Medical robotic system providing sensory feedback indicating a difference between a commanded state and a preferred pose of an articulated instrument

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 10828774
  • Patent Number
    10,828,774
  • Date Filed
    Wednesday, November 27, 2019
    5 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, November 10, 2020
    4 years ago
Abstract
A medical robotic system includes an entry guide with articulated instruments extending out of its distal end. A controller is configured to command manipulation of one of the articulated instruments towards a state commanded by operator manipulation of an input device while commanding sensory feedback to the operator indicating a difference between the commanded state and a preferred pose of the articulated instrument, so that the sensory feedback serves to encourage the operator to return the articulated instrument back to its preferred pose.
Description
FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention generally relates to medical robotic systems and in particular, to a medical robotic system providing sensory feedback indicating a difference between a commanded state and a preferred pose of an articulated instrument.


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. Articulated instruments such as an articulated camera and a plurality of articulated 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 accommodates a single entry aperture for multiple instruments while keeping the instruments bundled together as it guides them toward the work site.


A number of challenges arise in medical robotic systems using such a bundled unit, however, because of the close proximity of the articulated camera and tool instruments. For example, because the camera instrument has proximal articulations (e.g., joints) that are not visible from the distal tip camera view, the surgeon can lose track of the current state of such articulations when moving the camera and consequently, their available range of motion. Also, when the articulations of the camera and tool instruments are out of view of the camera and therefore, not visible to the surgeon through its captured images, the surgeon may inadvertently drive links of the tools and/or camera instruments to crash into one another while telerobotically moving the articulated instruments to perform a medical procedure. In either case, the safety of the patient may be jeopardized and the successful and/or timely completion of the medical procedure may be adversely impacted.


OBJECTS AND SUMMARY

Accordingly, one object of one or more aspects of the present invention is a medical robotic system, and method implemented therein, that provides an operator a means for selecting a preferred pose for an articulated instrument, which serves as a biasing point for operator commanded movement of the articulated instrument.


Another object of one or more aspects of the present invention is a medical robotic system, and method implemented therein, that provides a sensory cue to an operator as the operator commands an articulated instrument to be moved from its preferred pose.


Another object of one or more aspects of the present invention is a medical robotic system, and method implemented therein, that provides a haptic force to an operator that nudges the operator to move an articulated instrument back to its preferred pose.


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 right side views of articulated instruments extending out of a distal end of an entry guide in a medical robotic system utilizing aspects of the present invention.



FIG. 5 illustrates a distal end view of an entry guide with passages defined therein as used in a medical robotic system utilizing aspects of the present invention.



FIG. 6 illustrates a block diagram of interacting components of an articulated instrument manipulator and an articulated instrument as used in a medical robotic system utilizing aspects of the present invention.



FIG. 7 illustrates a schematic kinematic diagram including a camera joggle-joint pitch assembly with indications of arc compensation for translating its movement to a translational mode movement, as used in a medical robotic system utilizing aspects of the present invention.



FIG. 8 illustrates a schematic kinematic diagram including a camera wrist assembly for providing orientational mode movement, as used in a medical robotic system utilizing aspects of the present invention.



FIG. 9 illustrates a block diagram of a camera instrument control scheme using a single input device for concurrent translational and orientational mode control, as used in a medical robotic system utilizing aspects of the present invention.



FIG. 10 illustrates a block diagram of a control system for controlling movement of an articulated camera instrument in a medical robotic system utilizing aspects of the present invention.



FIGS. 11-12 respectively illustrate top and right side views of a distal end of an entry guide with an articulated camera instrument in a preferred pose as used in a medical robotic system utilizing aspects of the present invention.



FIG. 13 illustrates an auxiliary view displayed adjacent to an image captured by the articulated camera instrument on a display screen in a medical robotic system utilizing aspects of the present invention.



FIG. 14 illustrates a user interactive, graphical sliding control for adjusting a weighting used to calculate a setpoint for controlling movement of an articulated instrument 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 relative to a longitudinal axis of the entry guide 200 about a pivot point (also referred to as a remote center “RC”) which is located at the entry aperture 150.


The console 10 includes a three-dimensional (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, a foot pedal 105, and a processor 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, a Graphical User Interface (GUI) 170, and convention computer inputs such as a keyboard and computer mouse.


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, 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.


As shown in FIGS. 3-4, the entry guide 200 has articulated instruments such as surgical tools 231, 241 and a stereo camera 211 extending out of its distal end. Although only two tools 231, 241 are shown, the entry guide 200 may guide additional instruments as required for performing a medical procedure at a work site in the Patient. For example, as shown in the entry guide 200 side and distal end views of FIGS. 4 and 5, passage 351 is available for extending another articulated instrument 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 processor 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 camera 211.


In this example, 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 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 implement the various controllers described herein 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 and otherwise move 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.


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 general 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,” U.S. Pat. No. 6,671,581 “Camera Referenced Control in a Minimally Invasive Surgical Apparatus,” and U.S. Pat. Application Pub. No. U.S. 2008/007129 “Minimally Invasive Surgical System,” which are incorporated herein by reference.



FIG. 2 illustrates, as an example, a block diagram of components for controlling and selectively associating device manipulators (and their respective devices) 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.


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 articulated 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 it to the 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 and 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.


Since the controllers 233, 243, 213 are generally implemented as computer code in the processor 102, they are each programmed to be reconfigurable by an operator of the system 100 to control either a tool or a camera instrument. Thus, if a tool instrument is physically switched for a camera instrument or vice versa in the system, its controller may be reconfigured to accommodate the newly installed device.


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. The operator may perform such selection in a conventional manner by interacting with a menu on the GUI 170 or providing voice commands recognized by the voice recognition system 160 or by inputting such associations into the system 100 using an input device such as a touchpad (not shown) or interacting with special purpose buttons provided on the input devices 108, 109 or foot pedal 105. In each such implementation, a select input is generated and provided to a multiplexer (MUX) 280, which is also generally implemented in the processor 102. Depending upon the value (i.e., the combination of 1's and 0's) provided by the select input, different combinations of cross-switching are selectable.


For example, a first value for the select input to the MUX 280 places the left and right input devices 108, 109 in “tool following modes” wherein they are respectively associated with the first and second surgical tools 241, 231, which are telerobotically controlled through their respective controllers 243, 233 and manipulators 242, 232 so that the Surgeon may perform a medical procedure on the Patient while the entry guide 200 is locked in place. In this configuration, the MUX 280 cross-switches to respectively connect output and input 251, 252 of the input device 108 to input and output 260, 261 of the tool controller 243; and respectively connect output and input 253, 254 of the input device 109 to input and output 268, 269 of the tool controller 233.


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, a second value for the select input to the MUX 280 places the left and right input devices 108, 109 in a “two-handed, camera positioning mode” wherein they are associated with the camera 211, which is telerobotically controlled through its controller 213 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. In this case, the input devices 108, 109 may be used in tandem to control the camera instrument 211, such as using a virtual handlebar image referenced control technique in which a point midway between pivot points of the input devices 108, 109 is used to control movement of the camera instrument 211. In this configuration, the MUX 280 cross-switches to respectively connect output and input 251, 252 of the input device 108 to input and output 262, 263 of the camera controller 213; and respectively connect output and input 253, 254 of the input device 109 to input and output 264, 263 of the camera controller 213.


On the other hand, a third value for the select input to the MUX 280 places the left and right input devices 108, 109 in an “two-handed, entry guide positioning mode” wherein they are associated with the entry guide 200, which is telerobotically controlled through its controller 203 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. In this configuration, the MUX 280 cross-switches to respectively connect output and input 251, 252 of the input device 108 to input and output 262, 263 of the camera controller 213; and respectively connect output and input 253, 254 of the input device 109 to input and output 264, 263 of the camera controller 213.


If only one of the input devices 108, 109 is to be used for positioning the camera 211 or the entry guide 200, then another value for the select input to the MUX 280 may be provided by the operator to place the selected input device in a “single-handed, camera or entry guide positioning mode” so that the selected input device is associated with the camera or entry guide, as the case may be, which is telerobotically controlled through its controller and manipulator so that the Surgeon may position the device. Meanwhile, the other input device may either be “soft locked” in position by its controller until the camera or entry guide positioning is completed or the other input device may still be available to the Surgeon to control its associated surgical tool during camera or entry guide repositioning. For example, when the input device 108 is in “single-handed, camera positioning mode,” the MUX 280 cross-switches to respectively connect output and input 251, 252 of the input device 108 to input and output 262, 263 of the camera controller 213. In this case, no connection is made to the second input 264 of the camera controller 213.



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. The articulated camera 211 extends through passage 321 and the articulated surgical tools 231, 241 respectively extend through passages 431, 441 of the entry guide 200. The camera 211 includes a tip 311, 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 tip 311 houses a stereo camera connected to a camera controller and a fiber-optic cable connected to an external light source. 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. 6 (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. 6 (plus an additional actuator for actuating the end effector 341).



FIG. 6 illustrates, as an example, a diagram of interacting parts of an articulated instrument (such as the articulated camera 211 and the articulated 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 621-623, 631-633, 670 for effectuating movement of the instrument (including its end effector), and its corresponding manipulator includes a number of actuators 601-603, 611-613, 660 for actuating the actuatable assemblies.


In addition, a number of interface mechanisms may also be provided. For example, pitch/yaw coupling mechanisms 640, 650 (respectively for the joggle joint pitch/yaw and the wrist pitch/yaw) and gear ratios 645, 655 (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 640, the coupling between the joggle joint actuators 601, 602 (differentiated as #1 and #2) and joggle joint pitch/yaw assemblies 621, 622 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 650, the coupling between the wrist actuators 612, 613 (differentiated as #1 and #2) and wrist pitch/yaw joint assemblies 632, 633 may also comprise a pair of coupling mechanisms—one on each side of the sterile interface.


Both the joggle joint pitch assembly 621 and the joggle joint yaw assembly 622 share the first, second and third links (e.g., links 322, 324, 326 of the articulated camera 211) and the first and second joints (e.g., joints 322, 325 of the articulated camera 211). In addition to these shared components, the joggle joint pitch and yaw assemblies 621, 622 also include mechanical couplings that couple the first and second joints (through joggle coupling 640) to the joggle joint pitch and yaw actuators 601, 602 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 articulated 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 623 includes the first link (e.g., link 322 of the articulated camera 211) and interfaces through a drive train coupling the in/out (I/O) actuator 603 to the first link so that the first link is controllably moved linearly along its longitudinal axis 401 by actuation of the I/O actuator 603. The roll assembly 631 includes the first link and interfaces through one or more gears (i.e., having the gear ratio 645) that couple a rotating element of the roll actuator 611 (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 611.


The instrument manipulator (e.g., camera manipulator 212) includes wrist actuators 612, 613 that actuate through wrist coupling 650 pitch and yaw joints 632, 633 of the wrist assembly (e.g., wrist assembly 327 of the articulated 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 670 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 655) that couple the grip actuator 660 to the end effector so as to controllably actuate the end effector.


The group of instrument joints 600 is referred to as “translational joints” because by actuation of a combination of these joints, the instrument's wrist assembly may be positioned translationally within three-dimensional space. For example, FIG. 7 illustrates a schematic kinematic diagram of the links 322, 324, 326 and joints 323, 325 of the joggle joint pitch assembly 621 of the articulated camera 211 at three pitch angles, θ=+45, θ=0, θ=−45 degrees, with indications of corresponding arc compensation by the in/out assembly 623 so as to result in translational movement of the wrist assembly 327 in a first direction (vertical in the figure) which is orthogonal to the longitudinal axis (horizontal in the figure) of the first link 322. An indication of the longitudinal axis 401 of the first link 322 and the pitch angle 402 are shown in FIG. 4. If the camera tip 311 is in a fixed orientation relative to the wrist assembly 327 during the translational movement, then the camera tip 311 will also move in an arc corresponding to that of the wrist assembly 327 offset by a fixed length dependent upon the angle of orientation.


In this example, when the links 322, 324, 326 are fully extended outward so that the pitch angle is 0 degrees and the wrist assembly 327 is at a point Z0, no arc compensation is necessary by the in/out assembly 623 if the wrist assembly 327 is to be moved in a vertical direction along a line passing through the point Z0. On the other hand, when the second link 324 is rotated +45 degrees in pitch at the first joint 323 about a first axis which is orthogonal to the longitudinal axis 401 of the link 322, the position of the wrist assembly 327 relative to the first joint 323 has a tangential component 701. In order for the movement of the wrist assembly 327 to move in the vertical direction along the line passing through the point Z0, however, the in/out assembly 623 must move the wrist assembly 327 forward (i.e., in) to the point Z1 by a distance indicated as 711. Similarly, if the second link 324 is rotated −45 degrees in pitch at the first joint 323 about the first axis, the position of the wrist assembly 327 relative to the first joint 323 has a tangential component 703 and the in/out assembly 623 must move the wrist assembly 327 forward to a point Z3 by a distance indicated as 713 in order for the movement of the wrist assembly 327 to move along the vertical line passing through the point Z0. For other angles of pitch rotation, the second joint 325 moves along a circle 721 having a radius equal to the length of the second link 324, the wrist assembly 327 moves along a corresponding circle 722 of equal radius that is offset from the circle 721 by an amount equal to the length of the third link 326 along the longitudinal axis of the first link 322, and the arc compensation required by the in/out assembly 623 is the distance from the wrist assembly 327 to the vertical line passing through the point Z0.


The joggle joint yaw assembly 622 operates in a similar manner as the joggle joint pitch assembly 621. Except that in this case, the second link 324 is rotated at the first joint 323 about a second axis which is orthogonal to both the first axis (as used by the pitch assembly 621) and the longitudinal axis 401 of the link 322.


When the joggle joint pitch and yaw assemblies 621, 622 are actuated concurrently, such as through joggle coupling 640, the resulting movement of the wrist assembly 327 may follow a portion of a sphere (i.e., a three-dimensional version of the circle 722). In this case, if the movement of the wrist assembly 327 is to be on a plane passing through and perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the link 322, then the compensation required by the in/out assembly 623 is the distance from the wrist assembly 327 to the plane.


Note that in the above example, it is assumed that both the joggle joint pitch and yaw assemblies 621, 622 pivot the second link 324 about the same pivot point. In practice, however, they may pivot about slightly different pivot points if the first and second joints 323, 325 are first and second joint assemblies in which each joint assembly includes a pitch joint, a yaw joint and a short link separating and coupling the pitch and yaw joints. In this case, first and second pitch joints respectively of the first and second joint assemblies 323, 325 are coupled together as part of the joggle joint pitch assembly 621, and first and second yaw joints respectively of the first and second joint assemblies 323, 325 are coupled together as part of the joggle joint yaw assembly 622. First and second short links of the first and second joint assemblies 323, 325 are referred to as being short, because they are each shorter than the first link 322, second link 324 and third link 326. The first and second short links are also constrained to be parallel to each other at all times, like the first and third links 322, 326. In addition, as may be readily appreciated in light of the geometries of the first and second joint assemblies 323, 325, rather than moving along the surface of a sphere, the wrist assembly 327 may follow a different concave virtual surface when both the joggle joint pitch and yaw assemblies 621, 622 are actuated at the same time.


The group of instrument joints 610 is referred to as “orientational joints” because by actuation of these joints, the instrument's tip may be oriented about the wrist assembly. For example, FIG. 8 illustrates a schematic kinematic diagram including the wrist assembly 327 as it pivots the camera's tip 311 about its pitch joint 632 to a −45 degrees pitch angle while the links 322, 324, 326 and joints 323, 325 of the camera instrument's joggle joint pitch assembly 621 are controllably held in place. The wrist assembly 327 may also pivot the camera's tip 311 about its yaw joint 633 in a similar manner. When the camera's tip 311 is pivoted about both the pitch and yaw joints 632, 633 concurrently by operation of the wrist assembly 327, such as through wrist coupling 650, the resulting movement of the camera tip 311 may follow a concave virtual surface. However, if the pitch and yaw joints 632, 633 are the same joint, such as a ball joint, then the resulting movement of the camera tip 311 may follow a portion of a sphere.



FIG. 9 illustrates a block diagram in which the input device 108 is associated with and used to control positioning (i.e., translationally and orientationally) of the tip 311 of the camera instrument 211. In this example, operator manipulated movement of the three translational degrees-of-freedom of the input device 108 is sensed and used to command translational movement of the camera's wrist assembly 327 through translational joints 600 of the camera instrument 211, and operator manipulated movement of the three orientational degrees-of-freedom of the input device 108 is sensed and used to command orientational movement of the camera's tip 311 about its wrist assembly 327 through orientational joints 610 of the camera instrument 211. Because of this partitioning of the translational and orientational modes, the Surgeon generally knows which joints of the camera instrument 211 are moving (i.e., the translational joints 600 or the orientational joints 610) when manipulating the input device 108, thus providing an intuitive sense to the operator of the likelihood that the links of the camera instrument 211 will collide with the links of one of the surgical tools 231, 241 during the camera positioning process.



FIG. 10 illustrates, as an example, a block diagram of a control system 1000 for controlling positioning (i.e., both translationally and orientationally) of the camera instrument 211 in response to movement of the input device 108 when the input device 108 is selectively associated with the camera 211. Although control of the camera 211 is described, it is to be appreciated that the various blocks described herein for the control system 1000 are also applicable to the control of each of the tools 231, 241 as well as the entry guide 200. The input device 108 includes a number of links connected by joints so as to facilitate multiple degrees-of-freedom movement. For example, as the Surgeon/operator moves the input device 108 from one position to another, sensors associated with the joints of the input device 108 sense such movement at sampling intervals (appropriate for the processing speed of the processor 102 and camera control purposes) and provide digital information 1031 indicating such sampled movement in joint space to input processing blocks 1010.


Input processing block 1010 processes the information 1031 received from the joint sensors of the input device 108 to transform the information into corresponding desired positions and velocities for the camera 211 in its Cartesian space relative to a reference frame associated with the position of the Surgeon's eyes (the “eye reference frame”), by computing joint velocities from the joint position information and performing the transformation using a Jacobian matrix and eye related information using well-known transformation techniques.


Scale and offset processing block 1001 receives the processed information 1011 from the input processing block 1010 and applies scale and offset adjustments to the information so that the resulting movement of the camera instrument 211 and consequently, the image being viewed on the monitor 104 appears natural and as expected by the operator of the input device 108. The scale adjustment is useful where small movements of the camera 211 are desired relative to larger movement of the input device 108 in order to allow more precise movement of the camera instrument 211 as it views the work site. In addition, offset adjustments are applied for aligning the input device 108 with respect to the Surgeon's eyes as he or she manipulates the input device 108 to command movement of the camera instrument 211 and consequently, its captured image that is being displayed at the time on the monitor 104.


A setpoint generator block 1050 receives the commanded state vector ({circumflex over (X)}DES) for the camera instrument 211 in the output 1021 of the scale and offset processing block 1001, a preferred pose vector ({circumflex over (X)}PP) for the camera instrument 211 in an output 1055 of a pose selector block 1051, and weightings (wi, i=1 . . . n) for the state variables of the commanded state vector ({circumflex over (X)}DES), and calculates a setpoint vector ({circumflex over (X)}SP) for its output 1057 by interpolating between the commanded state vector ({circumflex over (X)}DES) and the preferred pose vector ({circumflex over (X)}PP) using the weightings (wi, i=1 . . . n) in a weighted average approach.


For example, the set point value “f({circumflex over (X)}SPi)” for the ith state variable of the setpoint vector ({circumflex over (X)}SP) may be calculated according to the following equation:

f({circumflex over (X)}SPi)=(1−wi)*f({circumflex over (X)}DESi)+wi*f({circumflex over (X)}PPi), for 0<wi<1  (1)

where “i” indicates the ith state variable, “wi” is a weighting for the ith state variable, “f({circumflex over (X)}DESi)” is the value for the ith state variable of the commanded state vector ({circumflex over (X)}DES) for the camera instrument 211, and “f({circumflex over (X)}PPi)” is the value for the ith state variable of the preferred pose vector ({circumflex over (X)}PP) for the camera instrument 211.


State variables for the commanded state vector ({circumflex over (X)}DES), the preferred pose vector ({circumflex over (X)}PP), and the setpoint vector ({circumflex over (X)}SP) preferably include translational and orientational positions and velocities for six degrees of freedom movement. Weighting coefficients can be individually selected so as to provide stiffer behavior along a specific Cartesian direction for translational movements and/or about a specified Cartesian for rotational movements. Although weightings are used for both positions and velocities of the commanded state vector ({circumflex over (X)}DES), they are not necessarily independent of each other. In particular, the weightings for velocities may be selected, or otherwise determined in some fashion, so as to be consistent with the weightings of their respective positions (e.g., weightings for corresponding positions and velocities may be either both relatively large or both relatively small, but not one large with the other small).


The preferred pose vector ({circumflex over (X)}PP) provided by the camera pose selector block 1051 may be selected by the Surgeon or selected by default. FIGS. 11-12 respectively illustrate top and side views of an “optimal pose” for the camera instrument 211, which is preferably used as the default pose for the camera instrument 211. Looking downward at the optimal pose, as shown in FIG. 11, all links 322, 324, 326 of the camera instrument 211 are centered along the longitudinal axis 401 of the first link 322 so that they have maximum available range of lateral motion and provide a reference for the main insertion direction of the camera instrument 211. Further, the joggle joints 323, 325 are “joggled up”, as shown in FIG. 12, so that the third link 326 is displaced a distance 1202 above the longitudinal axis 401 and the wrist assembly 327 is rotated at a negative pitch angle so that the camera tip 311 is oriented downwards at an angle 1203 so that the camera is preferably viewing the center of a workspace for the end effectors 331 and 341 of tool instruments 231 and 241, which are also extending out of the distal end of the entry guide 200 at the time. In this case, the operator is preferably allowed to freely move the camera 211 forward and backward in the input/output (I/O) direction so that the camera 211 may better view the end effectors 331, 341 as they move away from and back towards the distal end of the entry guide 200 during their use. Therefore, the setpoint generator block 1050 may use for such purpose the output 1041 of the forward kinematics block 1006 to modify the preferred pose vector ({circumflex over (X)}PP) and guarantee that it “tracks” the operator commanded I/O movement of the camera 211.


Rather than strictly relying on the preferred pose ({circumflex over (X)}PP) being selected by default, the Surgeon may also be provided with the capability to select the preferred pose by interacting through the pose selector block 1051. For example, the pose selector block 1051 may be implemented by the GUI 170, with a menu of instrument poses displayed on the monitor 104, one of which may be the default pose described above. The Surgeon may alternatively or additionally be provided with the capability to designate a current pose of the camera instrument 211 as the preferred pose in a number of ways such as depressing a button on the input device 108, providing a voice command understood by the voice recognition system 160, or stepping on the foot pedal 105 while the camera pose selector block 1051 is expecting an indication of such designation by the operator. The current pose is then stored in a memory as the preferred pose. As another way that the Surgeon may designate a current pose of the camera instrument 211 as the preferred pose, the Surgeon may use a computer mouse to click on a clickable icon displayed on the monitor 104 so that the current pose is stored in a memory as the preferred pose.


To assist the Surgeon in deciding whether to designate the current pose of the camera instrument 211 as the preferred pose, an auxiliary view indicating the current configuration of the camera instrument 211 may be helpful. For example, FIG. 13 illustrates a view 1301 of a surgical site captured by the camera 211 and a corresponding auxiliary view 1302 generated by the processor 102 (using sensed position information for joints of the instrument 211 and entry guide 200) to indicate the current configuration of the camera instrument 211, as well as those of the tool instruments 231, 241, extending out of the distal end of the entry guide 200. As can be seen from the captured view 1301, very little information is provided for the positions of the non-seen joints and links of the instrument, whereas in the auxiliary view 1302, not only is information for the positions of the instrument's joints and links available, their respective positions relative to those of the other instruments 231, 241 are also available. For details on the generation of such computer generated auxiliary views, see, e.g., U.S. Pub. Applic. No. 2009/0326553 “Medical Robotic System Providing an Auxiliary View of Articulatable Instruments Extending out of a Distal End of an Entry Guide,” which is incorporated herein by this reference. Although FIG. 13 shows both the captured image 1301 and the auxiliary view 1302 being displayed on the monitor 104, the auxiliary view 1302 may be viewed instead on a separate auxiliary display (not shown).


In addition to specifying the preferred pose ({circumflex over (X)}PP) through the camera pose selector block 1051, the Surgeon may also specify the weighting for each of the state variables used for calculating the setpoint in equation (1) using the stiffness selector block 1052. For example, the value for each weighting may be selected by the Surgeon interacting through the stiffness selector block 1052 with a corresponding graphical indicator displayed on the monitor 104, such as the user interactive, graphical slide control 1400 shown in FIG. 14. Using the graphical slide control 1400, any value for a weighting “wi” between a maximum of “1” and a minimum of “0” may be selected by the Surgeon by placing a cursor on a graphical slide 1420 and causing the graphical slide 1420 to move up towards the top limit 1411 or down towards the bottom limit 1412 of a graphical scale 1410 while depressing a button on a mouse controlling movement of the cursor. Thus, separate weights may be defined by the Surgeon for each state variable so as to suit the Surgeon's personal preferences. A user selectable icon may also be provided for convenience on the monitor 104 by the stiffness selector block 1052, which when selected by the Surgeon sets all weights to “0” so as to allow the Surgeon to disable the centering behavior. Another user selectable icon may also be provided for convenience on the monitor 104 which when selected by the Surgeon sets all weights to “1” so as to effectively lock the camera instrument 211 in the preferred pose ({circumflex over (X)}PP). It is important to note, however, that as long as the selected weighting is less than “1”, the Surgeon is able to over-power any restoring force felt at the input device 108 as a result of such weighting and drive the camera to a desired position away from the preferred pose. Thus, the Surgeon still has full control over the motion of the camera instrument 211 in such case.


A simulated camera manipulator block 1004 transforms the setpoint vector ({circumflex over (X)}SP) received on the output 1057 of the setpoint generator 1050 from the Cartesian space of the camera instrument 211 to its joint space using its inverse kinematics while avoiding singularities in its operation, limiting the commanded joint positions and velocities to avoid physical limitations or other constraints such as avoiding harmful contact with tissue or other parts of the Patient, and applying virtual constraints that may be defined to improve the performance of a medical procedure being performed at the time by the Surgeon using the medical robotic system 100.


The output 1024 of the simulated camera manipulator block 1004 is provided to a joint controller block 1005 and a forward kinematics block 1006. The joint controller block 1005 includes a joint control system for each controlled joint (or operatively coupled joints such as “joggle joints”) of the camera instrument 211. The output 1024 of the simulated camera manipulator block 1004 provides the commanded value for each joint of the camera instrument 211. For feedback control purposes, sensors associated with each of the controlled joints of the camera instrument 211 provide sensor data 1032 back to the joint controller block 1005 indicating the current position and/or velocity of each joint of the camera instrument 211. The sensors may sense this joint information either directly (e.g., from the joint on the camera instrument 211) or indirectly (e.g., from the actuator in the camera manipulator 212 driving the joint). Each joint control system in the joint controller 1005 then generates torque commands for its respective actuator in the camera manipulator 212 so as to drive the difference between the commanded and sensed joint values to zero in a conventional feedback control system manner.


The forward kinematics block 1006 transforms the output 1024 of the simulated camera manipulator block 1004 from joint space back to Cartesian space relative to the eye reference frame using the forward kinematics of the camera instrument 211. The output 1041 of the forward kinematics block 1006 is provided to the scale and offset processing block 1001 as well as the simulated camera manipulator block 1004 for its internal computational purposes and the setpoint generator block 1050 for modifying the preferred pose vector ({circumflex over (X)}PP) and/or weightings (wi, i=1 . . . n) as previously described or otherwise as appropriate.


The scale and offset processing block 1001 performs inverse scale and offset functions on the output 1041 of the forward kinematics block 1006 before passing its output 1012 to the input processing block 1010 where an error value is calculated between its output 1011 and input 1012. If no limitation or other constraint had been imposed on the input 1021 to the simulated camera manipulator block 1004, then the calculated error value would be zero. On the other hand, if a limitation or constraint had been imposed, then the error value is not zero and it is converted to a torque command 1032 that drives actuators in the input device 108 to provide force feedback felt by the hands of the Surgeon. Thus, the Surgeon becomes aware that a limitation or constraint is being imposed by the force that he or she feels resisting his or her movement of the input device 108 in that direction.


In the present case, since the setpoint generator 1050 commands the simulated camera manipulator block 1004 to be driven to the setpoint vector ({circumflex over (X)}SP) rather than the commanded state vector ({circumflex over (X)}DES), an error value is calculated by the input processing block 1010 between its output 1011 and input 1012. As a result, the Surgeon perceives a spring-type force feedback on the input device 108 whenever the Surgeon is commanding the camera instrument 211 away from the preferred pose ({circumflex over (X)}PP). The force feedback in this case is actually a vector of forces and torques, each applied in a different degree-of-freedom of the input device 108. In particular, since there is a direct relationship between translational and orientational movement of the input device and the commanded translational and orientational movement of the camera 211 in the system 100, as previously described, the weightings (wi, i=1 . . . n) applied by the setpoint generator 1050 also serve to determine the magnitudes of the force feedback in each of the translational and orientational directions in the form of forces and torques felt by the Surgeon on the input device 108. Thus, heavier weighted state variables that refer to translational movement of the input device 108 and camera 211 result in higher force feedback gains felt on the input device 108 as resisting translational movement away from the preferred pose ({circumflex over (X)}PP) and heavier weighted state variables that refer to orientational movement of the input device 108 and camera 211 result in higher torque feedback gains felt on the input device 108 as resisting orientational movement away from the preferred pose ({circumflex over (X)}PP). To ensure that excessive friction in the input device 108 does not “overshadow” the “nudging” force felt on the input device 108, conventional friction and stiction compensation techniques may be used.


In addition, a non-linear characteristic may be used for the restoring force and torque, in order to modulate the stiffness as a function of the distance from the preferred pose and possibly of the velocity. For example, a deadband characteristic may be provided so that unconstrained operator commanded motion is allowed “nearby” the preferred pose ({circumflex over (X)}PP) (i.e., no restoring force/toque feedback is applied within a threshold distance from the preferred pose) and the restoring force/torque is only felt beyond the threshold distance. At the threshold distance, the restoring force/torque feedback may or may not be applied as determined by default or operator selection.


Although the preferred pose mechanism described in reference to FIG. 10 above may be particularly useful in controlling movement of a bundled camera such as the camera instrument 211, it may also be useful in controlling movement of a bundled tool such as the tool instruments 231, 241 and/or controlling movement of an entry guide in which the bundled instruments are guided to a surgical site within a patient. For example, a preferred pose for one of the tool instruments 231, 241 may be a pose wherein its links are all aligned (i.e., the longitudinal axes of the links are aligned so that they coincide with each other). This pose would be useful during the retraction of the tool instrument back into the entry guide 200, for example. A preferred pose for the entry guide 200, on the other hand, may be one in which it points towards a target site in the patient or one in which a wide range of motion is provided for each of the tool instruments extending out of its distal end.


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: a manipulator to which a medical device is coupleable;an input device;a pose selector; anda processor configured to: receive a commanded state of the medical device from the input device;receive a preferred pose of the medical device from the pose selector, the preferred pose being different, at a time of pose selection, than the commanded state and a current pose of the medical device, the preferred pose being one of a default pose and an operator defined pose, the default pose fixed for the medical device, the operator defined pose having been defined by an operator of the input device; andgenerate a modified commanded state by modifying the commanded state to accommodate a virtual constraint on movement of the medical device;command movement of the manipulator so as to move the medical device from the current pose to the modified commanded state, andcommand a biasing force to be applied to the input device such that the biasing force increases when a difference between the modified commanded state and the preferred pose increases.
  • 2. The medical system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: command an adjustment to the biasing force to be applied to the input device so as to indicate a difference between the modified commanded state and a modified preferred pose, the modified preferred pose determined by tracking movement of the medical device in an allowable direction relative to the preferred pose.
  • 3. The medical system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: command the biasing force to be applied to the input device so that the biasing force urges the operator of the input device to move the input device so as to command the medical device to be moved to the preferred pose.
  • 4. The medical system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: command the biasing force to be applied to the input device so as to indicate a weighted difference between the commanded state and the preferred pose.
  • 5. The medical system according to claim 4, further comprising: a stiffness selector;wherein processor is further configured to: receive weighting coefficients from the stiffness selector for commanding the biasing force to be applied to the input device so as to indicate the weighted difference between the commanded state and the preferred pose.
  • 6. The medical system according to claim 1, wherein the operator defined pose corresponds to a prior pose of the medical device, the prior pose designated by the operator of the input device to be the preferred pose of the medical device.
  • 7. The medical system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: command the biasing force to be applied to the input device so that the biasing force provides a spring-type force feedback on the input device when the input device is generating a commanded state that is different than the preferred pose.
  • 8. The medical system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: command the biasing force to be applied to the input device so that the biasing force comprises a restoring force and a restoring torque, the restoring force being exerted against translational movement of the input device that commands the medical device away from the preferred pose, the restoring torque being exerted against rotational movement of the input device that commands the medical device away from the preferred pose.
  • 9. The medical system according to claim 8, wherein the processor is further configured to: command the biasing force to be applied to the input device so that at least one of the restoring force and the restoring torque is generated according to a spring function.
  • 10. The medical system according to claim 9, wherein the spring function is characterized by a deadband so that the processor does not command a biasing force to be applied to the input device so as to indicate a difference between the commanded state and the preferred pose when the commanded state is within a threshold distance of the preferred pose.
  • 11. A medical system comprising: a manipulator to which a medical device is coupleable;an input device;a pose selector; anda processor configured to: receive a commanded state of the medical device from the input device;receive a preferred pose of the medical device from the pose selector, the preferred pose being different, at a time of pose selection, than the commanded state and a current pose of the medical device, the preferred pose being one of a default pose and an operator defined pose, the default pose fixed for the medical device, the operator defined pose having been defined by an operator of the input device; andgenerate a modified commanded state by modifying the commanded state to accommodate a physical constraint on movement of the medical device;command movement of the manipulator so as to move the medical device from the current pose to the modified commanded state, andcommand a biasing force to be applied to the input device such that the biasing force increases when a difference between the modified commanded state and the preferred pose increases.
  • 12. The medical system according to claim 11, wherein the processor is further configured to: command an adjustment to the biasing force to be applied to the input device so as to indicate a difference between the modified commanded state and a modified preferred pose, the modified preferred pose determined by tracking movement of the medical device in an allowable direction relative to the preferred pose.
  • 13. The medical system according to claim 11, wherein the processor is further configured to: command the biasing force to be applied to the input device so that the biasing force urges the operator of the input device to move the input device so as to command the medical device to be moved to the preferred pose.
  • 14. The medical system according to claim 11, wherein the processor is further configured to: command the biasing force to be applied to the input device so as to indicate a weighted difference between the commanded state and the preferred pose.
  • 15. The medical system according to claim 14, further comprising: a stiffness selector;wherein processor is further configured to: receive weighting coefficients from the stiffness selector for commanding the biasing force to be applied to the input device so as to indicate the weighted difference between the commanded state and the preferred pose.
  • 16. The medical system according to claim 11, wherein the operator defined pose corresponds to a prior pose of the medical device, the prior pose designated by the operator of the input device to be the preferred pose of the medical device.
  • 17. The medical system according to claim 11, wherein the processor is further configured to: command the biasing force to be applied to the input device so that the biasing force provides a spring-type force feedback on the input device when the input device is generating a commanded state that is different than the preferred pose.
  • 18. The medical system according to claim 11, wherein the processor is further configured to: command the biasing force to be applied to the input device so that the biasing force comprises a restoring force and a restoring torque, the restoring force being exerted against translational movement of the input device that commands the medical device away from the preferred pose, the restoring torque being exerted against rotational movement of the input device that commands the medical device away from the preferred pose.
  • 19. The medical system according to claim 18, wherein the processor is further configured to: command the biasing force to be applied to the input device so that at least one of the restoring force and the restoring torque is generated according to a spring function.
  • 20. The medical system according to claim 19, wherein the spring function is characterized by a deadband so that the processor does not command a biasing force to be applied to the input device so as to indicate a difference between the commanded state and the preferred pose when the commanded state is within a threshold distance of the preferred pose.
CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of application Ser. No. 15/454,085 (filed Mar. 9, 2017), which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 14/551,283 (filed Nov. 24, 2014), now U.S. Pat. No. 9,622,826, which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 12/704,669 (filed Feb. 12, 2010), now U.S. Pat. No. 8,918,211, each of which is incorporated herein by reference.

US Referenced Citations (457)
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 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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
9333042 Diolaiti et al. May 2016 B2
9345387 Larkin May 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
9717563 Tognaccini et al. Aug 2017 B2
9718190 Larkin et al. Aug 2017 B2
9949798 Weir et al. Apr 2018 B2
10507066 Dimaio et al. Dec 2019 B2
10537994 Diolaiti et al. Jan 2020 B2
20010035871 Bieger 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, III Nov 2005 A1
20050267359 Hussaini et al. Dec 2005 A1
20050273198 Bischoff Dec 2005 A1
20060058988 Defranoux et al. Mar 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, III et al. Jul 2006 A1
20060178559 Kumar et al. Aug 2006 A1
20060258938 Hoffman et al. Nov 2006 A1
20060261770 Kishi et al. Nov 2006 A1
20070016174 Millman et al. Jan 2007 A1
20070021738 Hasser et al. Jan 2007 A1
20070038080 Salisbury, Jr. et al. Feb 2007 A1
20070060879 Weitzner et al. 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
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
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
20120059391 Diolaiti et al. Mar 2012 A1
20120132450 Timm et al. May 2012 A1
20120154564 Hoffman et al. Jun 2012 A1
20130178868 Roh Jul 2013 A1
20130231680 Diolaiti et al. Sep 2013 A1
20130245375 Dimaio et al. Sep 2013 A1
20130289767 Lim 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
20150065793 Diolaiti et al. Mar 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
20190298463 Tognaccini et al. Oct 2019 A1
20200085520 Dimaio et al. Mar 2020 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (78)
Number Date Country
101160104 Apr 2008 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
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
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
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-03061482 Jul 2003 WO
WO-2004014244 Feb 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-2007005555 Jan 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-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 (363)
Entry
3D Slicer, http://slicer.org/welcome.html, downloaded Oct. 25, 2006, page 1; and Introduction, http:/slicer.org/intro/index.html, downloaded Oct. 25, 2006, pp. 1-4.
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—Issue 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 Modern 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, Tetsuo 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—Issue 9, ACM Press.
Baumann, Roger, “Haptic Interface for Virtual Reality Based Laparoscopic Surgery Training Environment,” These No. 1734 Ecole Pholytechnique Federale 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—Issue 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—Issue 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,” IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Oct. 29-Nov. 3, 2001, pp. 1171-1176, vol. 2.
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, Alessandro et al., “Vision Assisted Control for Manipulation Using Virtual Fixtures,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2004, pp. 953-966, vol. 20—Issue 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, pp. 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., “Navigating Inner Space: 3-D Assistance for Minimally Invasive Surgery,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 2005, pp. 5-26, vol. 52—Issue 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.
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.
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, “Computer-Integrated needle therapy systems: Implementation and Analysis,” Computer Science, 2005, 379 pages.
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—Issue 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.
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.
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. 5291-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, Int. J. of Robotics Research, 1999, pp. 286-298, vol. 18 (3), Sage Publications, Inc.
Davies, Brain L. et al., “A Robotic system for tkr 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 Telemanipulator 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. et 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., “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.
Fichtinger, Gabor et al., “Transrectal prostate biopsy inside closed MRl 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.
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 & 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.
Gelb, A., et al., Table of Contents for“Applied Optimal Estimation,” The Analytic Science Corporation, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts,1974, 4 pages.
Gennari, G. et al., “Probabilistic data association methods in visual tracking of groups,” IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2004, pp. 1-790-1-797, 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. 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.
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., “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.
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., “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.
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.
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—Issue 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. 2, 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.
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.
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. “Virtual Object Manipulation on a Table-Top AR Environment,” Hiroshima City University, 2000, 9 pages.
Kato H., et al., “The Effects of Spatial Cues in Augmented Reality Video Conferencing,” Hiroshima City University, Aug. 2001, 4 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. 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., “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., “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,” Rl/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
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, 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.
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—Issue 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., “An Augmented Steady Hand System for Precise Micromanipulation,” PhD thesis in Computer Science, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Apr. 2001, 118 pages.
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, P.. “The VolPack Volume Rendering Library,” 1995, information downloaded from https://graphics.stanford.edu/software/volpack/, 4 pages.
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, F.T., et al., “CT-monitored Percutaneous Cryoablation in a Pig Liver Model: Pilot Study,” Radiology, 1999, vol. 211 (3), pp. 687-692.
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.
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.
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, “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 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 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 Teleoperator 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. 270-81, 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., et 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 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 et al., “Development of a MRI Compatible Needle Insertion Manipulator for Stereotactic Neurosurgery,” Image Guid Surg, 1995, pp. 165-172.
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.
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.
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, Fabienet 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 Freehand 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 May 1, 2012 for Japanese Application No. 20090518470 filed Jun. 22, 2007, 7 pages.
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.
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/US07171850 International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, dated Feb. 13, 2008, 9 pages.
PCT/US09146234 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.
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.
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 Internet:< 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 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.
Prasad, Srinivas K. et al., “A minimally invasive approach to pelvic osteolysis,” 2002, in Proc. Computer-Assisted Orthopaedic Surgery (CAOS), pp. 349-350.
Pre-Appeal Examination Report, dated Sep. 3, 2014 for Japanese Application No. JP20120503535 filed Mar. 26, 2010, 7 pages.
Preising B., et al., “A Literature Review: Robots in Medicine,” IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology, Jun. 1991, vol. 10(2), pp. 13-22.
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, Lioyd E. et al, “Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy removes disincentives to live donation,” Transplantation, 1997, pp. 3402-3403, vol. 29—Issue 8, Elsevier.
Ratner, Lioyd 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 J., et al., “The BlueDRAGON—A System for Measuring the Kinematics and the Dynamics of Minimally Invasive Surgical Tools In-Vivo,” Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE International Conference on Robotics & Automation, 2002, pp. 1876-1881.
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 Intemational 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 S., “MilliRobotics in Minimally Invasive Telesurgery,” Retrieved from Internet [URL: http://robotics.eecs.berkeley.edu] 1995, 3 pages.
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.
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.
Solus-3D Ultrasound Project in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Cambridge, http://mi.eng.cam.ac.uk/researchiprojects/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.
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 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.
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.
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 (MICCAI' 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.
Tavakoll, 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., “Medical Robotics and Computer-Integrated Surgery,” Chapter 52 in Springer Handbook of Robotics, Springer, 2008, pp. 1199-1222.
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., Table of Contents, “Computer-Integrated Surgery,” Technology and Clinical Applications, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA,1996, 8 pages.
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, 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, 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. “Medical Robots,” in Computer and Robotic Assisted Knee and Hip Surgery, 2004, pp. 54-59, Oxford Press.
Taylor, Russell H. “The Planning and Execution of Straight Line Manipulator Trajectories,” IBM Journal of Research and Development, 1979, pp. 424-436, vol. 23—Issue 4.
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 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., “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., “Computer-Integrated Revision Total Hip Replacement Surgery: Concept and Preliminary Results,” 1999, Medical image analysis, pp. 301-319, vol. 3—Issue 3, Oxford University Press.
Taylor, Russell H. et al., “Medical Robotics in Computer-Integrated Surgery,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 2003, pp. 765-781, vol. 19—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., “A Perspective on Medical Robotics,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 94, No. 9, Sep. 2006, pp. 1652-1664.
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., “Ultrasound Assistant for a Laparoscopic Surgical Robot,” NIH STTR Phase II Proposal R42-RR019159, revised May 2001, 54 pages.
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., Videotape: “Computer Assisted Surgery at IBM T. J. Watson Research Center,” 22 minutes 10 seconds, 1994 and 1995.
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., “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., “The Architecture of an Integrated Robot System,” First Int. Conf. on Advanced Robotics (ICAR)., 1983, pp. 389-398.
Taylor, Russell, H. et al., “An Integrated Robot Systems Architecture,” Proceedings of the IEEE, 1983, pp. 842-856, vol. 71—Issue 7, 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.
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. 569-72,vol. 60—No. 4, Elsevier.
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).
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., “Deformable registration between a statistical born density atlas and X-ray images,” Second International Conference on Computer Assisted Orthopaedic Surgery, 2002, pp. 168-169.
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.
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-9871, Microsoft Research, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, Dec. 1998, pp. 1-21.
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
20200094400 A1 Mar 2020 US
Continuations (3)
Number Date Country
Parent 15454085 Mar 2017 US
Child 16698110 US
Parent 14551283 Nov 2014 US
Child 15454085 US
Parent 12704669 Feb 2010 US
Child 14551283 US