guide 200 in the three-dimensional space of the reference frame to a specified viewing point (wherein the term “viewing point” is to be understood herein to include position and orientation). For example, FIG. 12 illustrates a top view of the articulatable camera 211 and articulatable surgical tools 231, 241 extending out of the distal end of the entry guide 200 which corresponds to a viewing point above and slightly behind the distal end of the entry guide 200. As another example, FIG. 13 illustrates a side view of the articulatable camera 211 and articulatable surgical tools 231, 241 extending out of the distal end of the entry guide 200 which corresponds to a viewing point to the right and slightly in front of the distal end of the entry guide 200. Note that although the auxiliary views depicted in FIGS. 12-13 are two-dimensional, they may also be three-dimensional views since three-dimensional information is available from the generated computer model. In this latter case, the auxiliary display screen 140 that they are being displayed on would have to be a three-dimensional display screen like the monitor 104.


The viewing point may be set at a fixed point such as one providing an isometric (three-dimensional) view from the perspective shown in FIG. 12. This perspective provides a clear view to the surgeon of the articulatable camera 211 and the articulatable surgical tools 231, 241 when the tools 231, 241 are bent “elbows out” as shown (which is a typical configuration for performing a medical procedure using the surgical tools 231, 241). On the other hand, when a third surgical tool is being used (e.g., inserted in the passage 351 shown in FIG. 6), a side view from the perspective of FIG. 13 may additionally be useful since the third surgical tool may be beneath the articulatable camera 211 and therefore obscured by it in the perspective shown in FIG. 12.


Rather than setting the viewing point to a fixed point at all times, the viewing point may also be automatically changed depending upon the control mode (i.e., one of the modes described in reference to FIG. 2) that is operative at the time. As an example, FIG. 18 illustrates a method for automatically changing the auxiliary viewing mode depending upon the control mode currently operative in the medical robotic system 100. In particular, using this method, a first auxiliary viewing mode is performed in 1802 when the medical robotic system 100 is determined in 1801 to be in a tool following mode, a second auxiliary viewing mode is performed in 1804 when the medical robotic system 100 is determined in 1803 to be in an entry guide positioning mode, and a third auxiliary viewing mode is performed in 1806 when the medical robotic system 100 is determined in 1805 to be in a camera positioning mode. The viewing modes for each control mode are selected so as to be most beneficial to the surgeon for performing actions during that mode. For example, in the tool following and camera positioning modes, either or both the surgical tools 231, 241 and camera 211 is being moved at the time and therefore, an auxiliary view of the articulatable camera 211 and articulatable surgical tools 231, 241 extending out of the distal end of the entry guide 200, such as depicted in FIGS. 12 and 13, is useful to avoid collisions between links that are out of the field of view of the camera 211. On the other hand, in the entry guide positioning mode, the articulatable camera 211 and the articulatable surgical tools 231, 241 are locked in position relative to the entry guide 200 and therefore, an auxiliary view providing information on other things such as depicted in FIGS. 16 and 17, or a computer generated view of the entry guide 200 from a perspective in space, may be useful.


Alternatively, operator selectable means for changing the viewing point during the performance of a medical procedure may be provided. For example, the GUI 170 or voice recognition system 160 may be adapted to provide an interactive means for the Surgeon to select the viewing mode and/or change the viewing point of an auxiliary view of the articulatable camera 211 and/or articulatable surgical tools 231, 241 as they extend out of the distal end of the entry guide 200. Buttons on the input devices 108, 109 or the foot pedal 105 may also be used for Surgeon selection of viewing modes. For the Assistant(s), the input device 180 may be used along with a GUI associated with the display screen 140′ for selection of viewing modes. Thus, the viewing modes that the Surgeon and Assistant(s) see at the time may be optimized for their particular tasks at the time. Examples of such operator selectable viewing modes and viewing angles are depicted in FIGS. 12-17 and 20-30.


In 905, the method renders the computer model. Rendering in this case includes adding three-dimensional qualities such as known construction features of the instruments 211, 231, 241 and the distal end of the entry guide 200 to the model, filling-in any gaps to make solid models, and providing natural coloring and shading. In addition, rendering may include altering the color or intensity of one or more of the instruments 211, 231, 241 (or one or more of their joints or links or portions thereof) so that the instrument (or joint or link or portion thereof) stands out for identification purposes.


Alternatively, the altering of the color, intensity, or frequency of blinking on and off (e.g., flashing) of one or more of the instruments 211, 231, 241 (or their joints, links, or portions thereof) may serve as a warning that the instrument (or joint or link or portion thereof) is approaching an undesirable event or condition such as nearing a limit of its range of motion or getting too close to or colliding with another one of the instruments. When color is used as a warning, the color may go from a first color (e.g., green) to a second color (e.g., yellow) when a warning threshold of an event to be avoided (e.g., range of motion limitation or collision) is reached, and from the second color to a third color (e.g., red) when the event to be avoided is reached. When intensity is used as a warning, the intensity of the color changes as the instrument (or portion thereof) moves past the warning threshold towards the event to be avoided with a maximum intensity provided when the event is reached. When blinking of the color is used as a warning, the frequency of blinking changes as the instrument (or portion thereof) moves past the warning threshold towards the event to be avoided with a maximum frequency provided when the event is reached. The warning threshold may be based upon a range of motion of the instrument (or portion thereof, such as its joints) or upon a distance between the instrument (or portion thereof) and another instrument (or portion thereof) that it may collide with. Velocity of the instrument's movement may also be a factor in determining the warning threshold. The warning threshold may be programmed by the operator, using the GUI 170, for example, or determined automatically by a programmed algorithm in the processor 102 that takes into account other factors such as the velocity of the instruments' movements.


Alternatively, the altering of the color, intensity, or frequency of blinking on and off (e.g., flashing) of one or more of the instruments 211, 231, 241 (or their joints, links, or portions thereof) may serve as an alert that the instrument (or joint or link or portion thereof) is approaching a desirable event or condition such as an optimal position or configuration for performing or viewing a medical procedure. In this case, an alert threshold may be defined so that the color, intensity, and/or blinking of the one or more of the instruments 211, 231, 241 (or their joints, links, or portions thereof) may change in a similar manner as described previously with respect to warning thresholds and undesirable events or conditions, except that in this case, the change starts when the alert threshold is reached and maximizes or otherwise ends when the desirable event or condition is reached or otherwise achieved. The alert threshold may also be programmed by the operator or determined automatically by a programmed algorithm in a conceptually similar manner as the warning threshold.


As an example of such highlighting of an instrument for identification, warning or alerting purposes, FIG. 15 shows an auxiliary view of the camera 211 and surgical tools 231, 241 in a window 1502, where the camera 211 has been highlighted. As an example of such highlighting of joints of instruments for identification, warning or alerting purposes, FIG. 12 shows joints of the surgical tools 231, 241 that have been highlighted. As an example of highlighting portions of instruments for warning purposes, FIG. 14 shows a portion 1402 of the surgical tool 241 and a portion 1403 of the camera 211 highlighted to indicate that these portions are dangerously close to colliding.


Rendering may also include overlaying the image captured by the camera 211 over the auxiliary view when the viewing point of the auxiliary image is the same as or directly behind that of the camera 211. As an example, FIG. 17 illustrates a captured image 1700 of the camera 211 rendered as an overlay to an auxiliary view of surgical tools 231, 241 which has been generated from a viewing point of (or right behind) the camera 211. In this example, the auxiliary view of the surgical tools 231, 241 being displayed on the auxiliary display screen 140 (and/or the auxiliary display screen 140′) includes portions (e.g., 1731, 1741) in the overlaying captured image 1700 and portions (e.g., 1732, 1742) outside of the overlaying captured image 1700. Thus, the portions of the surgical tools 231, 241 outside of the captured image 1700 provide the Surgeon with additional information about their respective links or articulating arms that are out of the field of view of the camera 211. Highlighting of the instrument portions (e.g., 1732, 1742) outside of the captured image 1700 may also be done for identification purposes or to indicate a warning or alerting condition as described above. Overlaying the captured image 1700 onto the auxiliary view also has the advantage in this case of showing an anatomic structure 360 which is in front of the surgical tools 231, 241 that would not otherwise normally be in the auxiliary view. Although this example shows the captured image 1700 overlaying the auxiliary view on the auxiliary display screen 140, in another rendering scheme, the auxiliary view may overlay the captured image that is being displayed on the monitor 104.


Rather than overlaying the captured image, rendering may also include using the auxiliary view to augment the image captured by the camera 211 by displaying only the portions of the instruments 231, 241 that are not seen in the captured image (i.e., the dotted line portion of the instruments 231, 241 in FIG. 17) in proper alignment and adjacent the captured image in a mosaic fashion.


In addition to, or in lieu of, overlaying the captured image over the auxiliary view or augmenting the captured image with the auxiliary view, rendering may also include providing other useful information in the auxiliary view. As an example, FIG. 16 illustrates an auxiliary side view of an articulatable camera 211 with a frustum 1601 rendered on the auxiliary view so as to be displayed on the auxiliary display 140 as emanating from, and moving with, the camera tip 311. Note that although the frustum 1601 is shown in the figure as a truncated cone, it may also appear as a truncated pyramid to correspond to the captured image that is shown on the monitor 104. The sides of the frustum 1601 indicate a viewing range of the camera 211 and the base 1602 of the frustum 1601 displays an image 1650 that was captured by the camera 211. Note that for simplification purposes, the surgical tools 231, 241 normally in the auxiliary view have been removed for this example. As another example, FIG. 14 shows a semi-translucent sphere or bubble 1401 (preferably colored red) which is displayed by the method as part of the rendering process when a warning threshold is reached so as to indicate to the operator that the highlighted portions 1402, 1403 of the surgical tool 241 and camera 211 are close to colliding. In this case, the highlighted portions 1402, 1403 are preferably centered within the sphere. As yet another example, FIG. 14 also shows a marker or other indicator 1410 indicating an optimal position for the camera tip 311 for viewing the end effectors of the surgical tools 231, 241 as they are being used to perform a medical procedure. The optimal position may be determined, for example, by finding a location where the tips of the end effectors are equidistant from a center of the captured image.


In 906, the method causes the rendered computer model (i.e., the auxiliary view) to be displayed on one or more displayed screens (e.g., 140 and 140′) from the perspective of the selected viewing point. As shown in FIGS. 12-14 and 16-17, the auxiliary view is displayed on the auxiliary display screen 140. As shown in FIG. 14, more than one auxiliary view may be displayed at one time (e.g., top and side perspectives may be provided at the same time respectively in windows 1421 and 1422). As shown in FIG. 15, the auxiliary view may also be displayed on the primary monitor 104 in a window 1502 that is adjacent to an image captured by the articulatable camera 211 which is being shown in another window 1501. Although the windows 1501 and 1502 appear in this example to be the same size, it is to be appreciated that the position and size of the auxiliary view window 1502 may vary and still be within the scope of the present invention. Also, as previously mentioned, the auxiliary view may be overlayed the captured image in the window 1501 instead of in its own separate window 1502. In such case, the overlayed auxiliary view may be switched on and off by the Surgeon so as not to clutter the captured image during the performance of a medical procedure. The switching on and off in this case may be performed by depressing a button on one of the input devices 108, 109 or depressing the foot pedal 105. Alternatively, it may be done by voice activation using the voice recognition system 160 or through Surgeon interaction with the GUI 170 or using any other conventional function switching means.


After completing 906, the method then loops back to 901 to repeat 901-906 for the next processing cycle of the controller 102.


To assist the operator to make sure that the entry guide 200 and its articulatable instruments are well positioned (i.e., the instruments have wide range of motion during performance of a medical procedure at a target site in the patient), it is useful to provide indications of range of motion limitations in an auxiliary view that is displayed to the operator on one or more of the auxiliary display screens 140, 140′ and the monitor 104.



FIG. 19 illustrates, as an example, a diagram of the tool instrument 231 from a right side view as it extends out of the distal end of the entry guide 200 with angles, link axes and lengths identified for determining indications of range of motion limitations for the articulatable instrument 231 that may be displayed in the auxiliary view. Due to its joggle joint construction, the instrument's first and third links 332, 336 are maintained in a parallel relationship with each other. Thus, when the first joint 333 is rotated to a maximum angle 1902, the second joint 335 and wrist joint 337 (respectively at the proximal and distal ends of the third link 336) are both at a maximum displacement 1903 from the longitudinal axis 1901 of the first link 332, which may be calculated as the length of the second link 334 times the sine function of the angle 1902. If the first link 332 is fully rotatable about its longitudinal axis 1901, a boundary limit for the third link 336 and consequently, the second joint 335 and wrist joint 337, may be defined by a cylinder having the maximum displacement 1903 as its radius and a length determined by a maximum extension of the first link 332 out of the distal end of the entry guide 200. Thus, for a two-dimensional view corresponding to a cross-sectional slice of the cylinder taken at a point along the third link 336 (or at its coupling joints 335, 337) a boundary limit represented as a circle may be defined for the instrument 231 and similar boundary circles may be defined for each of the other articulatable instruments extending out of the distal end of the entry guide 200. Although the joint range of motion limits resemble circles in the present example, ellipses and other joint constrained boundary limits may also be accommodated in a similar manner as described herein for boundary circles.



FIG. 20 illustrates, as an example, a computer generated auxiliary view 2100 depicting graphical representations of articulatable instruments 211, 231, 241, 251 as the instruments are retracted back into the distal end of the entry guide 200 (from a perspective looking out from and directly behind the distal end from a vantage point along the longitudinal axis X′ of the entry guide 200) and indications of range of motion limitations 2011, 2031, 0241, 2051 respectively corresponding to the instruments 211, 231, 241, 251.


The boundary circle 2031 for the tool instrument 231 is determined in this example as described in reference to FIG. 19. Boundary circles for the other instruments are determined in a similar fashion. Since the joggle joint constructions for the tool instruments 231, 241, 251 are the same, their respective boundary circles are of equal size, but displaced from each other so that each is centered along the longitudinal axis of its first link (i.e., in the centers of their respective graphical representations 231, 241, 251 in FIG. 20). The joggle joint construction of the camera instrument 211, however, is different in this example so that it results in a smaller boundary circle 2011. In particular, the camera instrument 211 has either (or both) a smaller maximum angle of rotation for its first joint 323 or a shorter second link 324 than the tool instruments 231, 241, 251. The boundary circle 2011, however, is also centered along the first link 322 of its camera instrument 211.


It is useful to distinguish boundary circles for instruments that are currently being controlled by the operator from boundary circles for instruments that are not currently being controlled by the operator. To this end, boundary circles 2031, 2041 are shown as solid circles, because their respective articulatable instruments 231, 241 are currently being controlled by input devices 108, 109 (i.e., they are in tool following mode) and boundary circles 2011, 2051 are shown as dotted circles, because their respective articulatable instruments 211, 251 are currently not being controlled by the input devices 108, 109. Alternatively, boundary circles for disassociated instruments may not be displayed at all in the auxiliary view so as not to overly complicate it with unnecessary or unused information.


When the association of the input device 109 is switched so that it controls the tool 251 instead of the tool 231, the boundary circle 2051 will become a solid circle and the boundary circle 2031 will become a dotted circle (or it will not be displayed at all) to indicate the control change. Likewise, when the association of the input devices 108, 109 is switched to a camera positioning mode, the boundary circle 2011 corresponding to the camera 211 will become a solid circle and the boundary circles 2031, 2041 corresponding to the instruments 231, 241 will become dotted circles (or they will not be displayed at all) to indicate the control change. Alternatively to using solid, dotted and invisible circles, control modes may also be indicated by a scheme using different color circles or by other visually distinguishable means such as blinking on and off boundary circles corresponding to instruments that are not being actively controlled at the time.



FIG. 21 illustrates, as an example, an auxiliary view 2100 providing additional detail for the articulatable instruments 211, 231, 241, 251 as some of them are shown extending out of the distal end of the entry guide 200 along with their indications of range of motion limitations 2011, 2031, 2041, 2051 corresponding to the instruments. In this example, tool instruments 231, 241 are being controlled by the operator in tool following mode using input devices 108, 109, and instruments 251, 211 are not being controlled at the time by the operator. In particular, tool instrument 251 is out of use and retracted back to the distal end of the entry guide 200, and the camera instrument 211 is held fixed in position by its controller 213 after being previously moved to look slightly to the left and downward. Consequently, boundary limits 2031, 2041 respectively corresponding to instruments 231, 241 are shown as solid circles and boundary limits 2011, 2051 respectively corresponding to instruments 211, 251 are shown as dotted circles in the auxiliary view 2100.


Conceptually, the auxiliary view 2100 may overlay three cross-sectional slices for each of the articulatable instruments 211, 231, 241, 251 over a cross-sectional slice of the distal end of the entry guide 200, wherein each of the slices is taken orthogonal to and is registered with the longitudinal axis X′ of the entry guide 200. The first slice may be taken at each instrument's first joint (e.g., first joint 333 for tool 231 in FIG. 19), a second slice may be taken at each instrument's wrist joint (e.g., wrist joint 337 for tool 231 in FIG. 19), and a third slice may be taken at the instrument's distal tip (e.g., end effector distal tip 338 for tool 231 in FIG. 19).


Although cross-sections of the first joint, wrist joint and distal tip for each of the articulatable instruments 211, 231, 241, 251 may be displayed in the auxiliary view 2100, graphical representations in the form of objects such as circles or ellipses properly positioned where the cross-section slices are taken may be provided instead. In particular, graphical representations of the first joints 323, 333, 343, 353 are shown as circles or ellipses (identified by the same reference numbers as their respective first joints) whose positions in the auxiliary view 2100 indicate locations of their respective first links as they extend out of the distal end of the entry guide 200; graphical representations of the wrist joints 327, 337, 347 are shown as circles or ellipses (identified by the same reference numbers as their respective wrist joints) whose positions in the auxiliary view 2100 indicate articulation of the joggle joints of the instruments 211, 231, 241; and graphical representations of the distal tips 328, 338, 348 are shown as circles or ellipses (identified by the same reference numbers as their respective distal tips) whose positions in the auxiliary view 2100 indicate their orientations. As an example of determining the orientations of the distal tips, the orientation of the distal tip 338 of the tool 231 in FIG. 19 is determinable from a roll angle 1907 of the first link 332 about its longitudinal axis 1901 and a pitch angle 1906 between longitudinal axes 1904, 1905 respectively of the third link 336 and the end effector 331 of the tool 231.


To clearly distinguish the graphical representations of the distal tips 328, 338, 348 from those of their respective wrist joints 327, 337, 347, the distal tips may be displayed in a different color or a different shade or in another visually distinguishable manner. Alternatively, or additionally, connecting segments may be displayed to identify corresponding first joints, wrist joints and distal tips of the same instrument. For example, a segment 2103 is shown connecting the graphical representation of the first joint 333 to the graphical representation of the wrist joint 337, and a segment 2104 is shown connecting the graphical representation of the wrist joint 337 to the graphical representation of the distal tip 338 of the tool 231. Connecting segments 2101, 2102 are also shown connecting the graphical representations of the first joint 343, wrist joint 347 and distal tip 348 of the tool 241 in a similar manner.


As indicated by the auxiliary view 2100 of FIG. 21, the wrist joint 337 of the tool instrument 231 is close to its boundary limit 2031. To warn the operator that the wrist joint 337 is nearing its range of motion limitation, a visual indication may be provided such as the color or shade of the graphical representation of the wrist joint 337 changing, the color or shade of a portion 2110 of the boundary limit 2031 closest to the wrist joint 337 changing, and/or the color or shade of one or both of the segments 2103, 2104 corresponding to the wrist joint 337 changing. Other visual indications such as blinking, arrows or warning text may also be used. Audio cues or warnings may also be provided along with or in lieu of any such visual indications described herein.


In addition to providing indications when the joggle joints are approaching their boundary limits, it is also desirable to provide indications when the articulatable instruments 211, 231, 241, 251 are reaching their maximum extensions out of the distal end of the entry guide 200. The maximum limit boundaries may be indicated in supplemental auxiliary views such as extension limits 3011, 3012 in side supplemental auxiliary views 3001, 3002 respectively provided for tools 241, 231 on left and right sides of the auxiliary view 2100 in FIG. 30, and warnings provided when their respective first links near their extension limit using visual indications such as color or shade or other changes of the first link and/or any other parts of their respective articulatable instrument.



FIGS. 22-25 illustrate, as examples, various modifications to graphical representations that may be used in the auxiliary view 2100 for indicating the extent of the extension of the articulatable instrument 231 out of the distal end of the entry guide 200. Similar modifications to graphical representations of the other instruments 211, 241, 251 may be used for the same purpose. As shown in FIG. 22, the length of rays 2201 emanating from the graphical representation of the wrist joint 337 serve to indicate the extent of the extension (i.e., the length 1909 in FIG. 19) of the first link 332 out of the distal end of the entry guide 200. Alternatively, or additionally, as shown in FIG. 23, the length of rays 2301 emanating from the graphical representation of the distal tip 338 may serve to indicate the extent of the extension of the first link 332 out of the distal end of the entry guide 200. Alternatively, or additionally, as shown in FIG. 24, the relative sizes, colors and/or shades of the graphical representations for the first joint 333, wrist joint 337 and distal tip 338 may serve to indicate the extent of the extension of the first link 332 out of the distal end of the entry guide 200. As an example, as the first link 332 extends further out of the distal end of the entry guide 200, differences in the relative sizes between two or more of the graphical representations for the first joint 333, wrist joint 337 and distal tip 338 may get increasingly larger. Alternatively, or additionally, as shown in FIG. 25, the relative sizes, colors and/or shades of the graphical representations for the segments 2501, 2502 may serve to indicate the extent of the extension of the first link 332 out of the distal end of the entry guide 200.


The graphical representations for the distal tips of the instruments may also provide other state information for their tools or camera in addition to displaying graphical representations in the auxiliary view 2100 that indicate joggle joint articulations, extension/retraction of the articulatable instruments 211, 231, 241, 251 and graphical representations of boundaries indicating range of motion limitations for the instruments. As an example, FIG. 26 illustrates a graphical representation of the distal tip 338 of tool 231 which includes elements 2601, 2602 that define an angle 2603 between them that is indicative of how much the jaws 338, 339 of the end effector 331 are open or closed. As another example, FIG. 27 illustrates a graphical representation of the distal tip 328 (including a camera) of the camera instrument 211 which depicts an area 2701 indicative of a field-of-view of the camera instrument 211.


The auxiliary view 2100 may also be used to assist the operator in repositioning the entry guide 200 so that the articulatable instruments are better positioned for performing a medical procedure.



FIG. 28 illustrates, as an example, a simplified auxiliary view 2100 of a poor position of the entry guide 200 wherein each of the wrist joints 327, 337, 347 is near its boundary limit 2011, 2031, 2041. To simplify the figure, the tool 251 and graphical representations of the first joints 323, 333, 343 of the instruments 211, 231, 241 are omitted so as to not overly complicate it with details.


By switching to the entry guide positioning mode as described in reference to FIG. 2, the positions of the camera tip 311 of the camera instrument 211 and end effectors 331, 341 of the tool instruments 231, 241 will be held in place by their respective controllers while the operator repositions the entry guide 200 using one or both of the input devices 108, 109. In particular, the camera tip 311 and end effectors 331, 341 are held in place by holding the positions of their wrist joints 327, 337, 347 and distal tips 328, 338, 348 in place using their respective controllers while the entry guide 200 is repositioned. The first joints 323, 333, 343 and boundary limits 2011, 2031, 2041 of the instruments 211, 231, 241 move, however, as the entry guide 200 moves.



FIG. 29 illustrates, as an example, a simplified auxiliary view 2100 after the entry guide 200 has been repositioned relative to the wrist joints 327, 337, 347 and distal tips 328, 338, 348 of the instruments 211, 231, 241 shown in FIG. 28 by translating it a distance 2901 so that each of the wrist joints 327, 337, 347 is better positioned within its boundary limit 2011, 2031, 2041 for improved range of motion.


The auxiliary view 2100 as depicted in FIGS. 20-29 may be generated by the controller 102 using a computer implemented method such as described in reference to 901-905 of FIG. 9 with modifications for generating and displaying the joggle joint cross-sectional slices and boundary limits from the perspective looking out of the distal end of the entry guide 200. The computer generated auxiliary view 2100 may then be displayed on the monitor 104 and/or the auxiliary display screens 140, 140′ alone or in combination with camera captured images and/or other computer generated views such as described in reference to 906 of FIG. 9.



FIG. 30 illustrates, as an example, a display screen of the monitor 104 in which an image 1501 captured by the camera instrument 211 is shown in a main window, an auxiliary view 2100 of articulatable instruments 211, 231, 241 extending out of the entry guide 200 is shown in a lower central window, and supplemental auxiliary views 3001, 3002 of the tools 241, 231 from a different perspective than that of the view 2100 are shown respectively in lower side windows. In this arrangement of views, indications of joggle joint boundary limits may be provided in the lower central window as described in reference to FIGS. 13-29 and indications of extension limits for the articulatable instruments 241, 231 may be provided in the lower side views as previously explained. Visual cues or warnings may also be provided in the auxiliary views as described herein when the articulatable instruments extending out of the distal end of the entry guide 200 are approaching their respective range of motion limitations and/or threatening to collide with one another.


Although the various aspects of the present invention have been described with respect to a preferred embodiment, it will be understood that the invention is entitled to full protection within the full scope of the appended claims.

Claims
  • 1. A medical system comprising: an entry guide;a display; anda processor configured to: receive information of states of the entry guide, a first articulatable instrument, and a second articulatable instrument, the first articulatable instrument controllably extendable out of a distal end of the entry guide, the second articulatable instrument held in place relative to the distal end of the entry guide, the first articulatable instrument having a most proximal joint and a most distal joint;generate a view by including a graphical representation of the most distal joint of the first articulatable instrument, a graphical representation of a spatial boundary for the first articulatable instrument when the most distal joint is disposed beyond the distal end of the entry guide, and a graphical representation indicating the second articulatable instrument is held in place relative to the distal end of the entry guide, the spatial boundary for the first articulatable instrument being a function of a position of the most distal joint relative to the distal end of the entry guide, and the graphical representation of the most distal joint of the first articulatable instrument and the graphical representation of the spatial boundary for the first articulatable instrument being positioned in the view by using the received information and by using forward kinematics of the entry guide and the first articulatable instrument; andcause the view to be displayed on the display.
  • 2. The medical system according to claim 1, wherein the view is generated from a perspective looking in a distal direction from the distal end of the entry guide.
  • 3. The medical system according to claim 2, wherein the first articulated instrument comprises: first, second and third links; anda second joint;wherein the most proximal joint couples a distal end of the first link to a proximal end of the second link so that the second link is rotatable relative to the first link at the most proximal joint;wherein the second joint couples a distal end of the second link to a proximal end of the third link so that the third link rotates relative to the second link at the second joint in tandem with rotation of the most proximal joint in such a fashion that longitudinal axes of the first and third links are parallel to each other;wherein the distal end of the entry guide has a first lumen;wherein the first articulatable instrument is extendable through the first lumen;wherein the generated view includes at least one of an outline of the distal end of the entry guide or a graphical representation of the most proximal joint of the first articulatable instrument; andwherein the graphical representation of the most proximal joint of the first articulatable instrument appears in the generated view as a first object that is positioned in the generated view where the first lumen would be relative to the outline of the distal end of the entry guide when the generated view includes the graphical representation of the most proximal joint of the first articulatable instrument.
  • 4. The medical system according to claim 3, wherein the first articulatable instrument comprises: a first device having a proximal end and a distal tip;wherein the most distal joint of the first articulatable instrument couples a distal end of the third link of the first articulatable instrument to the proximal end of the first device so that the first device is rotatable relative to the third link at the most distal joint; andwherein the graphical representation of the most distal joint of the first articulatable instrument appears as a second object that is positioned in the generated view so as to reflect at least one angle of rotation of the first link about a central axis of the first link, and a length of the second link.
  • 5. The medical system according to claim 4, wherein the generated view includes a graphical representation of the distal tip of the first device as a third object that is positioned in the generated view so as to reflect at least one angle of rotation of the first device about the most proximal joint of the first articulatable instrument, an angle of rotation of the first link about the central axis of the first link, and a length that the distal tip of the first device extends from the most proximal joint of the first articulatable instrument.
  • 6. The medical system according to claim 5, wherein the graphical representation of the spatial boundary for the first articulatable instrument comprises a solid line boundary circle sharing a common center with the first object when the generated view includes the graphical representation of the most proximal joint of the first articulatable instrument, and wherein the graphical representation indicating the second articulatable instrument is held in place relative to the distal end of the entry guide comprises a dotted line circle around a most distal joint of the second articulatable instrument.
  • 7. The medical system according to claim 6, wherein the second object is depicted in the generated view as changing color as the second object approaches the boundary circle.
  • 8. The medical system according to claim 6, wherein at least a portion of the boundary circle is depicted in the generated view as changing color as the second object approaches the boundary circle.
  • 9. The medical system according to claim 5, wherein the first link of the first articulatable instrument is extendable out of the distal end of the entry guide, and wherein a length of extension of the first link is indicated in the generated view by lengths of rays emanating away from at least one of the first, second, or third objects.
  • 10. The medical system according to claim 5, wherein the first link of the first articulatable instrument is extendable out of the distal end of the entry guide, and wherein a length of extension of the first link is indicated by a change in color of at least one of the first, second, or third objects.
  • 11. The medical system according to claim 5, wherein the first link of the first articulatable instrument is extendable out of the distal end of the entry guide, and wherein a length of extension of the first link is indicated by a change in relative sizes between at least two of the first, second, or third objects.
  • 12. The medical system according to claim 5, wherein the generated view further comprises graphical representations of a first segment connecting the first and second objects and a second segment connecting the second and third objects, wherein the first link of the first articulatable instrument is extendable out of the distal end of the entry guide, and wherein a length of extension of the first link is indicated by a change in color of at least one of the first or second segments.
  • 13. The medical system according to claim 5, wherein the generated view further comprises graphical representations of a first segment connecting the first and second objects and a second segment connecting the second and third objects, wherein the first link of the first articulatable instrument is extendable out of the distal end of the entry guide, and wherein a length of extension of the first link is indicated by a change in size of at least one of the first or second segments.
  • 14. The medical system according to claim 5, wherein the generated view further comprises graphical representations of a first segment connecting the first and second objects and a second segment connecting the second and third objects, wherein the first link of the first articulatable instrument is extendable out of the distal end of the entry guide, and wherein a length of extension of the first link is indicated by a change in shape of at least one of their corresponding first and second segments.
  • 15. The medical system according to claim 5, wherein the first device of the first articulatable instrument includes a first element hinged to a second element so that the first and second elements are controllably opened and closed so as to result in an angle between the first and second elements, and wherein the third object corresponding to the first device has two jaws displayed so as to indicate the angle between the first and second elements.
  • 16. The medical system according to claim 5, wherein the first device of the first articulatable instrument includes an image capturing element of an articulatable camera instrument, and wherein the displayed generated view supplements an image displayed on the display which is derived from an image captured by the articulatable camera instrument.
  • 17. The medical system according to claim 16, wherein the third object corresponding to the image capturing element of the articulatable camera instrument has an area displayed on the display so as to indicate a field-of-view of the articulatable camera instrument.
  • 18. A method for providing a computer-generated view of a first articulatable instrument and a second articulatable instrument, wherein the first articulatable instrument is controllably extendable out of a distal end of an entry guide so that a most distal joint of the first articulatable instrument is disposed beyond the distal end of the entry guide, and wherein the second articulatable instrument is held in place relative to the distal end of the entry guide, the method comprising: receiving information of states of the entry guide, the first articulatable instrument, and the second articulatable instrument;generating the computer-generated view to include a graphical representation of the most distal joint of the first articulatable instrument, a graphical representation of a spatial boundary for the first articulatable instrument, and a graphical representation indicating the second articulatable instrument is held in place relative to the distal end of the entry guide, the spatial boundary for the first articulatable instrument being a function of a position of the most distal joint relative to the distal end of the entry guide, and the graphical representation of the most distal joint of the first articulatable instrument and the graphical representation of the spatial boundary for the first articulatable instrument being positioned in the computer-generated view by using the received information and by using forward kinematics of the entry guide and the first articulatable instrument; anddisplaying the computer-generated view on a display screen.
  • 19. The method according to claim 18, wherein the computer-generated view is generated from a perspective looking in a distal direction from the distal end of the entry guide.
  • 20. The method according to claim 18, wherein the graphical representation of the spatial boundary for the first articulatable instrument comprises a solid line closed curve, and wherein the graphical representation indicating the second articulatable instrument is held in place relative to the distal end of the entry guide comprises a dotted line circle around a most distal joint of the second articulatable instrument.
CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 15/646,685 (filed Jul. 11, 2017, which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 14/748,602 (filed Jun. 24, 2015), now U.S. Pat. No. 9,717,563, which is a divisional of U.S. application Ser. No. 12/489,566 (filed Jun. 23, 2009), now U.S. Pat. No. 9,089,256, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. application Ser. No. 12/163,087 (filed Jun. 27, 2008), now U.S. Pat. No. 10,258,425, each of which is incorporated herein by reference.

US Referenced Citations (499)
Number Name Date Kind
3628535 Ostrowsky et al. Dec 1971 A
3818284 Deversterre et al. Jun 1974 A
3890552 Devol et al. Jun 1975 A
3905215 Wright Sep 1975 A
3923166 Fletcher et al. Dec 1975 A
4150326 Engelberger et al. Apr 1979 A
4349837 Hinds Sep 1982 A
4577621 Patel Mar 1986 A
4588348 Beni et al. May 1986 A
4644237 Frushour et al. Feb 1987 A
4672963 Barken Jun 1987 A
4722056 Roberts et al. Jan 1988 A
4759074 Iadipaolo et al. Jul 1988 A
4762455 Coughlan et al. Aug 1988 A
4762456 Nelson Aug 1988 A
4791934 Brunnett Dec 1988 A
4815450 Patel Mar 1989 A
4831549 Red et al. May 1989 A
4833383 Skarr et al. May 1989 A
4837703 Kakazu et al. Jun 1989 A
4837734 Ichikawa et al. Jun 1989 A
4839838 Labiche et al. Jun 1989 A
4853874 Iwamoto et al. Aug 1989 A
4858149 Quarendon Aug 1989 A
4860215 Seraji Aug 1989 A
4863133 Bonnell Sep 1989 A
4891767 Rzasa et al. Jan 1990 A
4942539 McGee et al. Jul 1990 A
4979949 Matsen, III et al. Dec 1990 A
4984157 Cline et al. Jan 1991 A
4989253 Liang et al. Jan 1991 A
5046022 Conway et al. Sep 1991 A
5053976 Nose et al. Oct 1991 A
5079699 Tuy et al. Jan 1992 A
5086401 Glassman et al. Feb 1992 A
5098426 Sklar et al. Mar 1992 A
5099846 Hardy Mar 1992 A
5142930 Allen et al. Sep 1992 A
5170347 Tuy et al. Dec 1992 A
5174276 Crockard Dec 1992 A
5176702 Bales et al. Jan 1993 A
5182641 Diner et al. Jan 1993 A
5184009 Wright et al. Feb 1993 A
5184601 Putman et al. Feb 1993 A
5187796 Wang et al. Feb 1993 A
5217003 Wilk Jun 1993 A
5230338 Allen et al. Jul 1993 A
5230623 Guthrie et al. Jul 1993 A
5235510 Yamada et al. Aug 1993 A
5239246 Kim Aug 1993 A
5251127 Raab Oct 1993 A
5251611 Zehel et al. Oct 1993 A
5257203 Riley et al. Oct 1993 A
5261404 Mick et al. Nov 1993 A
5266875 Slotine et al. Nov 1993 A
5279309 Taylor et al. Jan 1994 A
5299288 Glassman et al. Mar 1994 A
5313306 Kuban et al. May 1994 A
5321353 Furness Jun 1994 A
5337733 Bauerfeind et al. Aug 1994 A
5341950 Sinz Aug 1994 A
5343385 Joskowicz et al. Aug 1994 A
5368015 Wilk Nov 1994 A
5368428 Hussey et al. Nov 1994 A
5382885 Salcudean et al. Jan 1995 A
5397323 Taylor et al. Mar 1995 A
5402801 Taylor Apr 1995 A
5408409 Glassman et al. Apr 1995 A
5417210 Funda et al. May 1995 A
5430643 Seraji Jul 1995 A
5445166 Taylor et al. Aug 1995 A
5454827 Aust et al. Oct 1995 A
5474571 Lang Dec 1995 A
5482029 Sekiguchi et al. Jan 1996 A
5493595 Schoolman Feb 1996 A
5503320 Webster et al. Apr 1996 A
5515478 Wang May 1996 A
5524180 Wang et al. Jun 1996 A
5528955 Hannaford et al. Jun 1996 A
5531742 Barken Jul 1996 A
5551432 Iezzi Sep 1996 A
5553198 Wang et al. Sep 1996 A
5572999 Funda et al. Nov 1996 A
5601549 Miyagi Feb 1997 A
5617858 Taverna et al. Apr 1997 A
5624390 Van Dyne Apr 1997 A
5624398 Smith et al. Apr 1997 A
5631973 Green May 1997 A
5638819 Manwaring et al. Jun 1997 A
5657429 Wang et al. Aug 1997 A
5695500 Taylor et al. Dec 1997 A
5704897 Truppe Jan 1998 A
5715729 Toyama et al. Feb 1998 A
5737500 Seraji et al. Apr 1998 A
5748767 Raab May 1998 A
5749362 Funda et al. May 1998 A
5754741 Wang et al. May 1998 A
5755725 Druais May 1998 A
5759151 Sturges Jun 1998 A
5759153 Webler et al. Jun 1998 A
5762458 Wang et al. Jun 1998 A
5765561 Chen et al. Jun 1998 A
5784542 Ohm et al. Jul 1998 A
5788688 Bauer et al. Aug 1998 A
5791231 Cohn et al. Aug 1998 A
5792135 Madhani et al. Aug 1998 A
5797849 Vesely et al. Aug 1998 A
5797900 Madhani et al. Aug 1998 A
5807377 Madhani et al. Sep 1998 A
5808665 Green et al. Sep 1998 A
5810008 Dekel et al. Sep 1998 A
5810880 Jensen et al. Sep 1998 A
5814038 Jensen et al. Sep 1998 A
5815640 Wang et al. Sep 1998 A
5817022 Vesely Oct 1998 A
5820545 Arbter et al. Oct 1998 A
5820623 Ng Oct 1998 A
5831408 Jacobus et al. Nov 1998 A
5835693 Lynch et al. Nov 1998 A
5836880 Pratt Nov 1998 A
5841950 Wang et al. Nov 1998 A
5842473 Fenster et al. Dec 1998 A
5842993 Eichelberger et al. Dec 1998 A
5853367 Chalek et al. Dec 1998 A
5855553 Tajima et al. Jan 1999 A
5855583 Wang et al. Jan 1999 A
5859934 Green Jan 1999 A
5876325 Mizuno et al. Mar 1999 A
5877819 Branson Mar 1999 A
5878193 Wang et al. Mar 1999 A
5887121 Funda et al. Mar 1999 A
5907664 Wang et al. May 1999 A
5911036 Wright et al. Jun 1999 A
5931832 Jensen Aug 1999 A
5938678 Zirps et al. Aug 1999 A
5950629 Taylor et al. Sep 1999 A
5964707 Fenster et al. Oct 1999 A
5971976 Wang et al. Oct 1999 A
5980460 Oestensen et al. Nov 1999 A
5980461 Rajan Nov 1999 A
5987591 Jyumonji Nov 1999 A
5993390 Savord et al. Nov 1999 A
5993391 Kamiyama Nov 1999 A
6019724 Gronningsaeter et al. Feb 2000 A
6036637 Kudo Mar 2000 A
6059718 Taniguchi et al. May 2000 A
6063095 Wang et al. May 2000 A
6072466 Shah et al. Jun 2000 A
6083170 Ben-Haim Jul 2000 A
6084371 Kress et al. Jul 2000 A
6096025 Borders Aug 2000 A
6115053 Perlin Sep 2000 A
6120433 Mizuno et al. Sep 2000 A
6129670 Burdette et al. Oct 2000 A
6184868 Shahoian et al. Feb 2001 B1
6196081 Yau Mar 2001 B1
6201984 Funda et al. Mar 2001 B1
6204620 McGee et al. Mar 2001 B1
6224542 Chang et al. May 2001 B1
6226566 Funda et al. May 2001 B1
6241725 Cosman Jun 2001 B1
6243624 Wu et al. Jun 2001 B1
6246200 Blumenkranz et al. Jun 2001 B1
6256529 Holupka et al. Jul 2001 B1
6270453 Sakai Aug 2001 B1
6292712 Bullen Sep 2001 B1
6307285 Delson et al. Oct 2001 B1
6312435 Wallace et al. Nov 2001 B1
6325808 Bernard et al. Dec 2001 B1
6330837 Charles et al. Dec 2001 B1
6331181 Tierney et al. Dec 2001 B1
6342889 Callahan Jan 2002 B1
6358749 Orthman Mar 2002 B1
6371909 Hoeg et al. Apr 2002 B1
6371952 Madhani et al. Apr 2002 B1
6394998 Wallace et al. May 2002 B1
6398726 Ramans et al. Jun 2002 B1
6402737 Tajima et al. Jun 2002 B1
6424885 Niemeyer et al. Jul 2002 B1
6425865 Salcudean et al. Jul 2002 B1
6434416 Mizoguchi et al. Aug 2002 B1
6436107 Wang et al. Aug 2002 B1
6442417 Shahidi et al. Aug 2002 B1
6456901 Xi et al. Sep 2002 B1
6459926 Nowlin et al. Oct 2002 B1
6468265 Evans et al. Oct 2002 B1
6491701 Tierney et al. Dec 2002 B2
6493608 Niemeyer et al. Dec 2002 B1
6522906 Salisbury, Jr. et al. Feb 2003 B1
6522908 Miyashita et al. Feb 2003 B1
6547782 Taylor Apr 2003 B1
6550757 Sesek Apr 2003 B2
6569084 Mizuno et al. May 2003 B1
6574355 Green Jun 2003 B2
6594522 Korenaga Jul 2003 B1
6594552 Nowlin et al. Jul 2003 B1
6599247 Stetten Jul 2003 B1
6602185 Uchikubo Aug 2003 B1
6620173 Gerbi et al. Sep 2003 B2
6642836 Wang et al. Nov 2003 B1
6643563 Hosek et al. Nov 2003 B2
6645196 Nixon et al. Nov 2003 B1
6648816 Irion et al. Nov 2003 B2
6654031 Ito et al. Nov 2003 B1
6656110 Irion et al. Dec 2003 B1
6659939 Moll et al. Dec 2003 B2
6665554 Charles et al. Dec 2003 B1
6671581 Niemeyer et al. Dec 2003 B2
6676669 Charles et al. Jan 2004 B2
6699177 Wang et al. Mar 2004 B1
6702736 Chen et al. Mar 2004 B2
6714839 Salisbury, Jr. et al. Mar 2004 B2
6765569 Neumann et al. Jul 2004 B2
6770081 Cooper et al. Aug 2004 B1
6786896 Madhani et al. Sep 2004 B1
6799065 Niemeyer Sep 2004 B1
6817973 Merril et al. Nov 2004 B2
6827712 Tovey et al. Dec 2004 B2
6837883 Moll et al. Jan 2005 B2
6847922 Wampler, II Jan 2005 B1
6852107 Wang et al. Feb 2005 B2
6876891 Schuler et al. Apr 2005 B1
6899672 Chin et al. May 2005 B2
6905460 Wang et al. Jun 2005 B2
6926709 Bieger et al. Aug 2005 B2
6960162 Saadat et al. Nov 2005 B2
6984203 Tartaglia et al. Jan 2006 B2
6991627 Madhani et al. Jan 2006 B2
7041053 Miyake May 2006 B2
7107090 Salisbury et al. Sep 2006 B2
7107124 Green Sep 2006 B2
7118582 Wang et al. Oct 2006 B1
7144367 Chen et al. Dec 2006 B2
7155315 Niemeyer et al. Dec 2006 B2
7155316 Sutherland et al. Dec 2006 B2
7181315 Watanabe et al. Feb 2007 B2
7194118 Harris et al. Mar 2007 B1
7211978 Chang et al. May 2007 B2
7297142 Brock Nov 2007 B2
7302288 Schellenberg et al. Nov 2007 B1
7413565 Wang et al. Aug 2008 B2
7491198 Kockro Feb 2009 B2
7493153 Ahmed et al. Feb 2009 B2
7574250 Niemeyer Aug 2009 B2
7725214 Diolaiti May 2010 B2
7806891 Nowlin et al. Oct 2010 B2
7819859 Prisco et al. Oct 2010 B2
7963913 Devengenzo et al. Jun 2011 B2
7979157 Anvari Jul 2011 B2
7996110 Lipow et al. Aug 2011 B2
7998058 Kura et al. Aug 2011 B2
8004229 Nowlin et al. Aug 2011 B2
8005571 Sutherland et al. Aug 2011 B2
8016749 Clerc et al. Sep 2011 B2
8062288 Cooper et al. Nov 2011 B2
8108072 Zhao et al. Jan 2012 B2
8120301 Goldberg et al. Feb 2012 B2
8130907 Maurer, Jr. et al. Mar 2012 B2
8142447 Cooper et al. Mar 2012 B2
8155479 Hoffman et al. Apr 2012 B2
8170716 Coste-Maniere et al. May 2012 B2
8175861 Huang et al. May 2012 B2
8221304 Shioda et al. Jul 2012 B2
8256319 Cooper et al. Sep 2012 B2
8306656 Schaible et al. Nov 2012 B1
8315720 Mohr et al. Nov 2012 B2
8335590 Costa et al. Dec 2012 B2
8398541 Dimaio et al. Mar 2013 B2
8541970 Nowlin et al. Sep 2013 B2
8554368 Fielding et al. Oct 2013 B2
8620473 Diolaiti et al. Dec 2013 B2
8624537 Nowlin et al. Jan 2014 B2
8749189 Nowlin et al. Jun 2014 B2
8749190 Nowlin et al. Jun 2014 B2
8786241 Nowlin et al. Jul 2014 B2
8801601 Prisco et al. Aug 2014 B2
8816628 Nowlin et al. Aug 2014 B2
8823308 Nowlin et al. Sep 2014 B2
8864652 Diolaiti et al. Oct 2014 B2
8903546 Diolaiti et al. Dec 2014 B2
8918211 Diolaiti et al. Dec 2014 B2
8944070 Guthart et al. Feb 2015 B2
9084623 Gomez et al. Jul 2015 B2
9089256 Tognaccini et al. Jul 2015 B2
9101397 Guthart et al. Aug 2015 B2
9138129 Diolaiti Sep 2015 B2
9232984 Guthart et al. Jan 2016 B2
9259283 Ogawa et al. Feb 2016 B2
9333042 Diolaiti et al. May 2016 B2
9345387 Larkin May 2016 B2
9387048 Donhowe et al. Jul 2016 B2
9469034 Diolaiti et al. Oct 2016 B2
9492927 Diolaiti et al. Nov 2016 B2
9516996 Diolaiti et al. Dec 2016 B2
9565990 Lee et al. Feb 2017 B2
9622826 Diolaiti et al. Apr 2017 B2
9629520 Diolaiti Apr 2017 B2
9717563 Tognaccini et al. Aug 2017 B2
9718190 Larkin et al. Aug 2017 B2
9788909 Larkin et al. Oct 2017 B2
9789608 Itkowitz et al. Oct 2017 B2
9795446 Dimaio et al. Oct 2017 B2
9801690 Larkin et al. Oct 2017 B2
9901408 Larkin Feb 2018 B2
9949798 Weir et al. Apr 2018 B2
9956044 Gomez et al. May 2018 B2
10008017 Itkowitz et al. Jun 2018 B2
10137575 Itkowitz et al. Nov 2018 B2
10188472 Diolaiti et al. Jan 2019 B2
10258425 Mustufa et al. Apr 2019 B2
10271909 Guthart et al. Apr 2019 B2
10271912 Diolaiti et al. Apr 2019 B2
10271915 Diolaiti et al. Apr 2019 B2
10282881 Itkowitz et al. May 2019 B2
10368952 Tognaccini et al. Aug 2019 B2
10433919 Guthart et al. Oct 2019 B2
10507066 Dimaio et al. Dec 2019 B2
10537994 Diolaiti et al. Jan 2020 B2
10730187 Larkin et al. Aug 2020 B2
10737394 Itkowitz et al. Aug 2020 B2
10772689 Gomez et al. Sep 2020 B2
10773388 Larkin et al. Sep 2020 B2
10828774 Diolaiti et al. Nov 2020 B2
10959798 Diolaiti et al. Mar 2021 B2
10984567 Itkowitz et al. Apr 2021 B2
20010035871 Bieger et al. Nov 2001 A1
20020044104 Friedrich et al. Apr 2002 A1
20020045888 Ramans et al. Apr 2002 A1
20020089544 Jahn et al. Jul 2002 A1
20020120188 Brock et al. Aug 2002 A1
20020156345 Eppler et al. Oct 2002 A1
20020193800 Kienzle, III Dec 2002 A1
20030023347 Konno et al. Jan 2003 A1
20030032878 Shahidi Feb 2003 A1
20030055410 Evans et al. Mar 2003 A1
20030060927 Gerbi et al. Mar 2003 A1
20030109780 Coste-Maniere et al. Jun 2003 A1
20030114730 Hale et al. Jun 2003 A1
20030144649 Ghodoussi et al. Jul 2003 A1
20030167103 Tang et al. Sep 2003 A1
20030225479 Waled Dec 2003 A1
20040024311 Quaid et al. Feb 2004 A1
20040034283 Quaid et al. Feb 2004 A1
20040039485 Niemeyer et al. Feb 2004 A1
20040044295 Reinert et al. Mar 2004 A1
20040046711 Triebfuerst Mar 2004 A1
20040046916 Lyu et al. Mar 2004 A1
20040049205 Lee et al. Mar 2004 A1
20040077940 Kienzle et al. Apr 2004 A1
20040106916 Quaid et al. Jun 2004 A1
20040176751 Weitzner et al. Sep 2004 A1
20040189675 Pretlove et al. Sep 2004 A1
20040210105 Hale et al. Oct 2004 A1
20040225183 Michlitsch et al. Nov 2004 A1
20040238732 State et al. Dec 2004 A1
20040243147 Lipow Dec 2004 A1
20040249508 Suita et al. Dec 2004 A1
20040254454 Kockro Dec 2004 A1
20040254679 Nagasaka Dec 2004 A1
20050022158 Launay et al. Jan 2005 A1
20050054895 Hoeg et al. Mar 2005 A1
20050059960 Simaan et al. Mar 2005 A1
20050096502 Khalili May 2005 A1
20050096892 Watanabe et al. May 2005 A1
20050107680 Kopf et al. May 2005 A1
20050113640 Saadat et al. May 2005 A1
20050166413 Crampton et al. Aug 2005 A1
20050203380 Sauer et al. Sep 2005 A1
20050228365 Wang et al. Oct 2005 A1
20050251113 Kienzle Nov 2005 A1
20050267359 Hussaini et al. Dec 2005 A1
20050273198 Bischoff Dec 2005 A1
20060058988 Defranoux et al. Mar 2006 A1
20060079108 McCoy Apr 2006 A1
20060142657 Quaid et al. Jun 2006 A1
20060149129 Watts et al. Jul 2006 A1
20060161045 Merril et al. Jul 2006 A1
20060161138 Orban Jul 2006 A1
20060178559 Kumar et al. Aug 2006 A1
20060258938 Hoffman et al. Nov 2006 A1
20060261770 Kishi et al. Nov 2006 A1
20060293592 Jensen Dec 2006 A1
20070016174 Millman et al. Jan 2007 A1
20070021738 Hasser et al. Jan 2007 A1
20070038080 Salisbury et al. Feb 2007 A1
20070060879 Weitzner Mar 2007 A1
20070071310 Kobayashi et al. Mar 2007 A1
20070081714 Wallack et al. Apr 2007 A1
20070106307 Bodduluri et al. May 2007 A1
20070135803 Belson Jun 2007 A1
20070138992 Prisco et al. Jun 2007 A1
20070142825 Prisco et al. Jun 2007 A1
20070142968 Prisco et al. Jun 2007 A1
20070144298 Miller Jun 2007 A1
20070151389 Prisco et al. Jul 2007 A1
20070156019 Larkin et al. Jul 2007 A1
20070156285 Sillman et al. Jul 2007 A1
20070167801 Webler et al. Jul 2007 A1
20070177009 Bayer et al. Aug 2007 A1
20070197896 Moll et al. Aug 2007 A1
20070229015 Yoshida et al. Oct 2007 A1
20070255454 Dariush Nov 2007 A1
20070265491 Krag et al. Nov 2007 A1
20070270650 Eno et al. Nov 2007 A1
20070270685 Kang et al. Nov 2007 A1
20070283970 Mohr et al. Dec 2007 A1
20070287884 Schena Dec 2007 A1
20070287992 Diolaiti et al. Dec 2007 A1
20070296366 Quaid et al. Dec 2007 A1
20070299387 Williams et al. Dec 2007 A1
20080004603 Larkin et al. Jan 2008 A1
20080033240 Hoffman et al. Feb 2008 A1
20080045800 Farr Feb 2008 A2
20080051629 Sugiyama et al. Feb 2008 A1
20080065099 Cooper et al. Mar 2008 A1
20080065105 Larkin et al. Mar 2008 A1
20080071291 Duval et al. Mar 2008 A1
20080081992 Kagermeier Apr 2008 A1
20080118115 Williamson et al. May 2008 A1
20080119824 Weitzner et al. May 2008 A1
20080140087 Barbagli Jun 2008 A1
20080161830 Sutherland et al. Jul 2008 A1
20080188986 Hoppe Aug 2008 A1
20080243142 Gildenberg Oct 2008 A1
20080247506 Maschke Oct 2008 A1
20080287963 Rogers et al. Nov 2008 A1
20090005640 Fehre et al. Jan 2009 A1
20090012531 Quaid et al. Jan 2009 A1
20090024142 Ruiz Jan 2009 A1
20090088634 Zhao et al. Apr 2009 A1
20090105750 Price et al. Apr 2009 A1
20090192523 Larkin et al. Jul 2009 A1
20090192524 Itkowitz et al. Jul 2009 A1
20090228145 Hodgson et al. Sep 2009 A1
20090248036 Hoffman et al. Oct 2009 A1
20090259105 Miyano et al. Oct 2009 A1
20090326322 Diolaiti et al. Dec 2009 A1
20090326552 Diolaiti Dec 2009 A1
20090326553 Mustufa et al. Dec 2009 A1
20090326711 Chang et al. Dec 2009 A1
20100004505 Umemoto et al. Jan 2010 A1
20100036198 Tacchino et al. Feb 2010 A1
20100106356 Trepagnier et al. Apr 2010 A1
20100169815 Zhao et al. Jul 2010 A1
20100198232 Diolaiti Aug 2010 A1
20100228264 Robinson et al. Sep 2010 A1
20100249657 Nycz et al. Sep 2010 A1
20100317965 Itkowitz et al. Dec 2010 A1
20100328363 Nakanishi Dec 2010 A1
20100331855 Zhao et al. Dec 2010 A1
20100331856 Carlson et al. Dec 2010 A1
20100332033 Diolaiti et al. Dec 2010 A1
20110071675 Wells et al. Mar 2011 A1
20110196199 Donhowe et al. Aug 2011 A1
20110290856 Shelton, IV et al. Dec 2011 A1
20110313573 Schreiber et al. Dec 2011 A1
20120132450 Timm et al. May 2012 A1
20120154564 Hoffman et al. Jun 2012 A1
20130178868 Roh Jul 2013 A1
20130245375 Dimaio et al. Sep 2013 A1
20130289767 Lim et al. Oct 2013 A1
20130289768 Yeung et al. Oct 2013 A1
20140052150 Taylor et al. Feb 2014 A1
20140055489 Itkowitz et al. Feb 2014 A1
20140135792 Larkin et al. May 2014 A1
20140232824 Dimaio et al. Aug 2014 A1
20150032126 Nowlin et al. Jan 2015 A1
20150051733 Nowlin et al. Feb 2015 A1
20150150639 Diolaiti et al. Jun 2015 A1
20150182287 Guthart et al. Jul 2015 A1
20150297300 Gomez et al. Oct 2015 A1
20150366625 Tognaccini et al. Dec 2015 A1
20160045272 Diolaiti et al. Feb 2016 A1
20160235486 Larkin Aug 2016 A1
20160242860 Diolaiti et al. Aug 2016 A1
20160374767 Diolaiti et al. Dec 2016 A1
20170035521 Diolaiti et al. Feb 2017 A1
20170173788 Diolaiti et al. Jun 2017 A1
20170209232 Larkin et al. Jul 2017 A1
20170210012 Larkin et al. Jul 2017 A1
20170305016 Larkin et al. Oct 2017 A1
20180125588 Larkin May 2018 A1
20180206924 Gomez et al. Jul 2018 A1
20180297206 Larkin et al. Oct 2018 A1
20190047154 Itkowitz et al. Feb 2019 A1
20190090967 Guthart et al. Mar 2019 A1
20190110847 Diolaiti et al. Apr 2019 A1
20190201134 Diolaiti et al. Jul 2019 A1
20190201152 Diolaiti et al. Jul 2019 A1
20190209262 Mustufa et al. Jul 2019 A1
20190213770 Itkowitz et al. Jul 2019 A1
20200085520 Dimaio et al. Mar 2020 A1
20200094400 Diolaiti Mar 2020 A1
20200331147 Larkin et al. Oct 2020 A1
20200368915 Itkowitz et al. Nov 2020 A1
20210059780 Sutherland et al. Mar 2021 A1
20210153964 Diolaiti et al. May 2021 A1
20210256749 Itkowitz et al. Aug 2021 A1
20210290326 Diolaiti et al. Sep 2021 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (93)
Number Date Country
1846181 Oct 2006 CN
1879574 Dec 2006 CN
101160104 Apr 2008 CN
101184429 May 2008 CN
101530347 Sep 2009 CN
101594816 Dec 2009 CN
101610712 Dec 2009 CN
514584 Nov 1992 EP
0646358 Apr 1995 EP
812662 Dec 1997 EP
1125557 Aug 2001 EP
0732082 Sep 2002 EP
1310844 May 2003 EP
1424173 Jun 2004 EP
1269389 Sep 2005 EP
1131004 Oct 2009 EP
H01280449 Nov 1989 JP
H01310875 Dec 1989 JP
H04231034 Aug 1992 JP
H07184923 Jul 1995 JP
H07265321 Oct 1995 JP
H0889506 Apr 1996 JP
H08107875 Apr 1996 JP
H08132372 May 1996 JP
H08154321 Jun 1996 JP
H08215211 Aug 1996 JP
H08224241 Sep 1996 JP
H08275958 Oct 1996 JP
H08299363 Nov 1996 JP
H09141580 Jun 1997 JP
H10146341 Jun 1998 JP
H11309 Jan 1999 JP
2000500679 Jan 2000 JP
2000300579 Oct 2000 JP
2001000448 Jan 2001 JP
2001061850 Mar 2001 JP
2001104333 Apr 2001 JP
2001202531 Jul 2001 JP
2001287183 Oct 2001 JP
2002103258 Apr 2002 JP
2002287613 Oct 2002 JP
2003053684 Feb 2003 JP
2003300444 Oct 2003 JP
2003339725 Dec 2003 JP
2004105638 Apr 2004 JP
2004223128 Aug 2004 JP
2005110878 Apr 2005 JP
2005135278 May 2005 JP
2005303327 Oct 2005 JP
2005334650 Dec 2005 JP
2007029232 Feb 2007 JP
2007090481 Apr 2007 JP
2007508913 Apr 2007 JP
2007531553 Nov 2007 JP
2009006410 Jan 2009 JP
2009012106 Jan 2009 JP
2009039814 Feb 2009 JP
2009525097 Jul 2009 JP
2009537229 Oct 2009 JP
4883563 Feb 2012 JP
WO-9501757 Jan 1995 WO
WO-9507055 Mar 1995 WO
WO-9729690 Aug 1997 WO
WO-9743942 Nov 1997 WO
WO-9743943 Nov 1997 WO
WO-9823216 Jun 1998 WO
WO-0030548 Jun 2000 WO
WO-03061482 Jul 2003 WO
WO-2004014244 Feb 2004 WO
WO-2004114037 Dec 2004 WO
WO-2005037120 Apr 2005 WO
WO-2005039391 May 2005 WO
WO-2005043319 May 2005 WO
WO-2006079108 Jul 2006 WO
WO-2006091494 Aug 2006 WO
WO-2006124390 Nov 2006 WO
WO-2007005555 Jan 2007 WO
WO-2007012185 Feb 2007 WO
WO-2007030173 Mar 2007 WO
WO-2007047782 Apr 2007 WO
WO-2007088206 Aug 2007 WO
WO-2007088208 Aug 2007 WO
WO-2007136768 Nov 2007 WO
WO-2007146987 Dec 2007 WO
WO-2008002830 Jan 2008 WO
WO-2008065581 Jun 2008 WO
WO-2008094766 Aug 2008 WO
WO-2008103383 Aug 2008 WO
WO-2009034477 Mar 2009 WO
WO-2009037576 Mar 2009 WO
WO-2009044287 Apr 2009 WO
WO-2009158164 Dec 2009 WO
WO-2010039394 Apr 2010 WO
Non-Patent Literature Citations (368)
Entry
Extended European Search Report for Application No. EP21158299.4 dated May 21, 2021, 09 pages.
Abolmaesumi, Purang et al., “A User Interface for Robot-Assisted Diagnostic Ultrasound,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Conference, 2001, pp. 1549-1554, vol. 2, IEEE.
Abolmaesumi, Purang et al., “Image Guided Control of a Robot for Medical Ultrasound,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 2002, pp. 11-23, vol. 18-lssue 1, IEEE.
Adams, Ludwig et al., “Computer-Assisted Surgery,” IEEE Computer Graphics & Applications, May 1990, pp. 43-52, vol. 10—Issue 3, IEEE Computer Society Press.
Ahlering, Thomas. E. et al., “Robotic radical prostatectomy: a technique to reduce pT2 positive margins,” Urology, 2004, pp. 1224-1228, vol. 64 Issue 6, Elsevier Inc.
Alexander, Arthur D. III, “Impacts of Telemation on Modem Society,” Symposium on Theory and Practice of Robots and Manipulators, Centre for Mechanical Sciences 1st CISM IFToMM Symposium, Sep. 5-8, 1974, pp. 121-136, vol. 2, Springer-Verlag.
Arai, Tatsuo et al., “Bilateral control for manipulators with different configurations,” IECON Inn Conference on Industrial Electronics Control and Instrumentation, Oct. 22-26, 1984, pp. 40-45, vol. 1.
Arun, K.S. et al., “Least-Squares Fitting of Two 3-D Point Sets,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (PAMI), vol. 9, No. 5, pp. 698-700, Sep. 1987.
Askew R.S., et al., “Ground Control Testbed for Space Station Freedom Robot Manipulators,” IEEE Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium, 1993, pp. 69-75.
Azuma, Ronald T., “A Survey of Augmented Reality,” Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1997, pp. 355-385, vol. 6—No. 4.
Bajura, Michael et al., “Merging Virtual Objects with the Real World: Seeing Ultrasound Imagery within the Patient,” Computer Graphics, Jul. 26, 1992, pp. 203-210, vol. 26, Issue 2, ACM Press.
Banovac, Filip et al., “Liver Tumor Biopsy in a Respiring Phantom with the Assistance of a Novel Electromagnetic Navigation Device,” 2002, pp. 200-207, Springer-Verlag.
Bartels, Richard H. et al., “An Introduction to Splines for use in Computer Graphics and Geometric Modeling,” 1987, 6 Pages total, Morgan kaufmann publishers, INC.
Bartels, Richard H. et al., “Solution of the Matrix Equation AX+XB=C,” Communications of the ACM, 1972, pp. 820-826, vol. 15-lssue 9, ACM Press.
Baumann, Roger, “Haptic Interface for Virtual Reality Based Laparoscopic Surgery Training Environment,” These No. 1734 Ecole Pholytechnique Federate de Lausanne, 1997, 104 Total Pages.
Bejczy, Antal K. et al., “Controlling Remote Manipulators through Kinesthetic Coupling,” Computers in Mechanical Engineering, 1983, pp. 48-60, vol. 1-lssue 1.
Ben Gayed, M. et al., “An Advanced Control Micromanipulator for Surgical Applications,” Systems Science, 1987, pp. 123-134, vol. 13.
Berkelman, Peter J. et al., “A Compact Compliant Laparoscopic Endoscope Manipulator,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2002, pp. 1870-1875, vol. 2, IEEE.
Berkelman, Peter J. et al., “A miniature Instrument Tip Force Sensor for Robot/Human Cooperative Micro surgical Manipulation with Enhanced Force Feedback,” Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, Springer-Verlag, 2000, pp. 897-906, vol. 1935.
Berkelman, Peter J. et al., “A miniature microsurgical instrument tip force sensor for enhanced force feedback during robot-assisted manipulation,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 2000, pp. 917-922, vol. 19-lssue 5, IEEE.
Berkelman, Peter J. et al., “Performance Evaluation of a Cooperative Manipulation Microsurgical Assistant Robot Applied to Stapedotomy,” Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Interventions, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2001, pp. 1426-1429, vol. 2208.
Besl, Paul J. et al., “A Method for Registration of 3-D Shapes,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (PAMI), vol. 14, Issue 2, pp. 239-256, Feb. 1992.
Bettini , A. et al., “Vision Assisted Control for Manipulation Using Virtual Fixtures: Experiments at Macro and Micro Scales,” IEEE Conference on Robots and Automation (ICRA '02), May 11-15, 2002, pp. 3354-3361, vol. 4, IEEE.
Bettini, A. et al., “Vision Assisted Control for Manipulation Using Virtual Fixtures,” IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Oct. 29-Nov. 3, 2001, pp. 1171-1176, vol. 2.
Bettini, Alessandro et al., “Vision Assisted Control for Manipulation Using Virtual Fixtures,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2004, pp. 953-966, vol. 20-lssue 6, IEEE.
Birkett, Desmond H., “Three-Dimensional Video Imaging Systems,” Chapter 1 in Primer of Robotic & Telerobotic Surgery, Eds. Garth H. Ballantyne et al., Pub. by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, 2004, pp. 7-11.
Boctor, Emad et al., “A Novel Closed Form Solution for Ultrasound Calibration,” IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), Arlington, VA, vol. 1. pp. 527-530, Apr. 15-18, 2004.
Boctor, Emad, M. et al., “A dual-armed robotic system for intraoperative ultrasound guided hepatic ablative therapy: a prospective study,” Proc of IEEE 2004 International Conference on Robotics & Automation, 2004, pp. 2517-2522, vol. 3, IEEE.
Boctor, Emad, M. et al., “A Rapid calibration method for registration and 3D tracking of ultrasound images using spatial localizer,” Ultrasonic Imaging and Signal Processing, 2003, pp. 521-532, vol. 5035, SPIE.
Boctor, Emad, M. et al., “CISUS: An integrated 3D ultrasound system for IGT using a modular tracking API,” Proceedings of the SPIE, 2004, pp. 247-256, vol. 5367, SPIE.
Boctor, Emad, M. et al., “Development of a Robotically-Assisted 3-D Ultrasound System for Radiofrequency Ablation of Liver Tumors,” 6th World Congress of the Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, Abstract No. 167, 2004, p. 46, vol. 6-Supplement 1, Taylor & Francis Health Science.
Boctor, Emad, M. et al., “PC Based system for calibration, Reconstruction Processing and Visualization of 3D Ultrasound Data Based on a Magnetic-Field Position and Orientation Sensing System,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Science-Part II, Lecture Notes in Computer Science , 2001, pp. 13-22, vol. 2074, Springer.
Boctor, Emad, M. et al., “Robot-assisted 3D strain imaging for monitoring thermal ablation of liver,” Annual congress of the Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES),Emerging Technology Lunch Poster TP004, 2005, pp. 240-241.
Boctor, Emad, M. et al., “Robotic Strain Imaging for Monitoring Thermal Ablation of Liver,” Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention MICCAI, 2004, pp. 81-88, vol. 2, Springer-Verlag.
Boctor, Emad, M. et al., “Robotically assisted intraoperative ultrasound with application to ablative therapy of liver cancer,” Medical Imaging:Visualization, Image Guided Procedures, and Display, 2003, pp. 281-291, vol. 5029, SPIE.
Boctor, Emad, M. et al., “Tracked 3D ultrasound in radio-frequency liver ablation,” in Medical Imaging 2003:Ultrasonic Imaging and Signal Processing, 2003, pp. 174-182, vol. 5035, SPIE.
Borovoi, A.V., “Stability of a manipulator with force feedback,” Izv. An SSSR Mekhanika Tverdogo Teal, 1990, pp. 37-45, vol. 25—Issue 1, Allerton Press, Inc.
Boudet,Sylvie et al., “An Integrated Robotics and Medical Control Device to Quantify Atheromatous Plaques: Experiments on the Arteries of a Patient,” Proc of IEE/RSH International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 1997, pp. 1533-1538, vol. 3.
Brown, Myron M. et al., “Advances in Computational Stereo,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (PAMI), 2003, pp. 993-1008, vol. 25 Issue, IEEE.
Burdea, Grigore et al., “Dextrous Telerobotics with Force Feedback—an overview. Part 2: Control and Implementation,” Robotica, 1991, pp. 291-298, vol. 9.
Burschka, Darius et al., “Scale-Invariant Registration of Monocular Endoscopic Images to CT-Scans for Sinus Surgery,” Med Image Anal, 2004, pp. 413-421, vol. 2, Springer-Verlag.
Burschka, Darius et al., “Scale-Invariant Registration of Monocular Stereo Images to 3D Surface Models,” IEEE Int. Conf. on Robots and Systems, 2004, pp. 2581-2586, vol. 3, IEEE.
Burschka, Darius et al., “Navigating Inner Space: 3-D Assistance for Minimally Invasive Surgery,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 2005, pp. 5-26, vol. 52-lssue 1, Elsevier.
Burschka, Darius et al., “Principle and Practice of Real-Time Visual Tracking for Navigation and Mapping,” IEEE Workshop on Robotic Sensing: Robotics in the Automotive Industry, 2004, pp. 1-8, IEEE.
Bzostek, Andrew, “Computer-Integrated needle therapy systems: Implementation and Analysis,” Computer Science, 2005, 379 pages.
Bzostek, Andrew et al., “A Testbed System for Robotically Assisted Percutaneous Pattern Therapy,” Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Surgery, Lecture Notes In Computer Science, 1999, pp. 1098-1107, vol. 1679, Springer.
Bzostek, Andrew et al., “An automated system for precise percutaneous access of the renal collecting system,” Proceedings of the First Joint Conference on Computer Vision, Virtual Reality and Robotics in Medicine and Medial Robotics and Computer-Assisted Surgery, Lecture Notes In Computer Science, 1997, pp. 299-308, vol. 1205, Springer-Verlag.
Bzostek, Andrew, “Image Guided Percutaneous Pattern Placement in Soft Tissue,” The Johns Hopkins University Dept. of Computer Science: Baltimore, 1997, pp. 2007-01-22.
Cadeddu, Jeffrey A. et al., “A Robotic System for Percutaneous Renal Access,” The Journal of Urology, 1997, pp. 1589-1593, vol. 158-lssue 4.
Cadeddu, Jeffrey et al., “A robotic system for percutaneous renal access incorporating a remote center of motion design,” Journal of Endourolog, 1998, S237, vol. 12.
Cannon, Jeremy W. et al., “Real-time three-dimensional ultrasound for guiding surgical tasks,” Computer Aided Surgery, 2003, pp. 82-90, vol. 8-No. 2, John Wiley & Sons.
Cao, Caroline L., et al., “Task and motion analysis in endoscopic surgery,” Submitted for Fifth Annual Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teloperator Systems for the Winter Meeting of ASME, 1996, pp. 1-32.
Cash, David M. et al., “Incorporation of a laser range scanner into an image-guided surgical system,” The International Society for Optical Engineering (SPIE), Medical Imaging 2003: Visualization, Image-Guided Procedures, and Display; San Diego, CA, Ed. Robert L. Galloway, 2003, pp. 269-280, vol. 5029.
Chang, Jun Keun et al., “Intravascular micro active catheter for minimal invasive surgery,” 1st Annual International Conference on Microtechnologies in Medicine and Biology, 2000, pp. 243-246.
Chen, Homer H. “A Screw Motion Approach to Uniqueness Analysis of Head-Eye Geometry,” Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 1991, pp. 145-151, IEEE.
Chinzei, Kiyoyuki et al., “MR Compatible Surgical Assist Robot: System Integration and Preliminary Feasibility Study,” in Proceedings of Third International Conference On Medical Imaging and Computer Assisted Surgery (MICCAI), 2000, pp. 921-930, vol. 1935, Springer-Verlag.
Choti, Michael A. et al., “Trends in Long Term Survival Following Liver Resection for Hepatic Colorectal Metastases,” Ana Surg, 2002, pp. 759-766, vol. 235-No. 6, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Choti, Michael A., “Hepatic Radiofrequency Ablation,” Cancer Journal, 2000, pp. S291-S292, vol. 6-issue 4, Jones and Bartlett.
Choti, Michael A., “Surgical Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Resection and Ablation,” Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, 2002, pp. S197-S203, vol. 13-No. 9.
Christensen, B. et al., “Model based sensor directed remediation of underground storage tanks,” International Conf. on Robotics and Automation, Sacramento, CA, Apr. 1991, pp. 1377-1383, vol. 2. IEEE.
Christoforou, E.G. et al., “Robotic Arm for Magnetic Resonance Imaging Guided Interventions,” 1st IEEE/RAS-EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics, Feb. 20-22, 2006, pp. 911-916.
Chung, Mathew et al., “Laparascopic Radiofrequency Ablation of Unresectable Hepatic Malignancies,” Surg Endosc, 2001, pp. 1020-1026, vol. 15-No. 9, Springer-Verlag.
Cleary, Kevin et al., “State of the Art in Surgical Robotics:Clinical Applications and Technology Challenges,” Computer Aided Surgery, 2001 [retrieved on Feb. 24, 2002], pp. 1-26.
Cleary, Kevin et al., “State of the art surgical robotics clinical applications and technology challenges,” Computer Aided Surgery, 2001, pp. 312-328, vol. 6; PART 6, John Wiley & Sons.
Cleary,K. et al., “Robotically-assisted spine nerve blocks,” Radiology, 2001, 1 page, vol. 221-No. 618.
Colgate J.E., “Power and Impedance Scaling in Bilateral Manipulation,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Sacramento, California, Apr. 1991, vol. 3, pp. 2292-2297.
D'angelica M., “Staging Laparoscopy for Potentially Respectable Noncolorectal,” Ann Surg Oncol, 2002, pp. 204-209, vol. 9-No. 2, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Daniilidis, Konstantinos, Hand-Eye Calibration Using Dual Quaternions, Inf. J. of Robotics Research, 1999, pp. 286-298, vol. 18 (3), Sage Publications, inc.
Davies, Brain L. et al., “A Robotic system fortkr surgery,” Proceedings of 3rd Annual North American Program on Computer Assisted Orthopaedic Surgery (CAOS USA), University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,published in Computer Aided Surgery, Jun. 17-19, 1999, p. 339, vol. 4-Iss. 6.
Davies, S.C., et al., “Ultrasound Quantitaion of Respiratory Organ Motion in the Upper Abdomen,” British Journal of Radiology, Nov. 1994, vol. 67 (803), pp. 1096-1102.
De Cunha, D. et al., The MIDSTEP System for Ultrasound guided Remote Telesurgery, Proceedings of the 20th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 1998, pp. 1266-1269, vol. 3-No. 29, IEEE.
Debus, Thomas et al., “Multichannel Vibrotactile Display for Sensory Substitution During Teleoperation,” Proc. SPIE Telemanipuiator and Telepresence Technologies VIII, 2001, pp. 42-49, vol. 4570, SPIE.
Degoulange, E. et al., “HIPPOCRATE: an intrinsically safe robot for medical applications,” IEEE/RSH International Conference on Intelligent Biomedicine, 1998, pp. 959-964, vol. 2, IEEE.
Delgorge, Cecile et al., “A Tele-Operated Mobile Ultrasound Scanner Using a Light-Weight Robo,” IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine, 2005, pp. 50-58, vol. 9 No. 1, IEEE.
Dewan, Maneesh et al., “Vision-Based Assistance for Ophthalmic Micro-Surgery,” Proceedings of Seventh International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention (MICCAI), 2004, pp. 49-57, vol. 3217, Springer-Verlag.
Dodds, Zachary et al., “A hierarchical architecture for vision-based robotic manipulation tasks,” in Proceedings of the international Conference on Vision Systems, 1999, pp. 312-330, vol. 542, Springer-Verlag.
Doggett, Stephen W., “Image Registered Real Time Intra-Operative Treatment Planning: Permanent Seed Brachytherapy,” 2000, pp. 4.
Dolan, J.M. el al., “A Robot in an Operating Room: A Bull in a China Shop?,” IEEE Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Nov. 1987, vol. 2, pp. 1096-1097.
Elder, Matthew C. et al., “Specifying user interfaces for safety critical medical systems,” Second Annual International Symposium on Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, Nov. 1995, pp. 148-155.
Eldridge, B. et al., “A Remote Center of Motion Robotic Arm for Computer Assisted Surgery,” Robotica, 1996, pp. 103-109, vol. 14 Issue 1.
Ellsmere, James et al., “A navigation system for augmenting laparoscopic ultrasound,” Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2003, pp. 184-191, Springer.
Fattal, Lischinsk, “Variational Classification for Visualization of 3D Ultrasound Data,” Proceedings of the conference on Visualization, 2001, pp. 403-410, IEEE Computer Society.
Fenster, Aaron, et al., “3-D Ultrasound Imaging:A Review,” IEEE Engineering and Medicine and Biology Magazine, Nov.-Dec. 1996, pp. 41-51, vol. 15—Issue 6, IEEE.
Fenster, Aaron, et al., “Three-dimensional ultrasound imaging of the prostate,” SPIE International Symposium on Medical Imaging,San Diego, California,Published in SPIE: Medical Physics, Feb. 20-26, 1999, pp. 2-11, vol. 3859, SPIE.
Fichtinger, Gabor et al., “Robotically Assisted Percutaneous Local Therapy and Biopsy,” 10th International Conference of Advance Robotics, 2001, pp. 133-151, IEEE.
Fichtinger, Gabor et al., “Transrectal prostate biopsy inside closed MRI scanner with remote actuation under real-time image guidance,” Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2002, pp. 91-98, vol. 2488, Springer Verlag.
Fichtinger, Gabor et al., “Surgical CAD/CAM and its application for robotically assisted percutaneous procedures,” 30th Applied Imagery Pattern Recognition Workshop (AIPR). 2001. pp. 3-8, IEEE.
Fichtinger, Gabor et al., “System For Robotically Assisted Prostate Biopsy and Therapy With intraOperative CT Guidance,” Journal of Academic Radiology, 2002, pp. 60-74, vol. 9 No 1, Elsevier.
Fisher, Scott S., “Virtual interface environment,” IEEE/A1AA 7th Digital Avionics Systems Conference Ft. Worth Texas, 1986, pp. 346-350, IEEE.
Frantz D.D et al., “Accuracy assessment protocols for electromagnetic tracking systems,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, 2003, pp. 2241-2251, Issue 48.
Fu, K.S. et al., “Robotics: control, sensing, vision, and intelligence,” 1987, pp. 12-76 and 201-265, Ch. 2 8 5, McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Fuchs, Henry et al., “Augmented Reality Visualization for Laparoscopic Surgery,” Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, 1998, pp. 934-943, vol. 1496, Springer-Verlag.
Fukuda, Toshio et al., “A new method of master-slave type of teleoperation for a micro-manipulator system,” IEEE Microrobots and Teleoperations Workshop, 1987, 5 pages, IEEE.
Funda J., et al., “An experimental user interface for an interactive surgical robot,” In 1st International Symposium on Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery (MRCAS 94), 1994, pp. 196-203.
Funda J., et al., “Constrained Cartesian Motion Control for Teleoperated Surgical Robots,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, IEEE, Jun. 1996, vol. 12 (3), pp. 453-465.
Funda, Janez et al., “Comparison of two manipulator designs for laparoscopic surgery,” SPIE International Symposium on Optical Tools for Manufacturing and Advanced Automation, 1994, pp. 172-183, vol. 2351, Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies.
Funda, Janez et al., “Control and evaluation of a 7-axis surgical robot for laparoscopy,” IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, 1995, pp. 1477-1484, vol. 2, IEEE.
Funda, Janez et al., “Image-Guided Command and Control of a Surgical Robot,” Proc. Medicine Meets Virtual Reality II, 1994, pp. 52-57.
Funda, Janez et al., “Optimal Motion Control for Teleoperated Surgical Robots,” Intl. Symp. on Optical Tools for Manuf. & Adv Autom,Telemanipulator Technology and Space Telerobotics, 1993, pp. 211-222, vol. 2057, SPIE.
Furuta, Katsuhisa et al., “Master slave manipulator based on virtual internal model following control concept,” IEEE Intl. Conference on Robotics and Automation, 1987, pp. 567-572, vol. 1, IEEE.
Ganssle J.G.,,A Guide to Debouncing,The Ganssle Group,Jun. 2008,26 pages.
Garrett, William F. et al., “Real-Time Incremental Visualization of Dynamic Ultrasound Volumes Using Parallel BSP Trees,” IEEE Proceedings Visualization, 1996, pp. 235-240, 490, IEEE.
Gee, Andrew et al., “Processing and visualizing three-dimensional ultrasound data,” Journal of Radiology, 2004, pp. 186-193, vol. 77.
Gennari, G. et al., “Probabilistic data association methods in visual tracking of groups,” IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2004, pp. l-790-1-797, vol. 1—issue. 27, IEEE.
Gigot, Jean-Francois et al., “Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Malignant Liver Tumors Prclimary Results of a Multicenter European Study.” Ann Surg, 2002, pp. 90-97, vol. 236—issue 1.
Gonzales, Adriana Vilchis et al., “A System for Robotic Tele-echography,” Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, 2001, pp. 326-334, vol. 2208, Springer.
Green, Philip, S. et al., “Mobile telepresence surgery,” 2nd Annual Intl Symposium on Med. Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, Maryland Nov. 1995, pp. 97-103.
Grimson, W. Eric et al., “Automated Registration for Enhanced Reality Visualization in Surgery,” 1st International Symposium on Medical Robotic and Computer Assisted Surgery (MRCAS), Pittsburgh, 1994, pp. 82-89.
Grimson, W.E.L., et al., “An automatic registration method for frameless stereotaxy, image guided surgery, and enhanced reality visualization,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 15, No. 2, Apr. 1996, pp. 129-140.
Hager G., et al., “The X Vision System: A Portable Substrate for Real Time Vision Applications,” Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 1998, vol. 69 (1),pp. 23-37.
Hager, Gregory D., “A Modular System for Robust Positioning Using Feedback from Stereo Vision,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, Aug. 1997, vol. 13 (4), pp. 582-595.
Hager, Gregory D. et al., “Efficient Region Tracking With Parametric Models of Geometry and Illumination,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 1998, pp. 1025-1039, vol. 20-issue. 10, IEEE.
Hager Gregory D. et al., “Multiple Kernel Tracking with SSD,” Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR 2004), 2004, pp. 1-790-1-797, vol. 1-issue 27, IEEE.
Hannaford, Blake et al., “Experimental and simulation studies of hard contact in force reflecting teleoperation,” IEEE international Conference on Robotics and Automation Proceedings, 1988, pp. 584-589, vol. 1, IEEE.
Hannaford, Blake et al., “Performance Evaluation of a Six-Axis Generalized Force-Reflecting Teleoperator,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 1991, pp. 620-633, vol. 21-No. 3, IEEE.
Harris, S.J. et al., “A robotic procedure for transurethral resection of the prostate,” Second Annual International Symposium on Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, 1995, pp. 264-271.
Harris, S.J. et al., “Experiences with Robotic Systems for Knee Surgery,” First Joint Conference of CVRMed and MRCAS. Mar. 19-22, 1997, Grenoble, France; Springer, 1997, pp. 757-766.
Herline A.J., et al., “Image-Guided Surgery: Preliminary Feasibility Studies of Frameless Stereotactic Liver Surgery,” Archives of Surgery, 1999, vol. 134 (6), pp. 644-650.
Herline, Alan J. et al., “Surface Registration for Use in Interactive,” Image-Guided Liver Surgery, Computer Aided Surgery, 2000, pp. 11-17, vol. 5-No. 2.
Herman, Barry C., et al., “Telerobotic surgery creates opportunity for augmented reality surgery,” Abstract No. T1F2, Telemedicine Journal and E-Health, vol. 11, Issue 2, p. 203, Apr. 2005.
Herman, Barry C., “On the Role of Three Dimensional Visualization for Surgical Applications in Interactive Human Machine Systems,” Masters of Science Thesis in Computer Science, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, 2005, 216 pages.
Herper Matthew, “Watch a $1.5 Million Surgical Robot Play a Board Game,” Forbes. Apr. 12, 2011. 2 pages, Online [Available: http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2011/04/12/watch-a-1-5-million-surgical-robot-play-a-board-game/#587224f011f5] Accessed Jun. 7, 2016.
Hespanha J.P., et al., “What Tasks Can Be Performed with an Uncalibrated Stereo Vision System,” International Journal of Computer Vision, Nov. 1999, vol. 35 (1), 33 pages.
Hill J.W., et al., “Telepresence surgery demonstration system,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 1994, vol. 3, pp. 2302-2307.
Ho. S. C.et al., “Robot Assisted Knee Surgery,” IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, 1995, pp. 292-300, vol. 14-Iss. 3, IEEE.
Hong, Jae-Sung et al., “A Motion Adaptable Needle Placement Instrument Based on Tumor Specific Ultrasonic Image Segmentation,” Fifth International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention, MICCAI '02, Tokyo, Japan, Jul. 2002, pp. 122-129.
Horn, Berthold K.P., “Closed-form solution of absolute orientation using unit quaternions,” Journal of the Optical Society of America A, vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 629-642, Apr. 1987.
Hunter, Ian W. et al., “A teleoperated microsurgical robot and associated virtual environment for eye surgery,” Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1993, pp. 265-280, vol. 2-No. 4, MIT Press.
Hunter, Ian W. et al., “Ophthalmic microsurgical robot and associated virtual environment,” Comput. Biol. Med, 1995, vol. 25, Issue 2, pp. 173-182, Pergamon.
Hurteau et al., “Laparoscopic surgery assisted by a robotic cameraman: Concept and Experimental results,” IEEE international Conference on Robotics and Automation, May 8-13, 1994, pp. 2286-2289, vol. 3, IEEE.
Hutchinson, Seth et al., “A Tutorial Visual Servo Control,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 1996, pp. 651-670, vol. 12 issue.5, IEEE.
IEEE Systems and Software Engineering—Recommended Practice for Architectural Description of Software-Intensive Systems, IEEE Std 1471-2000, 34 pages, First Edition, Jul. 15, 2007.
Inoue, Masao; “Six-Axis bilateral control of an articulated slave manipulator using a Cartesian master manipulator,” Advanced robotics, 1990, pp. 139-150, vol. 4-lssue 2, Robotic society of Japan.
International Search Report and Written Opinion for Application No. PCT/US2012/064379, dated Mar. 29, 2013, 12 pages.
International Search Report and Written Opinion for Application No. PCT/US2012/064400, dated Mar. 27, 2013, 10 pages.
Intuitive Surgical, Inc., “Intuitive Surgical daVinci API v5.0 Reference Manual,” generated Jul. 17, 2006, 149 pages.
Jackson, Bernie G. et al., “Force Feedback and Medical Simulation,” Interactive Technology and the New Paradigm for Healthcare, Morgan et al. (Eds ), 1995, pp. 147-151, vol. 24, IOS Press and Ohms.
Jain, Ameet Kumar et al., “Understanding Bone Responses in B-mode Ultrasound Images and Automatic Bone Surface Extraction using a BayesianProbabilistic Framework,” SPIE Medical Imaging, 2004, pp. 131-142, vol. 5373.
Johns Hopkins University and Intuitive Surgical, Inc., “System Requirements for the Surgical Assistant Workstation,” Rev. 2, Jan. 29, 2007, 17 pages.
Joskowicz L., et al., “Computers in Imaging and Guided Surgery,” Computing in Science and Engineering, 2001, vol. 3 (5), pp. 65-72.
Jurie, Frederic et al., “Hyperplane Approximation for Template Matching,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence(PAMI), 2002, pp. 996-1000, vol. 24-Issue 7, IEEE.
Kane, Robert A., “Intraoperative Ultrasonography, History, Current State of the Art, and Future Directions,” J Ultrasound Med, 2004, pp. 1407-1420, vol. 23.
Kaplan, Irving, “Minimizing Rectal and Urinary Complications in Prostate Brachytherapy,” Journal of Endourology, 2000, pp. 381-383.
Kapoor A., et al., “Simple Biomanipulation Tasks with ”Steady Hand“ Cooperative Manipulator,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2003, vol. 2878, pp. 141-148.
Kapoor, Ankur and Russell H. Taylor, “A constrained optimization approach to virtual fixtures for multi-handed tasks,” 2008 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA 2008), May 19-23, 2008, Pasadena, California, pp. 3401-3406.
Kapoor, Ankur et al., “Constrained Control for Surgical Assistant Robots,” 2006 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA 2006), Orlando, Florida, May 15-19, 2006, pp. 231-236.
Kapoor, Ankur et al., “Suturing in Confined Spaces: Constrained Motion Control of a Hybrid 8-DOF Robot,” Proceedings, 12th International Conference on Advanced Robotics, 2005, pp. 452-459.
Kapoor, Ankur, Motion Constrained Control of Robots for Dexterous Surgical Tasks, Ph.D. Dissertation, The Johns Hopkins University, Department of Computer Science, Baltimore, Maryland, Sep. 2007, 351 pages.
Kato H., et al., “The Effects of Spatial Cues in Augmented Reality Video Conferencing,” Hiroshima City University, Aug. 2001, 4 pages.
Kato H., et al. “Virtual Object Manipulation on a Table-Top AR Environment,” Hiroshima City University, 2000, 9 pages.
Kavoussi L.R., “Laparoscopic Donor Neptarectomy.” Kidney International, 2000, vol. 57, pp. 2175-2186.
Kazanzides, Peter et al., “A cooperatively-controlled image guided robot system for skull base surgery,” Medicine Meets Virtual Reality 16 (MMVR 16) Conference, Jan. 30-Feb. 1, 2008, Long Beach, California, J.D. Westwood et al., eds., IOS Press, 2008, pp. 198-203.
Kazanzides, Peter et al., “Force Sensing and Control for a Surgical Robot,” Int. Conference on Robotics and Automation, May 1992, Nice, France; pp. 612-617, vol. 1, IEEE.
Kazerooni, H. , “Human Extenders,” ASME J. Dynamic Systems, Measurements and Control, 1993, pp. 281-290, vol. 115 No. 2(B).
Kazerooni, H., “Design and analysis of the statically balanced direct-drive robot manipulator,” Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 1989, pp. 287-293, vol. 6, Issue 4.
Kazerooni, H. et al., “The Dynamics and Control of a Haptic Interface Device,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 1994, pp. 453-464, vol. 10-Issue 4, IEEE.
Kazerooni, H., “Human/Robot Interaction via the Transfer of Power and Information Signals Part I: Dynamics and Control Analysis,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 1989, pp. 1632-1640, IEEE.
Kilmer, R. D. et al., “Watchdog safety computer design and implementation,” RI/SME Robots 8 Conference, Jun. 1984, pp. 101-117.
Kim, Won S. et al., “Active compliance and damping in telemanipulator control,” Jet Propulsion Laboratory New technology Report, 1991, pp. 1-14a, vol. 15-Issue 4, JPL & NASA Case No. NPO-1796917466, Item 40.
Koizumi, Naoshi et al., “Development of Three-Dimensional Endoscopic Ultrasound System with Optical Tracking,” Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention - MICCAI '02, Tokyo, 2002, pp. 60-65, vol. 2488, Springer-Verlag.
Kitagawa, Masaya et al., “Effect of Sensory Substitution on Suture Manipulation Forces for Surgical Teleoperation,” 12th Annual Medicine Meets Virtual Reality Conference, 2005, 8 pages.
Koizumi, Norihiro et al., “Continuous Path Controller of Slave Manipulator in Remote Ultrasound Diagnostic System,” Int. Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA 2002). 2002, pp. 3368-3373, vol. 4, IEEE.
Komada, Satoshi et al., “Bilateral robot hand based on estimated force feedback,” IEEE Proceedings IECON 87 Cambridge MA, Nov. 3-6, 1987, pp. 602-607, vol. 2, IEEE.
Kon, Ryan et al., “An open-source ultrasound calibration toolkit,” Medical Imaging Ultrasonic Imaging and Signal Processing, 2005, pp. 516-523, vol. 5750, SPIE.
Korein James U. et al., “A Configurable System for Automation Programming and Control,” IEEE Conf. on Robotics and Automation. San Francisco, 1986, pp. 1871-1877, vol. 3, IEEE.
Kosugi, Yukio et al., “An articulated neurosurgical navigation system using MRI and CT Images,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 1988, pp. 147-152, vol. 35-Issue 2, IEEE.
Kragic D. et al., “Human-Machine Collaborative Systems for Microsurgical Applications,” International Symposium on Robotics Research, 2005, pp. 731-741, vol. 24-lssue 9, Sage Publications.
Kruchten, Philippe B., “The 4+1 View Model of Architecture,” IEEE Software, vol. 12, Issue 6, pp. 42-50, Nov. 1995.
Krupa, A. et al., “Automatic 3-D Positioning of Surgical Instruments during Laparoscopic Surgery Using Automatic Visual Feedback,” Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention-Part, Lecture Notes In Computer Science, 2002, pp. 9-16, vol. 2488, Springer Verlag.
Kumar, R., et al., “An Augmentation System for Fine Manipulation,” Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, Lecture Notes In Computer Science, 2000, vol. 1935, pp. 957-965.
Kumar, Rajesh et al., “Application of Task-Level Augmentation for Cooperative Fine Manipulation Tasks in Surgery,” Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, Lecture Notes In Computer Science, 2001, pp. 1417-1418, vol. 2208, Springer Verlang.
Kumar, Rajesh et al., “Experiments with a Steady Hand Robot in Constrained Compliant Motion and Path Following”, 1999, pp. 92-97, IEEE.
Kumar, Rajesh et al., “Preliminary Experiments in Cooperative Human/Robot Force Control for Robot Assisted Microsurgical Manipulation,” Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2000, pp. 610-617, vol. 1, IEEE.
Kumar, Rajesh et al., “Preliminary experiments in robot/human microinjection,” IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2003, pp. 3186-3191, vol. 3, IEEE.
Kwoh, Yik, San et al., “A Robot With Improved Absolute Positioning Accuracy for CT Guided Stereotactic Brain Surgery,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, Feb. 1988, pp. 153-160, vol. 35-Issue 2, IEEE.
Lacroute, Philippe G., “Fast Volume Rendering Using a Shear-Warp Factorization of the Viewing Transformation PhD Thesis,” Computer Science, Stanford, California, 1995, 236 Pages.
Lang, Samuel J., Xvision 2—A Framework for Dynamic Vision. Masters Thesis, Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, 2001, pp. 1-49.
Lange, Thomas et al., Augmenting Intraoperative 3D Ultrasound with Preoperative Models for Navigation in Liver Surgery, Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Interventions, 2004, pp. 534-541, vol. 3217, Springer Verlag.
Lau, William W. et al., “Stereo-Based Endoscopic Tracking of Cardiac Surface Deformation,” Proceedings of Seventh International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention (MICCAI), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2004, pp. 494-501, vol. 2, Springer Verlag.
Lavonius, Maija I. et al., “Staging of Gastric Cancer: A Study with Spiral Computed Tomography,Ultrasonography, Laparoscopy, and Laparoscopic Ultrasonography,” Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques, 2002, pp. 77-81, vol. 12-No. 2, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.
Lawson, Charles L. et al., “Linear least squares with linear inequality constraints Solving Least Squares Problems,” 1974, pp. 158-173, Prentice Hall Inc.
Lazarevic, Zoran, “Feasibility of a Stewart Platform with Fixed Actuators as a Platform for CABG Surgery Device,” 1997, 45 pages, Master's Thesis Columbia University Department of Bioengineering.
LEE Jr, Fred T. et al., “CT-monitored percutaneous cryoablation in a pig liver model,” Radiology, 1999, pp. 687-692, vol. 211(3).
Leven, Joshua, “A Telerobotic Surgical System With Integrated Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Ultrasound Capability,” Thesis for Master of Science in Engineering in Computer Science, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, May 2005, 63 pages.
Leven, Joshua et al. “DaVinci Canvas: A Telerobotic Surgical System with Integrated, Robot-Assisted, Laparoscopic Ultrasound Capability,” Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention (MICCAI), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, J. Duncan et al. Eds., Palm Spring, Springer Verlag, 2005, vol. 3749, pp. 811-818.
Levoy, Marc, “Display of Surfaces from Volume Data,” IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 1988, pp. 29-37, vol. 8-Iss. 3, IEEE.
Li, M., “Intelligent Robotic Surgical Assistance for Sinus Surgery,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Aug. 2005, 246 pages.
Li, Ming and Russell H. Taylor, “Spatial Motion Constraints in Medical Robots Using Virtual Fixtures Generated by Anatomy,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, New Orleans, Apr. 2004, pp. 1270-1275.
Li, Ming and Russell H. Taylor, “Performance of surgical robots with automatically generated spatial virtual fixtures,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Barcelona, Spain, Apr. 2005, pp. 217-222.
Li, Ming et al., “A Constrained Optimization Approach to Virtual Fixtures,” IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2005), Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, Aug. 2-6, 2005, pp. 1408-1413.
Li, Ming et al., “Optimal Robot Control for 3D Virtual Fixture inConstrained ENT Surgery,” Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention—MICCAI, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2003, pp. 165-172, vol. I, Springer Verlag.
Li, Ming et al., “Recognition of Operator Motions for Real-Time Assistance using Virtual Fixtures,” IEEE, HAPTICS 2003, 11th Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teieoperator Systems, Mar. 22-23, 2003, pp. 125-131, IEEE.
Loser, Michael H. et al., “A New Robotic System for Visually Controlled Percutaneous Interventions under CT Fluoroscopy,” Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Interventions,Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2000, pp. 887-896, vol. 1935, Springer Verlag.
Loser, Michael H. et al., “Visual servoing for automatic and uncalibrated percutaneous procedures,” SPIE Medical Imaging, 2000, pp. 270-281, vol. 3976, SPIE.
Lunwei Z., et al., “FBG Sensor Devices for Spatial Shape Detection of Intelligent Colonoscope,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Apr. 2004, New Orleans, Louisiana, pp. 835-840.
Madhani A.J., “Design of Teleoperated Surgical Instruments for Minimally Invasive Surgery,” Feb. 1998, 251 pages.
Maehara, S et al., “Laparoscopy-Assisted Hepatectomy Using the Endoclose,” Surgical Endoscopy, 2002, vol. 16 (9), pp. 1363-1364.
Maier, Georg, E. et al., “A Dynamically Configurable General Purpose Automation Controller,” Proceedings of IFAC/IFIP Symp. on Software for Computer Control, 1986, pp. 47-52, Pergamon Press.
Mala, T. et al., “A Comparative Study of the Short-Term Outcome Following Open and Laparoscopic Liver Resection of Colorectal Metastases,” Surg Endosc, 2002, pp. 1059-1063, vol. 16(7), Springer Verlag.
Marayong, Panadda et al., “Spatial Motion Constraints: Theory and Demonstrations for Robot Guidance Using Virtual Fixtures,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation Robotics and Automation, 2003, pp. 1954-1959, vol. 2, No. 14-19, IEEE.
Marescaux, Jadques and Francesco Rubino, “Virtual Operative Fields for Surgical Simulation,” Chapter 4 in Primer of Robotic & Telerobotic Surgery, Eds. Garth H. Ballantyne et al., Pub. by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, 2004, pp. 26-31.
Masamune K., et al., “Development of a MRI Compatible Needle Insertion Manipulator for Stereotactic Neurosurgery,” Journal of Image Guided Surgery, 1995, vol. 1, pp. 242-248.
Masamune K., el al., “System for Robotically Assisted Percutaneous Procedures With Computed Tomography Guidance,” Journal of Computer—Assisted Surgery, 2001, vol. 6 (6), pp. 370-383.
Masamune, Ken et al., “Development of a MRI Compatible Needle Insertion Manipulator for Stereotactic Neurosurgery,” Image Guid Surg, 1995, pp. 165-172.
Masamune Ken et al., “Development of CT-PAKY frame system—CT image guided needle puncturing manipulator and a single slice registration for urological surgery,” Proc. 8th annual meeting of Japanese Society for Computer Aided Surgery (JSCAS), 1999, pp. 89-90.
Masamune, Ken H. et al., “A Newly Developed Stereotactic Robot with Detachable Drive for Neurosurgery,” 1st International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention—MICCAI,Cambridge, Massachusetts: Springer, Oct. 11-13, 1998, pp. 215-222, vol. 1496.
Massie, Thomas H. et al., “The PHANTOM Haptic Interface: A Device for Probing Virtual Objects,” Proceedings of the ASME Winter Annual Meeting, Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems, 1994, 7 pages.
Mayer, Hermann et al., “Skill Transfer and Learning by Demonstration in a Realistic Scenario of Laparoscopic Surgery,” International Conference on Humanoids, 2003, 17 pages, IEEE.
Mayer, Hermann et al., “The Endo [PA]R System for Minimally Invasive Robotic Surgery,” IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2004, pp. 3637-3642, vol. 4, IEEE.
Megali, Giusepp et al., “A Computer-Assisted Robotic Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy System for Video-Assisted Surgery,” Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, Lecture Notes In Computer Science, 2001, pp. 343-350, vol. 2208, Springer-Verlag.
Menack, M. et al., “Staging of pancreatic and ampullary cancers for resectability using laparoscopy with laparoscopic ultrasound,” Surg Endosc, 2001, pp. 1129-1134, vol. 15-No. 10, Springer-Verlag.
Menon, Mani, “Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy, a technique of robotic radical prostatectomy for management of localized carcinoma of the prostate: experience of over 1100 cases,” Urol Clin N Am, 2004, pp. 701-717, vol. 31.
Merola, Stephen et al., “Comparison of Laparoscopic Colectomy With and Without the Aid of a Robotic Camera Holder,” Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech, 2002, pp. 45-61, vol. 12-No. 1, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.
Migga, Michael I. et al., “Intraoperative Registration of the Liver for Image-Guided Surgery System,” The International Society for Optical Engineering (SPIE), Medical Imaging 2003: Visualization, Image-Guided Procedures, and Display; San Diego, CA, Ed. Robert L. Galloway, 2003, pp. 350-359, vol. 5029.
Mitsuishi M., et al., “A tele-micro-surgery system with co-located view and operation points and a rotational-force-feedback-free master manipulator,” 2nd Annual Intl. Symposium on Medical robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery Baltimore Maryland, Nov. 4-7, 1995, pp. 111-118.
Mitsuishi, Mamoru et al., “Remote Ultrasound Diagnostic System,” Conf. on Robotics and Automation, 2001, pp. 1567-1574, vol. 2, IEEE.
Mourgues, Fabien et al., “Flexible Calibrations of Actuated Stereoscopic Endoscope for Overlay in Robot Assisted Surgery,” Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention-Part I, Lecture Notes In Computer Science, 2002, pp. 25-34, vol. 2488, Springer-Verlag.
Muratore, Diane M. et al., “Beam Calibration Without a Phantom for Creating a 3D Free-hand Ultrasound System,” Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology, 2001, pp. 1557-1566, vol. 27-No. 11, Elsevier.
Nakakura, Eric K et al., “Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Current Management Recommendations,” Advances on Oncology, 2000, pp. 12-18, vol. 16-No. 2.
Neisius B. et al., “Robotic manipulator for endoscopic handling of surgical effectors and cameras,” 1st Intl. Symposium on Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, 1994, pp. 169-175, vol. 2.
Nelson, Thomas R. et al., “Interactive Acquisition, Analysis, and Visualization of Sonographic Volume Data,” International Journal of Imaging Systems and Technology, 1997, pp. 26-37, vol. 8, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Nelson, Thomas, R. et al., “Three-dimensional ultrasound imaging,” Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology, 1998, pp. 1243-1270, vol. 24-No. 9, Elsevier.
Ng, W.S. et al., “Robotic Surgery, A First-Hand Experience in Transurethral Resection of the Prostate,” IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology, Mar. 1993, pp. 120-125, vol. 12-Issue 1, IEEE.
Novotny Paul M. et al., “Tool Localization in 3D Ultrasound Images,” Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, 2003, pp. 969-970, vol. 2879, Springer.
Office Action dated Jun. 12, 2015 for Japanese Application No. 20130186992 filed Sep. 10, 2013, 8 pages.
Office Action dated Jan. 26, 2015 for Japanese Application No. 20130186992 filed Sep. 10, 2013, 9 pages.
Office Action dated Apr. 30, 2015 for European Application No. 20100724228 filed Jun. 11, 2010, 5 pages.
Office Action dated May 31, 2016 for Korean Application No. 10-2012-7000713 filed Jan. 10, 2012, 12 pages.
Ohbuchi R., et al., “Incremental Volume Reconstruction and Rendering for 3D Ultrasound Imaging,” The International Society of Optical Engineering, 1992, vol. 1808, pp. 312-323.
Park, Shinsuk et al., “Virtual Fixtures for Robotic Cardiac Surgery,” Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, 2001, pp. 1419-1420, vol. 2208, Springer-Verlag.
Patriciu A., et al., “Motion-based Robotic Instrument Targeting under C-Arm Fluoroscopy,” Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Interventions, 2000, vol. 1935, pp. 988-998.
Paul, Howard A. et al., “Development of a Surgical Robot for Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty,” Clinical Orthopaedics, Dec. 1992, pp. 57-66, vol. 285.
Payandeh S., et al., “On Application of Virtual Fixtures as an Aid for Telemanipulation and Training,” Proceedings 10th Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems (HAPTICS),Mar. 2002, pp. 18-23.
PCT/US07/71850 International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, dated Feb. 13, 2008, 9 pages.
PCT/US09/46234 International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, dated Sep. 9, 2009, 13 pages.
PCT/US09/56078 International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, dated Jan. 20, 2010, 12 pages.
PCT/US10/28886 International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, dated Jul. 6, 2010, 11 pages.
PCT/US10/28897 International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, dated Jul. 19, 2010, 16 pages.
PCT/US10/38246 International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, dated Sep. 14, 2010, 17 pages.
PCT/US2011/036109 International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, dated Oct. 19, 2011, 16 pages.
PCT/US2011/036109 Invitation to Pay Additional Fees and Partial International Search Report, dated Aug. 18, 2011, 5 pages.
Gelb, A., et al., Table of Contents for“Applied Optimal Estimation,” The Analytic Science Corporation, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1974, 4 pages.
Jones D.B. et al., Chapter 25, “Next-Generation 3D Videosystems may Improve Laparoscopic Task Performance,” Interactive Technology and the New Paradigm for Healthcare, 1995, pp. 152-160.
Podnos Y.D., et al., “Laparoscopic Ultrasound with Radiofrequency Ablation in Cirrhotic Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Technique and Technical Considerations,” American Surgeon, Dec. 2001, vol. 67 (12), pp. 1181-1184.
Office Action dated Dec. 16, 2016 for Japanese Application No. 2015242062 filed Oct. 14, 2015, 13 pages.
Pose—definition from Merriam Webster Dictionary, 4 pages, [online], [retrieved on Apr. 3, 2015]. Retrieved from the Internet: URL: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictonary/pose>.
Posture—definition from Merriam Webster Dictionary, 4 pages, [online], [retrieved on Apr. 3, 2015]. Retrieved from the Internets URL: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictonary/posture>.
Poulose B.K., et al., “Human vs Robotic Organ Retraction During Laparoscopic Nissen Fundoplication,” Surgical Endoscopy, 1999, vol. 13, pp. 461-465.
Prager Richard et al., “Practical segmentation of 3D ultrasound,” In Proceedings of Medical Image Understanding and Analysis, 1999, pp. 161-164.
Prager Richard et al., “Rapid Calibration for 3D Freehand Ultrasound,” Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology, 1998, pp. 855-869, vol. 24-No. 6, Elsevier.
Prasad, Srinivas K. et al., “A minimally invasive approach to pelvic osteolysis,” 2002, in Proc. Computer-Assisted Orthopaedic Surgery (CAOS), pp. 349-350.
Prasad Srinivas K. et al., “A Modular 2-DOF Force-Sensing Instrument for Laparoscopic Surgery,” Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention—MICCAI,Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2003, pp. 279-286, vol. I, Springer.
Pre-Appeal Examination Report, dated Sep. 3, 2014 for Japanese Application No. JP20120503535 filed Mar. 26, 2010, 7 pages.
Pressing B., et al., “A Literature Review: Robots in Medicine,” IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology, Jun. 1991, vol. 10(2), pp. 13-22.
Solomon S.B., et al., “Robotically Driven Interventions: A Method of Using CT Fluoroscopy without Radiation Exposure to the Physician,” Radiology, 2002, vol. 225, pp. 277-282.
3D Slicer, http://slicer.org/welcome.html, downloaded Oct. 25, 2006, p. 1; and Introduction, http:/slicer.org/intro/index.html, downloaded Oct. 25, 2006, pp. 1-4.
Michael B. Cohn's Home Page, http://www.bsac.eecs.berkeley.edu/users/michaelc/, downloaded Nov. 1, 1996, p. 1; UC Berkeley/Endorobotics Corporation Surgical Robotics Project Job Openings, http:/www.bsac.eecs.berkeley.edu/users/michaelc/jobs.html, downloaded Nov. 1, 1996, p. 1; and Medical Robotics, http://robotics.eecs.berkeley.edu/˜mcenk/medical/, downloaded Nov. 1, 1996, pp. 1-8.
Taylor R.H., et al., Table of Contents, “Computer-Integrated Surgery,” Technology and Clinical Applications, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996, 8 pages.
Thring, M.W., “Robots and Telechirs: Manipulators with Memory; Remote Manipulators; Machine Limbs for the Handicapped,” Ellis Horwood Limited, England,1983, 79 pages, including Table of Contents, Preface, Chap. 5 (pp. 108-131), Chap. 7 (pp. 194-195, 235), Chap. 8 (pp. 236-278), Chap. 9 (p. 279).
Ramey, N. A., “Stereo-Based Direct Surface Tracking with Deformable Parametric Models,” Thesis submitted to The Johns Hopkins University, Maryland, Apr. 2003, 104 pages.
Ramey, Nicholas A. et al., “Evaluation of Registration Techniques in a robotic approach to pelvic osteolysis.” International Proceedings of Computer Assisted Orthopaedic Surgery (CAOS), 2004, pp. 26-27.
Rasmussen, Christopher et al., “Probabilistic data association methods for tracking complex visual objects,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2001, pp. 560-576, vol. 23, Issue 6, IEEE.
Ratner, Lloyd E. et al., “Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy removes disincentives to live donation,” Transplantation, 1997, pp. 3402-3403, vol. 29-Issue 8, Elsevier.
Ratner, Lloyd E. et al., “Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy,” Transplantation, 1995, pp. 1047-1049.
Rau, Beate, M. eta al., “Is There Additional Information From Laparoscopic Ultrasound in Tumor Staging”, Digestive Surgery, 2002, pp. 479-483, vol. 19-No. 6.
Rockall, Timothy A., “The da Vinci Telerobotic Surgical System,” Chapter 8 in Primer of Robotic & Telerobotic Surgery, Eds. Garth H. Ballantyne et al., Pub. by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, 2004, pp. 57-60.
Rohling, Robert et al., “Three-dimensional spatial compounding of ultrasound images,” Medical Image Analysis, 1996, pp. 177-193, vol. 1-No. 3, Oxford University Press.
Rohling, Robert N. et al., “Radial basis function interpolation for 3-d ultrasound,” CUED/F-INFENG/TR 327, Cambridge University, Jul. 1998, 28 Pages.
Rosen, Jacob et al., “The BlueDRAGON—A System for Measuring the Kinematics and the Dynamics of Minimally Invasive Surgical Tools In-Viva,” Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE International Conference on Robotics 8 Automation, 2002, pp. 1876-1881, IEEE.
Rosenberg, Louis B., “Human interface hardware for virtual laparoscopic surgery,” Proceedings of the Interactive Technology and the New Paradigm for Healthcare, 1995, pp. 322-325, Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Rosenberg, Louis B., “Virtual Fixtures: Perceptual Tools for Telerobotic Manipulation,” IEEE Virtual Reality International Symposium, 1993, pp. 76-82, IEEE.
Rothbaum Daniel L. et al., “Robot-assisted stapedotomy: micropick fenestration of the stapes footplate,” Otolaryngology—Head and NeckSurgery, 2002, pp. 417-426, vol. 127.
Rothbaum Daniel L. et al., “Task Performance in stapedotomy: Comparison between surgeons of different experience levels,” Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, 2003, pp. 71-77, vol. 128-No. 1.
Roy, Jaydeep, “Advances in the design, analysis and control of force controlled robots,” Master's Thesis, Mechanical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, 2001, 210 Pages.
Sakas, Georgios et al., “Extracting surfaces from fuzzy 3D-Ultrasound data,” Proceedings of the 22nd annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques. 1995, pp. 465-474.
Salcudean, Septimiu E et al., “A Robot System for Medical Ultrasound,” 9th International Symposium of Robotics Research (ISRR'99), 1999, pp. 195-202.
Santambrogio, R et al., “Ultrasound-Guided Interventional Procedures of the Liver During Laparoscopy: Technical Considerations,” Surg Endosc, 2002, pp. 349-354, Springer-Verlag.
Sastry, Shankar et al., “Millirobotics for remote minamally invasive surgery,” Proceedings of the Intl. Workshop on Some Critical Issues in Robotics, Singapore, Oct. 2-3, 1995, pp. 81-98.
Sastry, Shankar, http://robotics.eecs.berkeley.edu, Nov. 1, 1995, Total 8 pages.
Schenker, Paul S. et al., “Development of a Telemanipulator for Dexterity Enhanced Microsurgery,” 2nd Annual International Symposium on Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, Nov. 4-7, Baltimore, Maryland, 1995, pp. 81-88.
Schorr, O., et al., “Distributed Modular Computer-Integrated Surgical Robotic Systems: Architecture for Intelligent Object Distribution,” Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, Lecture Notes In Computer Science, 2000, vol. 1935, pp. 979-987.
Schreiner, Steve et al., “A system for percutaneous delivery of treatment with a fluoroscopically-guided robot,” Proceedings of the First Joint Conference on Computer Vision, Virtual Reality and Robotics in Medicine and Medial Robotics and Computer-Assisted Surgery,Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1997, pp. 747-756, Springer-Verlag.
Schweikard, Achim et al., “Motion Planning in Stereotaxic Radiosurgery,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 1993, pp. 909-916, vol. 1, IEEE.
Scott D.J., et al., “Accuracy and Effectiveness of Laparoscopic vs Open Hepatic Radiofrequency Ablation,”Surgical Endoscopy, Feb. 2001, vol. 15 (2),pp. 135-140.
Simaan, Nabil et al., “A Dexterous System for Laryngeal Surgery: Multi-Backbone Bending Snake-like Slaves for Teleoperated Dextrous Surgical Tool Manipulation,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2004, pp. 351-357, IEEE.
Simaan, Nabil et al., “High Dexterity Snake-Like Robotic Slaves for Minimally Invasive Telesurgery of the Upper Airway,” MICCAI 2004—the 7th International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, 2004, pp. 17-24.
Soius-3D Ultrasound Project in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Cambridge, http://mi.eng.cam.ac.uk/research/projects/Solus/, downloaded Jul. 5, 2007, 4 pages.
Sommer, Graham et al., “Liver tumors: utility of characterization at dual frequency US,” Radiology, 1999, pp. 629-636, vol. 211-No. 3.
Carr, J., “Surface reconstruction in 3D medical imaging,” PhD Thesis, Part 1, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 1996, 112 Pages.
Carr, J., “Surface reconstruction in 3D medical imaging,” PhD Thesis, Part 2, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 1996, 112 Pages.
Kumar R., “An Augmented Steady Hand System for Precise Micromanipulation,” PhD thesis in Computer Science, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Apr. 2001, 118 pages.
Lacroute, P., “The VolPack Volume Rendering Library,” 1995, information downloaded from https://graphics.stanford.edu/software/volpack/, 4 pages.
Sastry S., “MilliRobotics in Minimally Invasive Telesurgery,” Retrieved from Internet [URL: http://robotics.eecs.berkeley.edu] 1995, 3 pages.
Steele, Micah R. et al., “Shared control between human and machine: using a haptic steering wheel to aid in land vehicle guidance,” Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 45th Annual Meeting , Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2001, pp. 1671-1675.
Steen, Erik et al., “Volume Rendering of 3D Medical Ultrasound Data Using Direct Feature Mapping,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 1994, pp. 517-525, vol. 13-Iss. 3, IEEE.
Stefansic, James D. et al., “Registration of Physical Space to Laparoscopic Image Space for Use in Minimally Invasive Hepatic Surgery,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 2000, pp. 1012-1023, vol. 19-No. 10, IEEE.
Stetten, George D et al., “Overlaying Ultrasound Images on Direct Vision,” Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine, 2001, pp. 235-240, vol. 20-No. 3.
Stewart, Charles V. et al., “The Dual-Bootstrap Iterative Closest Point Algorithm With Application to Retinal Image Registration,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, Nov. 2003, pp. 1379-1394, vol. 22-No. 11, IEEE.
Stoainovici D., et al., “Robotic Telemanipulation for Percutaneous Renal Access,” in 16th World Congress On Endourology, New York City, Sep. 3-6, 1998, Poster Session 17-5, p. S201.
Stoianovici, Dan, “A Modular Surgical Robotic System for Image Guided Percutaneous Procedures,” Proceedings of the First International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pp. 404-410, vol. 1496, Springer-Verlag, 1998.
Stoianovici, Dan et al., “Robotic For Precise Percutaneous Needle Insertion,” In Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Society for Urology and Engineering. San Diego, May 1998, pp. 4.
Stoll, Jeff, “Ultrasound-based servoing of manipulators for telesurgery,” Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies VIII Conference, 2001, pp. 78-85, SPIE.
Sublett, John W. et al. “Design and implementation of a digital teleultrasound system for real-time remote diagnosis,” 8th IEEE Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems, IEEE Computer Society Press, Jun. 9-10, 1995, pp. 292-298.
Suramo, I. et al., “Cranio-caudal movements of the liver, pancreas and kidneys in respiration,” Acta Radiologica: Diagnosis, 1984, pp. 129-131, vol. 25, Radiological Societies.
Susil, Robert, C. et al., “A Single Image Registration Method for CT Guided Interventions,” 2nd International Symposium on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Interventions (MICCAl' 99),Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1999, pp. 798-808, vol. 1679, Springer-Verlag.
Szeliski, Richard, “Motion Estimation with Quadtree Splines,” IEEE 5th International Conference on Computer Vision, 1995, pp. 757-763, vol. 18-Issue. 12, IEEE Computer Society Washington, DC, USA.
Taubes, Gary et al., “Surgery in Cyberspace,” Discover magazine, Dec. 1994, vol. 15, issue 12, pp. 85-92.
Tavakoli, M., et al., A Force Reflective Master-Slave System for Minimally Invasive Surgery, Proc. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2003, pp. 3077-3082, vol. 4, IEEE.
Taylor R., et al., “A Telerobotic System for Augmentation of Endoscopic Surgery,” in IEEE Conference on Engineering in Medicine and Biology, 1992, vol. 14, pp. 1054-1056.
Taylor R.H., et al., “A Computational Architecture for Programmable Automation Research,” Intelligent Robots and Computer Vision, 1986, vol. 726, pp. 438-440.
Taylor, R.H., et al., “A General Purpose Control Architecture for Programmable Automation Research,” Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Robotics, 1986, pp. 165-173, MIT Press.
Taylor R.H. et al., “Medical Robotics and Computer-Integrated Surgery,” Chapter 52 in Springer Handbook of Robotics, Springer, 2008, pp. 1199-1222.
Taylor, R.H., “Medical Robotics and Computer-Integrated Surgery,” Handbook of Industrial Robotics, Second Edition, 1999, pp. 1213-1227, Chapter 65, John Wiley & Sons.
Taylor, Russell H., “A Perspective on Medical Robotics,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 94, No. 9, Sep. 2006, pp. 1652-1664.
Taylor, Russell H. “An Image-directed Robotic System for Precise Orthopaedic Surgery,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics mid Automation, 1994, pp. 261-275, vol. 10-No. 3, IEEE.
Taylor, Russell H. and Christopher Hasser, “Development of a Surgical Assistant Workstation for Teleoperated Surgical Robots,” NSF Proposal No. 0646678, Aug. 2006, 16 pages.
Taylor, Russell H. and Dan Stoianovici, “Medical Robotic Systems in Computer-integrated Surgery,” Problems in General Surgery, by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Vol 20, No. 2, pp. 1-9, 2003.
Taylor, Russell H. and Peter Kazanzides, “Medical Robotics and Computer-Integrated Interventional Medicine,” Chapter 18: Biomedical Information Technology, David Dagan Feng, Ed., Academic Press (Elsevier), 2008, pp. 393-416.
Taylor, Russell, H et al., “A Steady-Hand Robotic System for Microsurgical Augmentation,” International Journal of Robotics Research, 1999, pp. 1201-1210, vol. 18-No. 12, Springer-Verlag.
Taylor, Russell H. et al., “A Telerobotic Assistant for Laparoscopic Surgery,” IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology, May/Jun. 1995, pp. 279-288, vol. 14, Issue 3, IEEE.
Taylor, Russell, H et al., “AML A Manufacturing Language,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, 1982, pp. 19-41, vol. 1-No. 3, SAGE Publications.
Taylor, Russell H. et al., “An Image-directed Robotic System for Hip Replacement Surgery,” J. Robotics Society of Japan, 1990, pp. 615-620, vol. 8-issue 5.
Taylor, Russell, H. et al., “An Integrated Robot Systems Architecture,” Proceedings of the IEEE, 1983, pp. 842-856, vol. 71-lssue 7, IEEE.
Taylor, Russell H., et al., “An overview of computer-integrated surgery at the IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center,” IBM J Research and Development, 1996, pp. 163-183, vol. 40, Issue 2, IBM Corp.
Taylor, Russell H., et al., “Chapter 46: A Telerobotic Assistant for Laparoscopic Surgery,” in Computer-Integrated Surgery, R. H. Taylor, et al., Editors, 1996, MIT Press, pp. 581-592.
Taylor, Russell H. et al., “Computer-Integrated Revision Total Hip Replacement Surgery: Concept and Preliminary Results,” 1999, Medical image analysis, pp. 301-319, vol. 3-lssue 3, Oxford University Press.
Taylor, Russell H. et al., “Medical Robotics in Computer-Integrated Surgery,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics md Automation, 2003, pp. 765-781, vol. 19-No. 5, IEEE.
Taylor, Russell, H. et al., “Redundant Consistency Checking in a Precise Surgical Robot,” in 12'th Annual Conference on Engineering in Medicine and Biology, 1990, pp. 1933-1935, vol. 12-No. 5, IEEE.
Taylor, Russell H. et al., “Research Report: A Telerobotic Assistant for Laparoscopic Surgery,” Accepted to IEEE EIMBS Magazine, Special Issue on “Robotics in Surgery,” Dec. 1994, 24 pages.
Taylor, Russell, H et al., “The Architecture of an Integrated Robot System,” First Int. Conf. on Advanced Robotics (ICAR)., 1983, pp. 389-398.
Taylor, Russell H. “Medical Robots,” in Computer and Robotic Assisted Knee and Hip Surgery, 2004, pp. 54-59, Oxford Press.
Taylor, Russell H., “Robotics in Orthopedic Surgery,” In Computer Assisted Orthopaedic Surgery (CAOS), L.P. Nolte and R. Ganz, Editors. 1999, Hogrefe and Huber, 1999, pp. 35-41.
Taylor, Russell H. “The Planning and Execution of Straight Line Manipulator Trajectories,” IBM Journal of Research and Development, 1979, pp. 424-436, vol. 23-lssue 4.
Taylor, Russell H., “Ultrasound Assistant for a Laparoscopic Surgical Robot,” NIH STTR Phase II Proposal R42-RR019159, revised May 2001, 54 pages.
Taylor, Russell H., Videotape: “Computer Assisted Surgery at IBM T. J. Watson Research Center,” 22 minutes 10 seconds, 1994 and 1995.
Teistler, Michael et al., “Virtual Tomography: A New Approach to Efficient Human-Computer Interaction for Medical Imaging,” Proc. of SPIE., The International Society for Optical Engineering (SPIE), Medical Imaging 2003: Visualization, Image-Guided Procedures, and Display; San Diego, CA, Ed. Robert L. Galloway, 2003, pp. 512-519, vol. 5029.
Tewari, Ashutosh et al., “Technique of da Vinci Robot-Assisted Anatomic Radical Prostatectomy,” Urology, 2002, pp. 569-572,vol. 60-No. 4, Elsevier.
Toon, John, “Virtual Reality for Eye Surgery,” Georgia Tech Research News, 1993, 4 Pages.
Toyama, Kentaro et al., “Incremental Focus of Attention for Robust Vision-based Tracking,” International Journal of Computer Vision, 1999, pp. 45-63, vol. 35-No. 1, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Trevelyan, James P. et al., “Motion Control for a Sheep Shearing Robot,” IEEE Robotics Research Conference, the 1st International Symposium, Carroll, NH, USA., 1983, pp. 175-190, in Robotics Research, MIT Press.
Trivedi, Mohan M. et al., “Developing telerobotic systems using virtual reality concepts,” 1993 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and systems, 1993, pp. 352-359, vol. 1, IEEE.
Troccaz, Jocelyne et al., “The use of localizers, robots, and synergistic devices in CAS,” Proceedings of the First Joint Conference on Computer Vision, Virtual Reality and Robotics in Medicine and Medial Robotics and Computer-Assisted Surgery,Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1997, pp. 727-736, vol. 1205, Springer-Verlag.
Umeyama, Shinji, “Least-Squares Estimation of Transformation Parameters between Two Point Patterns,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine intelligence (PAMI), vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 376-380, Apr. 1991.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/583,963 Non-Final Office Action dated Jul. 9, 2009, 40 pages.
Vertut, Jean and Phillipe Coiffet, Robot Technology: Teleoperation and Robotics Evolution and Development, English translation, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Inglewood Cliffs, NJ, USA 1986, vol. 3A, 332 pages.
Vibet, C., “Properties of Master-Slave Robots,” Motor-con, MOTORCON'87, Hannover, Apr. 1987, pp. 309-316.
Vilchis, Adriana et al., “A New Robot Architecture for Tele-Echography,” IEEE Trans. Robotics & Automation, pp. 922-926, 2003, vol. 19-No. 5, IEEE.
Viswanathan, Anand et al., “Immediate Ultrasound Calibration with Three Poses and Minimal image Processing,” MICCAI, 2004, pp. 446-454, vol. 2, Springer-Verlag.
Webster R.J. et al., “Nonholonomic Modeling of Needle Steering,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, 2006, vol. 25 (5-6), pp. 509-525.
Webster Robert J. et al., “Design Considerations for Robotic Needle Steering,” International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2005, pp. 3588-3594, IEEE.
Wei, Guo-Quing et al., “Real-Time Visual Servoing for Laparoscopic Surgery,” IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, Jan./Feb. 1997, pp. 40-45, vol. 16-Issue 1, IEEE.
Wei, Zhouping et al. “Robot-assisted 3D-TRUS guided prostate brachytherapy: system integration and validation,” Medical Physics, 2004, pp. 539-548, vol. 31-No. 3.
Wengert, C., “Camera Calibration Toolbox for Matlab,” http://www.vision.caltech.edu/bouguetj/calib_doc/, downloaded Oct. 24, 2006, 9 pages.
Wilhelm, Dirk et al., “Electromagnetically Navigated Laparoscopic Ultrasound,” Surg. Technol. Int, 2003, pp. 50-54, vol. 11.
Wood Thomas F. et al., “Radiofrequency ablation of 231 Unresectable hepatic tumors:indications, limitations, and complications,” Ann. Surg. Oncol, 2000, pp. 593-600, vol. 7, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Wu, Xiaohui et al., “A Framework for Calibration of Electromagnetic Surgical Navigation Systems,” IEEE RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robot Systems (IROS), 2003, pp. 547-552, vol. 1, IEEE.
Xu, Sheng et al., “3D Motion Tracking of Pulmonary Lesions Using CT Fluoroscopy Images for Robotically Assisted Lung Biopsy,” Proc. SPIE. 5367, Medical Imaging 2004: Visualization, Image-Guided Procedures, and Display, 394. (May 5, 2004), pp. 394-402.
Yamagata H., et al., “Development of a New Display Method for Compound 3D Ultrasound Images: Fusion 3D Images From B-mode and 3D Doppler Images,” 1999, vol. 70, pp. 43-46.
Yao, Jianhua et al., “A C-arm fluoroscopy-guided progressive cut refinement strategy using a surgical robot,” Computer Aided Surgery, 2000, pp. 373-390, vol. 5-No. 6, Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Yao, Jianhua, et al., “A Progressive Cut Refinement Scheme for Revision Total Hip Replacement Surgery Using C-arm Fluoroscopy,” Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Medical Image and Computer-Assisted Intervention (MICCAI'99), Springer-Verlag, 1999, pp. 1010-1019, vol. 1679.
Yao, Jianhua et al., “Deformable registration between a statistical born density atlas and X-ray images,” Second International Conference on Computer Assisted Orthopaedic Surgery, 2002, pp. 168-169.
Zacherl, Johannes et al., “Current value of intraoperative sonography during surgery for hepatic neoplasms,” World J Surg, 2002, pp. 550-554, vol. 26-No. 5.
Zhang, Xiaoli and Shahram Payandeh, “Application of Visual Tracking for Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery,” Journal of Robotic Systems, vol. 19, No. 7, pp. 315-328, 2002.
Zhang, Z., “A Flexible New Technique for Camera Calibration,” Technical report MSR-TR-98-71, Microsoft Research, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, Dec. 1998, pp. 1-21.
Office Action dated Nov. 29, 2019 for U.S. Appl. No. 15/638,172, filed Jun. 29, 2017, 11 pages.
Office Action dated Oct. 24, 2019 for Korean Application No. 1020197022941 filed May 11, 2011, 14 pages.
Azuma et al., “Recent Advances in Augmented Reality,” IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, Dec. 2001, 14 pages.
Lievin et al., “Stereoscopic Augmented Reality System for Computer Assisted Surgery,” CARS 2001, Jun. 27-30, 2001, 5 pages.
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20190298463 A1 Oct 2019 US
Divisions (1)
Number Date Country
Parent 12489566 Jun 2009 US
Child 14748602 US
Continuations (2)
Number Date Country
Parent 15646685 Jul 2017 US
Child 16446167 US
Parent 14748602 Jun 2015 US
Child 15646685 US
Continuation in Parts (1)
Number Date Country
Parent 12163087 Jun 2008 US
Child 12489566 US